Les dix commandements

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.

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...

It is a honest, fair, correct version. Dry , out of temptation to become spectacular, simple and modest. And , for me, this is just a fundamental virtue.

Because it is the story of Moses and his people a cold, bitter story, a chain of vulnerabilities, incredulity, risks, some madness, descouragements, courage and humbly and not source of magnificent field for special effects. And this film reflects, in more than honorable way, this.

And Dougray Scott is a meritous Moses. Yes, Charlton Heston, like Ben Kingsley were admirable interpreters of this father of his people but Robert Dornhelm and. Geoffrey Madeja are only crafters of a pure and honest remind.

You know so well the story.

They offer only the basic colors of it.

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.

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?