Rating: 
Summary: The definitive Ten Commandments.
Review: There are lots of "Ten Commandments" floating around out there:
The Ten Commandments (1923) ASIN: 6300215431.
The Ten Commandments (1956) ASIN: 6300215830.
Greatest Heroes of the Bible - The Ten Commandments (1978) ASIN: 078200878X.
Ten Commandments 1 & 2 (2000) ASIN: 1563643901.
Ancient Secrets of the Bible - Mose's Ten Commandments: Tablets From God? ASIN: B00000F0SN.
The Prince of Egypt - DTS (1998) ASIN: B00004YNUN.
However this is the one version most people relate too. Some people know this version better than the real one. So where do you think Anne Baxter ...Nefretiri came from? Can you say sister? As the bloodlines from Egyptians, came through the women. That is why who ever married her would become pharaoh.
The graphics were great for the time and the acting has that 50's epic feel. Edward G. Robinson made a great Dathan; He gets to be a modern day Dathan in Key Largo (1948) ASIN: 0790746999. Is it not interesting that Pharaoh Rameses in The Prince of Egypt - DTS (1998) looks like Yul Brynner?
Rating: 
Summary: A Grand Spectacle
Review: The movie begins with a few words from Cecil B. Demille. Here he describes what the movie will cover and also touches on the background for this movie. He mentions the books of Genesis and Exodus, but also mentions the writings of Philo and Josephus. This lets you know that there are additional parts here that are not taken straight from the Bible.The movie begins with quite a bit of rivalry between Charleton Heston and Yul Brenner. Both are good actors, and the rivalry adds emphasis to their confrontation when Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go. Although some of the special effects aren't as captivating by today's standards, this is still a beautiful film. I would recommend seeing this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A truly great movie
Review: This movie can be watched any number of times - it is timeless.
Rating:
Summary: Heston's other great epic!
Review: This movie looks much better on DVD then on regular TV. It is much shorter if you watch the DVD because there are no commercials. :-) In my opinion, this movie is as great as Ben-Hur. I love both Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner in this movie. Brynner gave a really noble air to Ramses.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie; average DVD
Review: This is a great movie, but I found the DVD to be somewhat disappointing. Amazon.com rated the picture quality a 5, the highest possible. I would only give it a 3. Also, for such an important film, this DVD has few extras. Just 3 trailers. No audio commentary, no making-of documentaries or even subtitles.
Rating:
Summary: Yo.
Review: Yes, I can summarize this entire movie in one word: Yo. Every Easter for as long as I can remember, my family has gotten excited about watching "The Ten Commandments." Til now, I avoided watching more than ten minutes of it. Something about older movies made me think I wouldn't understand them, and I couldn't just walk out of it in the middle. My mom would be all, "It's such a good movie!" She was always telling me how excellent it was, how the story was so great and the costumes were so terrific and the lines were so well thought-out before they were spoken. I also knew I couldn't sit through 3 and a half hours of thorough boredom without going insane. But this year I said, "You have nothing better to do. Give it a chance. Watch it. You're 14 and if you can't follow a movie now you're probably a [child]." So I popped Disc One into the DVD player. And I watched it. And I'm really glad a I did! Right from scene 1 it was highly impressive. I followed every moment of it and when it was over, could have watched more. The costumes and scenery WERE excellent. So was the acting. I got caught up in the movie. It was a very, very cool story. It had drama, it had excitement, and it was definitely long enough to be satisfying. You don't even have to believe the story to like this movie. So now I have something new to look forward to on Easter. I'm glad I took the time to see this film. Anyone who hasn't yet should.
Rating:
Summary: An enjoyable epic movie
Review: I'm not generally a big fan of epics, nor do I read a lot of religious works or stories, but I highly enjoyed this film. I believe it won for best cinematagrapy the year it was up for an Oscar in that category, and you can see why. Indeed, I was getting a little tired of the story about 2 and a half hours in, when the burning bush and the parting of the red sea woke me right up. Charlton Heston is maginificent, in all his youthful glory. Many of the femaole characters were overly dramatic (but what actresses weren't during this period) but great perfomances nonetheless. I can't really judge the movie for accuracy, having been unfamiliar with the story before, but it honestly didn't matter -- the movie was just fantastic (though you may want to watch it in 2 parts). Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A uniquely great & timeless classic, improved by DVD techn.
Review: Summary: Monumental timeless picture, improved by DVD picture quality (excellent by any standard), and surround sound music (very good). This is a must have for all families for an annual celebration for Passover, Easter, or thanksgiving.
Review: Cecil B. DeMille's "Introductory Commentary" gives great insight into his purpose and perspective in making the movie. Very importantly, the meaning of the movie as presented by DeMille in his introduction is about freedom; and specifically freedom to worship. The striving for freedom that all men have. DeMille obviously had several thoughts of freedom on his mind when he made this film in 1956. The world had just suffered through WWII with all its tragedies, including the murder of 6 million jews in death camps and the killing of over a hundred million people; the Korean war where North Korea invaded South Korea; the Cold War was in full swing and the Iron Curtain dropped in Eastern Europe depriving hundreds of millions of people of all their freedoms; coincidently the USSR invaded Hungary in October, 1956. Communism was brutally telling people how to think and how NOT to worship. The list goes on. At that time, the US had its own internal war beginning to explode against this country's own bigotry and prejudice that robbed millions of African Americans, Jews and other minorities of their freedoms as clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And, very, very importantly, Israel was fighting for its very existence and its own freedoms to exist and worship within the borders established for it after WWI by the victorious British Army (which established all ex Ottoman borders ad hoc). Hollywood Era Epic: With regard to knowledgeable Jewish reviewer's (Rabbi Y. G.) issues, he is essentially correct! But, I have to point out that while 1956 reflected only nominal sensitivity to the points he brought up, there was also very nominal knowledge, at that time, as well. I would think that very few people knew what the traditional customs, or mannerisms were; the only Jewish dialect most people every heard was with a distinctively New York; or possibly European accent. Hebrew was just re-emerging as a spoken language in Israel. And, Hollywood only used the actors the studios had under contract, rather than filling the part authentically. Finally, this era's acting was more theatrical, making it less realistic. Personally, I see the acting styles of this movie more positively. These older styles are better able to better carry us to another time and place. It is only recently Hollywood has focused on true authenticity down to the dialects, customs, mannerisms, people. Personally, I don't feel these take issues away from the movie. I am grateful that Rabbi Y. G. discusses his issues because I cannot see a modern re-make emerging anytime soon to supplement, or replace this film classic. His points are important if we are to know the historical truth, and therefore "be free". Ignorance can only tear at man's freedoms like a cancer. Where history differs with his statement that the film views Passover through a Christian viewpoint. I would like to humbly share that Christianity is solely, "completed Judaism" (Dr. Fructenbaum, "Jesus was a Jew" pp 103) and this occurred through the fulfillment of the Passover by JHWH. But, this only makes sense if one reads the Talmud, Midrashim, Zohar, Babylonian Talmud, Midrash Thanhumi (and other texts) that claim that Mashiach ben Yoseph and Mashiach ben David are one and the same; and that Isaiah 53 was properly interpreted by the early century Rabbi's including Jonathan ben UzzielSimon ben Yochai, Rabbi Eliezer Kalir (7th century), Moses ben Maimon (11th century) and others when they claimed it spoke of the Messiah. But, for my interest, the movie is about man's desire and right to freedom and self-determination and it is excellent in virtually every manner and outpaces many great movies made decades later. Compare it to "The Patriot", a recently released and great film that will become a classic. Everything - costumes, background landscapes, ships, armies, etc. - was very authentic, except the British accents! Yet, of all these authentic items, only the costumes were real. Everything else was computer generated! Notes on Background Credits: The movie is exceptionally well researched (for its time). While the movie only used the "one paragraph" from the Book of Exodus, DeMille openly states in his prologue that he also used a number of historical books and the credits show a number of archeological experts were consulted. This includes books written by Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and the Midrash. Also, "Prince of Egypt" by Wilson, "Piller of Fire", by Rev. Ingragm, and "On Eagle's Wings" by Southon. Consulted were Rabbi Rudolph Lupo of the Jewish Community Library of Los Angeles, and the Library of Antiquities, Luxor Egypt.
