Los diez mandamientos

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 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 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.

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.

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...