IMDb > The Ten Commandments (2006) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Ten Commandments
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot 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 (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 68 reviews in total 

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:

Pretty Good

Author: fatla00 from United States
20 October 2006

I found this this version to be fairly interesting. It had pretty good acting and the story, well, it's The Ten Commandments. The story got a little low at times but it brought it back up and maintained an interesting and want-to-know-what-happens-next thought. I thought that the Narrorator that comes on every so often to explain things was a bit odd. It pulls you out of the story to hear what he has to say when it would be much better if they just showed it. I don't know how much they added to the story but then again, this isn't really my subject. All in all, I believe that ABC did a really nice job putting this mini-series together.

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?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A darker portrayal of The Exodus with many gory details

Author: DragoonKain from New York
11 April 2006

"I think your god is cruel" says the brother of Moses after his son had been smitten along with the rest of the children of Egypt. But let's get to the point, God in the Old Testament can be very cruel, and they let that be known in this film.

One thing I liked about this mini-series is that it didn't hold back when it came to this. You will see the massacre of the Amalekites as well as the killing of all the prisoners that had surrendered after the battle with Moses's army when they chose not to stand with him. I think showing the children being killed was a bit much for network television. But it's all written in the bible, so it must be shown.

Moses is depicted as a tortured leader throughout. He seems to really not want to have this responsibility, and seems to really feel bad when kills in the name of God. But he still does it. There are times when you begin to think that he's going crazy, and leading a bunch of people to their deaths. But you quickly remember that this is The Bible, and that he is their savior.

I'm not quite sure what the director/writers were trying to accomplish with this portrayal. Whether their critiquing the Bible, God's motives, judaism, or simply the side of the bible most films seem to ignore. Or maybe they believe that this is truly the way we should live. More likely it was a way to get ratings, violence sells. Either way, it's interesting to see this side of the Bible. The darker nature of God. In the New Testament God seems so much nicer doesn't he? I guess this is reminder of how powerful and cruel he can be, so that we can be kept in line and not stray from the laws.

In the end, it doesn't matter what their motives were. The film is what it is just as the bible is what it is. It's not entirely accurate of course, a lot of artistic liberties were taken. And it's not as grand as the original film with Heston, a superior film in my opinion. But I like the alternative depiction. Most people are unaware of the many massacres committed by God's people in the Bible. Those depictions have been avoided because it makes God look like a bad guy. is one example of this "darker" side of the bible resurfacing.

I'm not a religious person. I don't subscribe to any of the major religions out there. But I do love the Bible as a literary work and I enjoy most films based on it. This one was very good. But the original is still better. Still, it's worth seeing this darker version of the story.

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:

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:

Different conception of Moses

Author: drystyx from United States
28 December 2009

"Literary license" is used in nearly all films, even historical films. And when the History is close to prehistoric, as in the case of Moses, then more literary license can be expected.

This version of "The Ten Commandments" gives us a more doubting Moses than we're used to. It delivers on the miracles, so it isn't entirely Atheistic, but gives a somewhat more Agnostic view of Moses. If not for the miracles, we would think the voices are truly in his head when God speaks.

This version of Moses has him questioning God, yet for some reason we don't understand his devout desire for power that he shows when he decides he'd rather lead people in the desert than go home with a beautiful wife and a caring family.

There is much bloodshed, as there is in the story of Moses. True to literature, he doesn't have qualms about killing women and children. No real explanation is given for this, but then no explanation is given in the Bible, either, except for blind submission to God's will.

The film doesn't try to answer what God's will is. It does give us the explanation of a mostly passive God. Like most of us who read the Bible, Moses is confused by "I am that I am", and the film helps establish his rendering a meaning to that. This version shows a God who acts at times with miracles, but insists on humans doing a lot of work, and a lot of people are hurt. We don't know why. The film doesn't try to justify it, nor try to condemn it.

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

Add another review

Related Links

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