Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

MartinHafer When I reviewed "The Ten Commandments" (1956), I received a lot of 'Not Helpful' ratings. I assume this is because, unlike the average review, I did NOT particularly like the film and said so. Once again, I buck the crowd as I definitely did NOT like this previous version as well. In the case of both films, I seriously wonder whether or not the movies actually were a boon to atheists because the films were so incredibly bad--even with the incredible Egyptian sets.Unlike the more famous 1956 version, only the first 56 minutes of the film are about the Jews and the creation of the Commandments. The biggest differences you'll notice is that Moses is a very superficial character--and has very little to do in most of the film. In addition, the Children of Israel actually leave Egypt about 20-25 minutes into the film--and it's a 136 minute film. The rest of the film is actually set in the present day (1923) and is a very, very heavy-handed morality tale with absolutely no hint of subtlety--none. It comes on so strong and heavy-handed that I am sure many will laugh at its histrionics and silly plot.So what is to like about this film. Well, first and foremost, the DVD copy is perhaps the most pristine I have ever seen in a silent film--it's very, very crisp and clean. And, the Egyptian sets (as I mentioned above) are very nice. Apart from that, the rest is just pretty silly. The famed parting of the red sea looked like melty jello. And, imagine my surprise when I later read on IMDb that's really all it was!!! And, as for the story it was bad in two serious ways. First, the creation of the Commandments section was just too superficial and dispassionate--like the folks are acting out some half-baked passion play--where they really aren't too concerned with quality--just getting the stupid thing done! Second, the modern portion is much worse with it's message that comes across with all the subtlety of a 2x4 upside your skull!! As a result, unless you are a die-hard silent film fan or an atheist who hates God, don't bother with this silly film. Why Cecil B. DeMille has somehow been considered a genius for his (anti-) religious epics, I have no idea! By the way a few final thoughts. First, despite both of DeMille's films saying to the contrary, archaeological evidence AND written accounts of the day indicate the Jews did NOT build the pyramids but professional builders. Second, why did the Godly mother die in the film?! Didn't this seem to reinforce the notion that God is not real?! Talk about an illogically constructed religious message!! Though, now that I think about it, illogic was DeMille's forte--with nudity and bestiality in his other 'religious' epic "Sign of the Cross"!! And, though it was NOT a DeMille film, think about the original "Ben Hur"--as in the end, Jesus STAYED DEAD!!! What a whacked out message! All very Pre-Code in their sensibilities and all CLAIMING to be family religious entertainment!

MARIO GAUCI This was another Biblical epic from the Silent era which I had long wanted to check out; even so, I had owned the DVD (accompanying the more popular 1956 version of the same events, from the same showman director no less, and which has received countless viewings from yours truly) for some time before I finally got to it. As with the later NOAH'S ARK (1928), virtually watched simultaneously, it seems that film-makers of the time were unsure of the appeal of such religious epics, so that they had to present them within the context of a modern story; still, De Mille's THE KING OF KINGS (a milestone in itself for being the first and, for a time, only picture to show Jesus' face) preceded that Michael Curtiz work by a year and it was set exclusively in the time of Christ. In this case, only the first 50 minutes or so are dedicated to the familiar tale involving Moses (needless to say, the dull Theodore Roberts is no match for the stoic Charlton Heston in the remake): the exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the writing of the tablets and the Golden Calf; these are clearly heavily streamlined in comparison with the almost 4-hour long 1956 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and, in spite of their obvious care, gargantuan scale and excellent special effects, can feel unsatisfying in that respect...especially when the parallel story is so hokey, unnecessarily inflated and, at the end of the day, somewhat ordinary! The latter sees a Bible-thumping matriarch (which she proudly holds even when posing for a portrait), her two sons and the girl who comes between them: one of the boys (played by Richard Dix) is righteous – and, as his mother claims, engaged in a skill (carpentry) which has produced some notable exponents (alluding naturally to Christ himself) – while the other mocks religion and vows to become somebody by his own merits. Eventually, we find him as a top contractor and, perhaps to make amends, takes it upon himself to build a church; however, to cut costs, he reduces the amount of cement required to make the concrete, with the result that the walls are weak and liable to collapse at any time (coincidentally, the very previous day I watched a film in which a character had faced a similar dilemma – GIVE US THIS DAY aka Christ IN CONCRETE [1949]): this ruse is discovered by Dix, appointed "boss-carpenter" on the project, and he confronts his brother…but, before anything can be done about it, the whole edifice falls on top of the mother who picks just that moment to visit the premises! The morally-corrupt sibling even forsakes his wife (the destitute girl they had taken in and whom Dix relinquished on his account) for an Asian temptress, whom he eventually kills (the only commandment, according to his spouse, not yet broken by him); in the end, the boy gets his come-uppance and Dix can reclaim his lady. While the two sections may seem to jell better than those in NOAH'S ARK, the overall achievement is a lesser one – and not just to it, but THE KING OF KINGS (by the way, Christ makes a 'cameo' appearance here towards the end!) and, most importantly, the later version…if still quite worthwhile in itself.

