The Ten Commandments

Biblical story developed in a great scale for 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 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 a Prince of Egypt. Once grown-up Moses (Dougray Scott) embarks a supernatural mission, getting the freedom for Hebrews. Then , Moses retires to desert where meets Jethro (Omar Sharif), and marring his daughter Sefora. The stoic Moses along with his brothers Aaron (Linus Roache) and Miriam (Susan Lynch) confront Pharaoh Ramses (Paul Rhys) and his fostered brother (Naveen Andrews). Moses asks Pharaoh for liberate them but he refuses, causing the Egyptian plagues : invasion of locusts, fogs ,epidemic , water turns into blood and death of the first-born. Moses takes charge of God's people and take 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 3D 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 , is trimming down for TV miniseries , it makes lost the really spectacular scenes 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 (1959) 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, Odyssey (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 was professionally directed by Robert Dornhelm , a mini-series expert based on historic roles : Spartacus , Archduke Rudolf and Mary Vetsera , Anne Frank, War and peace and even Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of N. Y.

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...

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.

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?

Seeing Biblically-based movies makes one wonder if the movie makers cracked open a resource like. . . Oh, let's say the Bible.

They're a bit confusion. The Hebrews boys weren't killed but Pharoah because of a prophecy. That's thousands of years in the future, in the New Covenant's life of Christ. You might recall three Magi appearing before Rome's pal Herod and saying they'd seen a star, and Herod's experts chimed in . . . It's part of the pagentry we use around something called Christmas. You may have heard of it. Unless you live in Hollywood. The Hebrew boys were killed because the Hebrews were being fruitful and multiplying and Pharoah was scared of being outnumbered.

And that's scratching the surface.

The older version of this story had its problems, too, being based on novels. The next time you see it, watch the source materials. Scripture comes last. And Charlton Heston hardly fits Scripture's description of Moses as humble.

Anyhow, like the pre-conversion Augustine of Hippo, folks in Hollywood probably see Scripture as a lot of fairy tales and metaphors (they probably can't tell you what a metaphor is but they know it when they see it. They think.

I'd rather they not make movies and TV shows like this at all if they can't get them right.