The Ten Commandments (TV Mini-Series 2006– ) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
71 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Warning - loosely Bible based but not Biblical
Daniel Nalbach13 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been "created" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.

Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.

There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Check out the 1956 version....this one is a real let down
huggie-111 April 2006
I had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not accurate
keith-55613 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.

The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Incoming message from the big giant head!
refuge31612 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.

What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a "molten calf" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.

By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says "men" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.

Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10 Commandments 2006 miniseries..totally let me down
penwil0911 April 2006
I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some "rivoting" scenes, the "Burning bush", Parting the "RED Sea",drowning "Pharohs Armies", "building Sethi's Pyramids", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as "Lord of the Rings" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of "faith and sacrifice", which is much needed in these trouble times.
38 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The 1956 movie was much better
monaissuchalady11 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So far from the truth; painful to watch
strummingsam9 January 2007
I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.

In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spectacular adaptation about known story with Dougray Scott leading the Jews out of Egypt
ma-cortes2 April 2007
Biblical story developed in on a great scale for the TV though no such as the classic Cecil B. De Mille's version. This vivid storytelling although fairly standard follows appropriately the Moses'life ,the son of a Jew slave, from birth and abandonment on a basket over river Nile, as when the Pharaoh Seti ordered the killing of all newborn babies, being pick up by Egyptian princesses(Padme Lasksmi,Claire Bloom)and he's raised in the royal court, becoming into Prince of Egypt. One time grown-up Moses(Dougray Scott) embarks a supernatural mission, getting the freedom for Hebrews. Then ,Moses retires to desert where meets Jethro(Omar Sharif),marring him with his daughter Sefora. The stoic Moses along with his brothers Aaron(Linus Roache) and Miriam(Susan Lynch)confront against Pharaoh Ramses(Paul Rhys) and his fostered brother(Naveen Andrews).Moses asks Pharaoh to liberate them but he refuses, causing the Egyptian plagues : invasion of locusts,fogs ,epidemic,water become in blood and death of the first-born. Moses takes charge of God's people and wrests them from Pharaoh's punishing grip.Moses like liberator of the Jewish leads his people throughout desert battling Malaquitas,Filisteos, and with holy intervention : emerging water hitting on a rock, and dropping divine food. Finally ,Moses climbs the Mount of Sinai bringing the holy tablets, meanwhile Jewish people worshipping the golden calf.

This is a monumental version for television of the book of ¨Exodus¨with impressive special effects,including the computer generator parting of the Red Sea; in spite of making by means of usual C.G. ,the effects still look great.The Hebrew lawgiver is well-suited and roughly played by Dougray Scott.Remainder casting play with utter conviction and hold the lengthy movie together.However,the movie,in trimming down for TV miniseries ,it makes lost most really spectacular on the small screen.The picture is suitable for family viewing and religious people. Other adaptations about this story are the classic mute(1923) by Cecil B. DeMille,the second handling and the greatest with a gargantuan scale(1969)played by Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter and a TV rendition(1975)by Gianfranco De Bossio with Burt Lancaster and Anthony Quayle.

The film is produced by Robert Halmi of ¨Hallmark TV¨ which has produced several movies and series about historical events and famous characters such as : Cleopatra, Odyssea(Ulises),Hercules,Jason and the Argonauts,Joan of Arc,Lion in winter(Henry II and Leonor of Aquitania),Prince and pauper( Henry VIII and Edward VI)..This television movie is professionally directed by Robert Dornhelm , a mini-series expert based on historic personages : Spartacus,Archduke Rudolf and Mary Vetsera, Anne Frank,War and peace and even Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of N.Y..
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I enjoyed this movie..
paristeri15 April 2006
Watching this version of the story inspired me to reread the source material, ie the Bible..again. This movie was not about entertainment so much as conveying what I thought was a fair rendering of the original story. Dougray Scott's portrayal seemed more consistent with Moses'uncertainty faced with the task given to him. I have always enjoyed the 1956 film and indeed liked Ben Kingsley's performance in 1996, however this one seemed to convey a "reality" not seen in other versions. It's obviously difficult for modern people to ever comprehend the lives of people 3000 years ago..our roots so to speak...I'm happy I got a chance to see this film, which I would describe as an experience...
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I have never been so disgusted in all my life!!!!
eliz7212-113 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
And that is putting it mildly. To make a miniseries is to make a profit. I know this. Advertisers pay for commercial spots and that's how the producers sell a made for TV movie. Everything is for profit. Well in this instance, if I had been any advertiser that paid to have my commercial shown in this piece of trash, I should be shot. And I am NOT over-reacting believe me. Why am I mad? I couldn't care less that this mini-series didn't live up to the Charlot Heston one. That was a motion picture, in Technicolor and will always stand the test of time. Nothing can beat it. They should have never made a mini-series if they weren't going to make it bigger, better (especially with the special effects technology we have today). That didn't really bother me, it just made the movie less colorful (believe me, it is much less colorful than the original). Why am I so mad? Because they show the slaughter of children. I have never in all my life thought I would see ....