Rating: 
Summary: Antiques Roadshow Visits Memphis
Review: Vulgar, over-produced, mawkish, "The Ten Commandments" is one of those films that's easy to like for all the wrong reasons and to sneer at for even worse ones. There is not an ounce of subtlety in anything DeMille does. Big subject? We'll give 'em ten thousand extra!. Ancient Egypt? Don't just show 'em Luxor, build it on screen! The only trace of modesty in the entire production is the depiction of God, suggested here by abstract, swirling lights and a basso profundo. (I read somewhere that God's lines were spoken by Charlton Heston, then manipulated in the studio. DeMille doesn't shirk from delivering moral lessons in stentorian voice-overs, but when it comes to the Almighty, even he demonstrates some reserve.) So, at one level, "The Ten Commandments" is exactly the kind of ridiculous, alternately squeaky clean and licentious spectacle that gives old Hollywood a bad name. It is also extremely entertaining, with more cinematic savvy in ten minutes than all of contemporary Hollywood. Without denying its camp appeal, it would be a mistake to assume it can only be enjoyed as an over-ripe Pop artifact. "The Ten Commandments" is immensely engaging as sensuous spectacle, a parade of extravagant images, sounds and sequences, honed with the sharp skill of Hollywood at its technocratic best. To overlook this appeal is to deny the very richness that makes movies so entrancing. The film makes no claim to a dubious Realism. The dialogue is stilted and purple, the performances seem delivered by remote control. (Except Yul Brynner, who manages to make us believe a Pharaoh would talk the way he does.) Every image is impossibly perfect, the sets scrupulously clean, the extras suspiciously plump (and fair) for Ancient Egypt. This is history as Ideal Spectacle, not as gritty truth, pitched in an immaculate, rhetorical style designed to *edify.* However contradictory it might seem to make a multi-million dollar film full of scantily clad dancing girls into a moral lesson, that is indeed DeMille's purpose. It's the very contradiction between the means and ends that makes the film so fascinating. The mistake lies in feeling superior to it. Educated audiences in 1956 were just as amused by DeMille's excesses as we are today. The difference is that educated audiences today are far more likely to take works of considerably less imagination and skill seriously. It's also worth remembering that a middling ranked star today is likely to be paid more for one performance than the entire "Ten Commandments" *cost.* Even allowing for inflation, such awkward realities suggest that far from patronizing DeMille, we should be seeking his advice. I won't pretend that "The Ten Commandments" is my idea of great filmmaking, or even of great expensive filmmaking, but for all its antique attitudes, the film delivers.
Rating:
Summary: We break our necks looking up at this tall film!
Review: I don't think I can do adequate justice to this film. How do you review a classic? How do you put a measuring rod up to the absolute standard? This is a fool's enterprise, so I will restrain myself. Nothing can compare to the pageantry, majesty, spray of colors, and epic emotion of this film. You have the perfect stets, and the occasional on locations shot in Goshen and Sinai. I think he only place where this film breaks down is in the special effects. For the rod-to-serpent sequence and the depictions of Jehovah, they used animation, which I guess was the state of the art at the time. But I think that all of these are forgivable when we look at the still spectacular parting of the red sea. That is one scene and effect that still stands, and withstands, the test of time. At the heart of this story is a man who was given a charge from God to liberate his people. I think that in a sense we are all Moses, if we would really pay attention to what is going on. We all can be leaders. Not that we hold office, or turn water to blood, but that we bring other people to the truth, and bring others out of captivity. The introduction by Cecil B. DeMille indicates that he made this film as an anti-communist tract and argument, with Moses being the force for freedom, or an ancient George Washington, and Pharaoh being the chain of captivity, or a stone age Stalin. I guess there was a little bit more going on in 1950's Hollywood than blacklisting and McCarthyism. Nowadays, I would imagine that we would focus on the Golden Calf incident. Washington and Lincoln gave us freedom, but now what do we do? Do we worship Golden Calves (or Gold and Calves?) or do we get freedom in God's law. We are free in the United States, but all we do is watch reruns on TV. Heston's acting performance needs no comment. He is the definitive Moses, and I wonder if we ever actually met Moses if we would be let down! However, I must congratulate DeMille on casting Yule Brenner as Pharaoh. The normal game is to have a strong hero and a weak villain, but when you have two strong actors opposing each other, they are able to play off of each other's strength to give a magnificent performance. That is why "Silence of the Lambs" worked so well: both Anthony Hopkins and Jodi Foster are top par actors. The film would be half as good if there either Lecter or Starling were played by weak actors.
The DVD has the standards, but no commentary, nor deleted scenes. But it does have three of the trailers. The original trailer is a ten-minute affair that serves more as a behind the scenes clip than a trailer. It has DeMille discussing some aspects of the film, shows a picture with Heston looking at Michelangelo's famous sculpture with an uncanny resemblance between the two being apparent, and informs us that the prop stone tables used in the film were actually cut from Sinai stone. I wonder where they are now. This movie is worth your money, if the normal slush of sub-standard cinema bores you. At 220 minutes, it is a long film. I broke the film up into three parts. I saw the first half of disc up to chapter fourteen one on one day, the second half on another day, and the third disc on the third day. With such a deep and meaningful film, I think it is too much to cram in one film fest. This film appeals not only to the mind, and the heart, but also to the soul. When is the last time you could say that about a film?
| 
