IMDb > "The Ten Commandments" (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
"The Ten Commandments" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 69 reviews in total 

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Like the second part better than the first (so far)

Author: martinmuse from United States
11 April 2006

I think it's missing the point to expect this to be like DeMille's version. I wasn't crazy about part one, as it didn't seem to know what it was -- epic movie or historical drama. But part two falls more into the historical drama category. There it works much better for me.

The actual story (miracles aside) of how the Israelites became a cohesive people is one that has not often been explored. Haven't watched part two to the end, so can't say if it will disappoint. But I do find the idea of former slaves having to carve their way, battles and all, across the wilderness to be an interesting point of view.

Will say that the character development and some of the acting (in part one) left a lot to be desired. But, again, that seemed to work better in part two. I think looking at this as a story in itself, instead of comparing it to some '50's Hollywood extravaganza, is the fair approach, no matter how it turns out.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:


Author: Jim Menke from Buffalo, NY
12 April 2006

This was a very disappointing production but better than the over blown DeMille version.Both versions are unwatchable.

Granted it was probably more authentic in showing the lives of the people and their long journey. But it was 2 hours too long. How much of colorless people wandering the desert can hold attention? Dougray Scott was no Moses with his perpetual expression that looked like he had constant stomach pains. Also, why was he made up to look like a Christ figure. Why was he dressed in red when everyone else was in drab shades of brown and gray - BIG mistake. Instead of awe at the burning bush, there was that pained expression. The director should have corrected this.

This version of the "Commandments" story certainly does not merit repeated viewings.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Very Good

Author: Bloodxxshot from United States
12 April 2006

I saw this movie had a front page cover on my TV guide on Sunday and out of curiosity decided that it would be a good idea to at least take a look. I turned it on expecting a pretty bad TV movie but I got an epic. I was very loyal to the Charleton Heston version of Moses but now that I think about it and how Heston's version was so glamorous and glittery it just doesn't fit. This version showed a gritty real version of how Moses led his people. The fact is that all the glitter for 1956 just does not match up to the raw gritty nature that this mini series held. Dougray Scott convinced me that he was Moses. He showed how Moses felt about his amazing responsibility. If your going to compare it to 1956 the only thing you will find is disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:


Author: letoch from United States
10 April 2006

I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Drags and is Dull Considering the Source Material

Author: LeonLouisRicci from United States
24 April 2014

Surprisingly Lackluster and Dull Retelling of the Famous Story from the Old Testament. Comparisons to the C.B. Demille 1956 Movie are Expected. This One is Weak by Contrast and Nothing More than a TV Movie Modernization that is Worth a Watch but can be Boring and Talky, it is Drab and Drags much of the Time.

That is Odd Considering the Powerful Source Material and Previous Film Adaptations. The Makeup and Costumes are Bad and Uninteresting. The Egyptian Scenes Look Cheap and the Desert is, well, the Desert.

Moses' Interaction with God is Uninspiring, and His Contemplation Afterwards is Somewhat Thought Provoking but the Following Actions and the Wandering is Hit and Miss, Mostly Misses.

It is such a Good Story and its Implication to Human History and Behavior can Hardly be Measured, so in a Sense these Artistic Rendering are just that, an Attempt at Creatively Portraying Supernatural Events that Emblazoned its Mark Upon Humanity.

So Attempting such a Profound People Experience is Always going to come up a bit Short. But here is Another Try that is, in the End, going to be what the Viewer Makes of it. It is a Very Personal Experience Viewing This Type of Thing.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Worthy Version

Author: earlytalkie from United States
31 March 2013

I read bad reviews of this one after the other before I saw this and I was prepared not to like this. My friend bought this for $5.00 about a year and a half ago and it became one of those DVDs that sits unwatched in storage. Being Easter Sunday and not being able to access either the 1956 version or Ben-Hur, we decided to give this a spin. I was surprised at how good this was. This was a somewhat grittier version of the story, but, as it is explained in a "making-of" documentary extra on the disc, this was the film maker's intent. The production values are excellent as is the music score. The 3-hour film is broken into two parts, thus allowing a natural "intermission". The acting is good, the direction is good and it really holds your attention so what's not to like?

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Really Bad

Author: carflo from Texas
26 December 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this thing on TV, but thought it might be entertaining enough to pass an evening. I was wrong.

It has even more inaccurate and/or made up stuff than the 1956 version. I am not a church going person, but I have read the Bible and the story of the Exodus. At least most of the made up stuff in the 1956 version is just drama and doesn't seem to change the meaning of the story that I read in the Bible. This movie seems to reflect a theological meaning that is different from what is generally believed by modern Christians and Jews. There is so much more "drama" during the course of the Exodus itself. There is very little about Moses and God but a lot about soul searching and dark nights of the soul. I don't think Moses would have given The Ten Commandments as if he wrote them himself. If God had chosen this Moses, I don't think they would have made it. Moses whines and feels sorry for himself. He does not act like a man who has had God talk to him directly. I really do feel like Charlton Heston was probably closer to the real Moses than the Moses in this movie.

Besides my religious distaste for this movie, it is a bad movie. The acting poor and melodramatic. The sets and costumes are only a few steps above a play put on at church.

The 1956 movie was so much better. It had the grandeur and the reverence this new movie lacks. Don't waste your time on it. I gave it a 2. I only give a 1 to a movie so bad it is funny. This wasn't funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

in response to the last one

Author: kindofhere from United States
2 December 2007

So, I haven't actually seen this movie, but the last person's comment was that Moses is made out to be a whiner, and that later in the movie he has the believers slaughter the unbelievers and cuts a second set of tablets. If that's the case, I really want to see this, because that's far more biblically accurate than the deMille's movie. In the Bible Moses *was* a whiner to begin with, and when the golden calf incident occurred, he had the tribe of Levi kill about 3000 people, and then God told him to cut new tablets to replace the ones he had broken. Just thought I'd say it to clarify that yes, it actually is in there, no matter how unpleasant we may think it.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as the original

Author: megcarol1 from United States
11 April 2006

I was really looking forward to this version of the Ten Commandments, but sadly, it wasn't near on the par of the first one. Although the first one had a lot of overacting and over-dramatization in it, the film pretty much conveyed the message that it was meant to. The new film, I thought, had no passion, no enthusiasm, nothing to help someone who had no idea about what the gospel of Moses was about to understand what was going on. I really thought the purpose of these movies was to introduce to people who might now know that much about the Bible to the idea of what happened in biblical times. I don't feel that this movie did any of that. Thank you

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This version is terrible.

Author: RengaOtoko from United States
8 December 2008

This movie was dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of "poetic license" as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history