Thomas Diemer Isaw both versions of Ten Commandments on a special DVC, so I suppose one would call it Tenty Commandments.I also watched the commentary for both films. The poem on the page where Mary Leigh writes Good Bye near the end of the prologues is the poem Helas by Oscar Wilde. The narrator of the commentary did not know this, so I feel that I have staged something of a coup. It does not look like the place in the book where Mary pressed the orange blossoms, she takes them out then flips a few pages before writing.The narrator also compared the rock where Danny wrecks his boat to Mount Sainai, but it looks more to me like the rock at the edge of the Red Sea, the Israelites destination, and figuratively the Rock on which Pharao crashed. The Orthodox Monastary of Saint Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai is called a Greek ORTHODOX monastery in some of the commentary on the 1956 film. The Orthodox Church of Sainai is an independent Orthodoc Church, it is the Church of Sinai, so the monastery is a Sinai Orthjodox monastery. It is a common misnomer to call any Orthodox Church the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox Church is the Church of Greece only, other countries have their own Orthodox Churches.

pninson Cecil B. DeMille's original silent version of the Ten Commandments is mostly a heavy-handed morality play set in 1923. The prologue, which runs just over 40 minutes, shows an abbreviated version of the Biblical story of the Exodus. Most of the dialogue is taken from the Bible. Despite the technical limitations of the era, it succeeds as a fast-paced spectacular. The parting of the Red Sea is just as awe-inspiring in its own way as in the remake, and it's always interesting to see how silent actors compensated for the lack of sound with facial expressions and exaggerated gestures. The musical score is fantastic and everything clips along at a nice pace. As with the remake, it's never subtle, but it's never boring, either.I wish I could say the same about the main part of the feature. After Moses punishes the Hebrews for worshipping the golden calf, the film moves to the present day (1920s). A mother reads to her grown sons from the Bible. The two brothers are basically Goofus and Gallant. From here, everything is completely predictable.It's well done so that one can overlook the lack of subtlety. DeMille has a very explicit religious message, and he's not above bludgeoning the viewer over the head with it. That was the style of the day, and the limitations of the silent film force a certain amount of overstatement.However, unlike most films of this period, this one goes on far too long. It's about ninety minutes but seems far longer. The bad son goes out into the world, declaring that he's going to break all 10 Commandments! Naturally, he becomes a successful businessman... while his humble older brother (a carpenter, naturally) tries not to envy him or covet his wife. There's never any doubt about how it's all going to end: DeMille's message is that "the wages of sin is death", but he takes far too long to get there.The complete film is about 135 minutes, which must have been an epic length for that era. I would have enjoyed it more if the modern story had been trimmed by about 15 minutes.In his way, DeMille was the forerunner of Mel Gibson. Both are gifted filmmakers with devout religious beliefs --- short on subtlety, heavy on the bloodshed and headlong action. The 1956 remake of Ten Commandments is a spectacular example of epic film-making, and as this 1923 silent original is now included as an extra disc in the DVD, it's worth checking out. I can't imagine wanting to sit through the modern story again, though; I'll probably shut it off once Moses segues off screen.