The Ten Commandments

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.