in the second half, when Moses' people turn on the others who were worship-ping the calf, Joshua turns to Moses and says "what do we do with the prisoners". (seems they let some live). And Moses says "kill them all", it's God's will". And there they went too far. With spears, with knives, they show grown men slitting kid's throats!!!!

Are the producers out of their minds. I shut off the TV immediately.

I know this is 2006 and we have to do more graphics because the audience gets bored easily. BUT THIS WAS OVER THE LINE.

That's all I have to say.

10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I hated it
susieq-211 April 2006
From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very Good
Bloodxxshot12 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.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
letoch10 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.
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You Will Start to Appreciate '56 Version- 2006 10 Commandments **1/2
edwagreen27 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In the event you have forgotten the 1956 masterpiece, your memory will be restored when you see this very weak version of the old testament tale.

This version has many different interpretations. Moses, as a young children knew of Amron and Yochobel, his true parents. In fact, Amron was alive when Moses was a child. We see a hesitating Aaron and that Moses had another brother other than the eventual King Ramses.

The dialogue here is not good. When the Lord reveals himself to Moses at the burning bush, Moses just about says-"I shall not go," 3 times as if he is a stubborn child.

Notice that Moses' mom never ages in this production. I thought that Zipporah would actually be jealous of her mother-in-law's beauty.

The plagues come in rapid succession movie wise and Ramses looks more like a mummy. The thespians merely state their lines. There is little to no emotion depicted here.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I applaud the effort.....kind of.
sternsf31 December 2007
It is difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, "What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?" If perhaps the producers were thinking, "We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view..." Then I would say "OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?" The premise of this "possible point of view theory" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as "Robert Halmi" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi..."What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?" …………FJS
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh Leave it to Hollywood
Brandy-2811 April 2006
I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.

I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.

They should of left well enough alone.


Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jim Menke12 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.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
painful painful painful
scor24pio10 April 2006
if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Special Effects, but still misses the mark
smwhitfie12 April 2006
This was a mess. The continuity was a mess -half the actors spoke with English accents, King Herod looked like he never saw the sun, and the darkest person was Naveen Andrews who, while a fine actor, seemed out of place. Come on. Finally, out of all the great actors with tremendous voices, (James Earl Jones), the voice of God sounded like the local pizza delivery guy.

One good thing was the special effects and showing the darker side of the story. And the actors though, a little overly dramatic at times, did a pretty good job.

I haven't seen the original in a while, but will check it out this week 2 compare.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A darker portrayal of The Exodus with many gory details
DragoonKain11 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.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A True Flop!
OzSekhmet18 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!
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Like the second part better than the first (so far)
martinmuse11 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.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Different version.
parawright11 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is not a modern repeat of the 1956 version, nor should it be. I thought that this was not so much a story of the different events in the journey,which were in fact accurate,other versions do that job. The Bible describes Moses as a man "slow of speech" (possibly a stutter or stammer) who would naturally be an introverted character. This story is a study of the man, and his agonizing self searching as a leader,while searching and discovering his spirituality and discovering God. We of course are looking back to these events,with all the knowledge of the whole Bible and how history has borne these things out,with prophesies fulfilled, he was looking forward with no experience behind him,he was actually making the history.Not as spectacular as De Mille, but an equally good movie. Lots of new faces to me, turning in good performances.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not quite as good cinematography as Cecil's, but excellent revelation!
justdad27 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I had never really thought of the mindset a slave would have & what kind of paradigm shift would have to take place to get one out of a slavery mindset... or a wilderness mindset for that matter. I never really thought about how the Israelites came out of Egypt, but were so infused with Egypt that they had to wander all that time not to find the Promised land, but to prepare them to fight for what was rightfully theirs. There was so much revelation & insight in this movie, it really has helped me see how I still have some Egyptian thinking in me that needs worked out!

I'm a fanatic about continuity, costumes, sets etc. So much so that it takes a really good movie to take me in & not be in analytical mode about how it was made. This movie took me in lock, stock & barrel.

Even though I've read the story a hundred times, this was a fresh, beautifully done film.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One word: Disappointing
koolcaz16 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews