Les dix commandements

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 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?

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 am a 7th grader at a catholic school, and last year, we learned about the Old Testament. More than a half of the year was spent learning about The Ten Commandments. I saw both the 2006 version and the 1956 version. Personally, I thought that, while the 1956 version was more interesting, it was not true to the biblical story. The 2006 version was very true to what I had learned. I liked being able to talk about it and follow along with everything. I was slightly disappointed with the 1956 version, and kept on telling my dad, "But this never happened!" It bothers me when things aren't the way they're supposed to. And I know the Old Testament like the back of my hand, so when I watched this, I was very upset. I don't think that the reviews of the movie were accurate. Before watching this, I prepared myself for the lost movie of all time, but instead, I rather enjoyed it.

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...