La terre promise

"In the Beginning" is a movie(mini) that takes us through the five first books in the Bible. You can expect some visual effects, and average acting.

I did not enjoy the movie, but I didn't either hate it, so watch it once, and let go with that. I rate it 5/10.

My Take: An all-star cast and a few glorious visuals make a rather interesting TV movie.

Martin Landau as Abraham? Jacqueline Bisset as his wife Sarah? Christopher Lee in gratuitous cameo as Rameses I? Only TV's Hallmark Entertainment could make this possible. The producer back at Hallmark who might nearly have enough money to make a macho Hollywood blockbuster spend it yet again on a another 3-hour two-part miniseries meant to set ratings on fire. Well not really, but they do come up with a rather interesting and marginally entertaining TV special with an agreeable cast and a modest budget. The movie is basically a 3-hour long adaptation of the most important events of the Old Testament. From Adam and Eve (with cut-for-TV nudity), Abraham and how he became "the Father of All Nations", Joesph and his multicolored dreamcoat and the grand story of Moses and the Exodus, the movie has it all and has time to spare. It's a bit long when watched on DVD rather than the two-part miniseries on TV, but it's an adequate and actually well-crafted effort. Just don't expect it to be anything grand ala Cecil B. Demille, or at least something that would make a cinch to get ratings.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.

The best way to accurately give a review of this look at Genesis and the Bible, is to call it a film based on "literary license" or "poetic license" for the motivation of characters involved.

For example, when one reads Genesis, one can't find a reason to legitimize the deceit Jacob shows in stealing from his brother.

This also lead to the quandary of how it was recorded in the first place. If Jacob was just a selfish thief, why would the first people who recorded the story even say he was justified? This film sets out to give plausible explanations for such questions.

Are they the correct interpretations? Who knows? They certainly fit the criteria of "credibility" for the way in which the stories are recorded.

That's because we not only deal with the stories, but with the people who record them, and who listen to them.

The men make mistakes, but learn from them.

I was most impressed with the saga of Jacob.

The most disappointing to me, was the story of the twelve sons of Jacob. I understand why, though. Very few films have the time to delve into twelve characters. It's natural to show Reuben's first born mistakes, and the cruelty of Simeon. Here, the cruelty of Levi is left out, probably because there is a need to go to the important fourth brother of Judah.

All in all, it's a credible rendition that is worth watching, if only to agree or disagree with.

As typical, the Christianised version tried to 'rationalise' the Biblical story. For example, the parting of the Red Sea is described in the Bible that the Children of Israel travelled on 'dry land' not mud. Aaron's staff swallowed the other staffs - the fact that the snake swallowed other snakes would not have been frightening. Moses and Aaron were 80 and 83 respectively, not 30 & 40. Moses did not age - the final section of Deuteronomy testifies to this. However, these are details. But skipping the revelation at Mount Sinai - that was sacreligious. This is the central event that has shaped the Children of Israel (read Jews) for more than three millenia. This is what separates montheistic Judaism from all other religions - the direct communication between God and two million people. All other religions started with a single charismatic person infusing belief in others. Judaism is based upon the witnessing of the diving revelation by the entire nation. Without this event, what was so bad about the Golden Calf? (Incidentally, the reason why Aaron acquiesed is that his nephew was killed when he protested and that Aaron procrastinated rather than see more bloodshed.) Also, no mention is made of the Biblical reason why the Children of Israel stayed in the desert for 40 years - the spies who betrayed them. Moses was not allowed into the land of Israel because of his miscontruing the command to grant water from the rock (in the final year of wandering after the death of Miriam). I agree with another reader that it's better to focus on a specific event, or dedicate the appropriate amount of time - 10+ hours - to really telling the story, even using the plain text of the Bible. Here we have a disjointed story, poor visual FX, bad makeup (Moses' beard was laughable) and villains who the audience were begged to sympathise with (Rameses II was a typical despot who only let the Israelites go because he was a firstborn and he thought he would die.) My rating - 1 out 5 - at least they got most of the names right.

I recently found this on a cheap DVD in the UK on my last visit. It makes for very interesting watching. No-one really knows what happened at the time of the events so it is useless to try and ascertain whether the film is true to reality or not, and those of your readers that try to do so are simply wasting their time ! On a cinematic level, then, things are very well done and I did love the limited amount of special effects. Being a catholic, I had of course studied the Bible at school but had forgotten large portions of the old testament. This film puts things back in place in an agreable way. It's a little difficult for me first time round as all those bearded men seem to resemble each other but the beauty of the DVD is to play it over and over again, of course. Peplums and Biblical Films are not my strong point but I like to watch them occasionally for a change. My verdict then is that of a neophyte as regards this type of film but is definitely on the positive side. Also, there is excellent picture and sound quality and the soundtrack is not bad at all !