IMDb > "The Ten Commandments" (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"The Ten Commandments"
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

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

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 71 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Don't Waste Your Time!

Author: tashatabert from United States
23 April 2006

This was by far the worst movie that I have ever seen. Moses is about the most violent person ever. He must have killed at least two people with a rock up side the head. Then while he was trying to depart the sea he held the staff above his head and started to act like a baboon. It doesn't end there he also saw lava and predicted the atomic bomb. Then there was the whole thing with the fish swimming in the ocean. Then of course it took Moses and his people two to three days to get to the sea when it only to the Egyptians a mere couple of seconds to get there. And that was just the first part of the movie. I didn't even bother watch the rest it was so horrible. If you want a movie you can make fun of and laugh at then this is the movie other then that it sucks.

Historical unacurate.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Waste of Time

Author: vin720 from United States
14 April 2006

This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!

First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.

In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.

Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.

My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Review from an atheists point of view

Author: zone171
21 July 2007

Despite being a nonbeliever I find religion very interesting. So I thought I would give this film a shot. It's not actually worth the rating I gave it, but I thought I would try to offset all the one star ratings it's been given by angry religious people. Anyway, to fully enjoy this movie I suggest doing what I did, namely read all the reviews of it while watching it. It's very interesting how the ratings range from top to bottom. Also the reason I'm writing this review is that it seem most if not all the other reviews are written by religious people who all compare it to the bible. Thats all good but viewing it as fiction, which the bible obviously is to me, might enable one to enjoy it differently. Well here it is: The acting range from laughable to pretty good 5 or 6 times. The special effects are nothing special these days, but acceptable, since they aren't really the drive of the movie. I quite liked the sets and the costumes, but I honestly don't know what they are supposed to look like historically so they might not be authentic. Overall what carried this movie was the story. Now the story was had a lot going for it interesting twists and turns. But unfortunately thats not enough. A really good story needs to not only have interesting exiting plots going on, it also needs to be believable. In case you don't know the story already I won't mention anything, I'll just say that having studied psychology and sociology for many years I found the behavior of many of the characters less realistic and the plot seems quite naive. So there... . enjoy 4 stars from me because I actually learned something.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

This was horrible

Author: firedragon19852002 from United States
6 December 2006

The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not good, but not bad either

Author: drama_queen_casper from United States
15 April 2006

I am a 7th grader at a catholic school, and last year, we learned about the Old Testament. More than a half of the year was spent learning about The Ten Commandments. I saw both the 2006 version and the 1956 version. Personally, I thought that, while the 1956 version was more interesting, it was not true to the biblical story. The 2006 version was very true to what I had learned. I liked being able to talk about it and follow along with everything. I was slightly disappointed with the 1956 version, and kept on telling my dad, "But this never happened!" It bothers me when things aren't the way they're supposed to. And I know the Old Testament like the back of my hand, so when I watched this, I was very upset. I don't think that the reviews of the movie were accurate. Before watching this, I prepared myself for the lost movie of all time, but instead, I rather enjoyed it.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Makes DeMille Look Good by Comparison

Author: mgconlan-1 from United States
11 April 2006

I'm basing this comment on the first half only since the second half hasn't been shown yet. What a piece of cheese! I didn't think ANYBODY was capable of making Cecil B. DeMille look like a subtle director, but Robert Dornhelm is making DeMille look like Wyler, Welles or Kubrick by comparison. Admittedly Ron Hutchinson's dementedly silly script isn't helping him much. About the one really creative aspect of this film is its treatment of Ramses, who in Hutchinson's script seems to combine the worst aspects of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein — and even there Paul Rhys is all too obviously copying Yul Brynner's mannerisms in the role (and in "The King and I"), though he's slighter and decidedly nellier. I half expected him to say, "Not the women and children too! If the women go, who'll help me put on my eyeliner?" And just out of curiosity, did ALL upper-class Egyptian males, no matter how old (or young) they were, have to shave their heads in this period? DeMille's FIRST "Ten Commandments" — the silent one from 1923 — remains the best.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A True Flop!

Author: OzSekhmet from Australia
18 April 2006

True Religion hits the spot, hey? Poor ole Moses never has a clue in this clunker, even when he's chucking rocks at his best mate and best mate's "friend" who have committed adultery and murder. And then after he orders the faithful to massacre those who worshipped the Golden Calf, he potters off like a constipated monkey, muttering, "But I was only taking orders..." A mass-murderer is a mass murderer, whether he kills in the name of Hitler, Stalin or I AM WHO I AM!!! And before you accuse me of anti-semitism, think again. I rate Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (shown here on "Good" Friday as "The Ten Commandments" was shown on Sunday/Monday) as one of the most vilely anti-semitic crap-fests I've ever seen!

Was the above review useful to you?

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?

12 out of 24 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?

Page 4 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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