The Ten Commandments (2006) - A review

It is in fact 50 years since the release of that film, and as a result someone has decided that it was high time someone re-visited the subject matter. Of course Moses hasn't been absent from our screens these last five decades. Straub and Hulliet's unusual adaptation of Schoenberg's Moses und Aron broke the deadlock in 1973, and was swiftly followed by Moses (1975) starring Burt Lancaster. Wholly Moses (1980) attempted to do for Moses movies what Life of Brian did for Jesus films, and the end of the nineties brought two more interpretations. Roger Young's lesser known Moses (1996) featured an incredible performance from Ben Kingsley and was one of The Bible Collection's finest films. Finally, in 1998, Moses was again a popular cinema icon again as Dreamworks produced its animated Prince of Egypt.
So whilst this is far from the first Moses film since Chuck Heston donned his huge white beard, it is the first film since then to dare to call itself The Ten Commandments and take on the multitude of connotations, evocations and comparisons that this title brings with it. And about time too.

The story slows down a bit once Moses reaches Midian, rescues Jethro's daughters and marries his eldest. The change of pace highlights a key theme that will emerge in this film. Here we see him adjust from city life to being a nomad in the desert. Later he will lead his people through a similar transition. Soon enough though Moses encounters God at the burning bush, and reluctantly agrees to do God's bidding for him in the court of the new pharaoh.
Aaron and the Israelite leaders take some convincing; Pharaoh, obviously, needs even more and Egypt is engulfed by the ten plagues (although only seven are present). The plagues have always interested historians and scientists alike, and numerous theories have developed giving natural explanations for them. Here, as with DeMille's film, such theories are toyed with. DeMille put them on the lips of the sceptical Ramsees. Here we hear some from the narrator (which brings with it a sense that his is unquestionable and objective), but others are shown and discredited before our eyes. It is an interesting mix, and leaves the viewer some scope to consider their own response.

As this film comes in two parts, it breaks just as the Israelites are crossing the sea, leaving most of the film for more unexplored territory. As a result we see episodes that are rare for films about Moses; the bitter waters of Marah, the provision of manna and quail to eat, water from the rock, the victory of over the Amalekites and the visit of Jethro. This scene is perhaps the most curious. The way the bible tells this scene, Jethro brings Zipporah and Moses's sons back to him, and then advises him to delegate out his work load. Here, agonisingly almost, Jethro's arrival contains no such marital advice, even though it means the breakdown of Moses's marriage. Instead he advises him to take the opposite course of action and "trust no-one". It's a strange variation on the story, and whilst Jethro is later proved right to a degree, such pre-figuring is unnecessary. Omar Sharif's wisdom would have been better dispensed along traditional lines.

However, it is this emphasis on the need for Israel to transition from a group of slaves to a nation, which distinguishes this film from the other Moses movies. Most tend to focus on Moses initial successes, even though he actually led the Israelites for more than a generation, his accomplishments were far more than being the man who held a stick over the sea whilst God peeled back its waters.
On of the other things that this film considers is the development of monotheism. The realisation gradually begins to dawn on Moses that there is only one god, and that he is God of the whole world. There are many facets of this development; Moses first hearing about the Israelite God, encountering him at the burning bush, and his subsequent meditation on his name. Later on Moses notes that God is travelling with them outside of Egypt and his recollection of the story of monotheistic pharaoh Akhnaten brings things to a head. What is strange is the way that the film emphasises this aspect whilst also purging the story of its Jewish roots.

But the film is also unwilling to downplay the uncomfortable nature of other biblical episodes. After Moses returns from the top of Sinai it is he and his followers that kill everyone who continues worshipping the Golden Calf, rather than an act of God. Such parts of the bible should make us feel uncomfortable, and challenge our understanding of the bible. It is when bible films do this that they really prove their worth.
The film does have it's weaknesses. Dougray Scott's wig is far more distracting than any piece of costume deserves to be. Some of the actors chosen for the lesser parts (such as David Schneider and Richard O'Brien for British viewers) are so fixed by their previous roles as to make it hard to take them seriously. And a scene where Moses tries to cajole Joshua out of his apparently naive pacifism should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Best of all it handles the biblical text in a way that manages to be both faithful enough to appease those seeking a very literal adaptation, whilst also presenting it in a way that is fresh and challenging.
The Ten Commandmentsis showing on ABC on the 10th and 11th of April. Cast: Dougray Scott (Moses), Omar Sharif (Jethro), Linus Roache (Aaron), Mía Maestro (Zipporah), Susan Lynch (Miriam), Karim Salah (Joshua), Naveen Andrews (Menerith), Padma Lakshmi (Princess Bithia), Paul Rhys (Ramses).
Directed by Robert Dornhelm, Written by Ron Hutchinson, Produced by Robert Halmi Sr., Laura Julian and Paul Lowin
Labels: Moses, Ten Commandments (2006)
7 Comments:
At 8:47 am, April 18, 2006,
Matt Page said…
I wish!!!
Seriously though, I'm sorry you didn't like it. It's not unusual that I think a film's strengths outweigh it's weakness and someone watches it and disagrees. Even the greatest films of all time have their detractors and often films that are panned by the critics do well at the box office, whilst films critics praise struggle to make a profit.
IMDB gives it 4.2, so I guess the majority of people would side with you. Fair enough, it worked for me, but I'm certainly not surprised that others disliked it.
Matt
At 6:51 pm, April 08, 2012,
Mike Lang said…
It's Easter Sunday 2012 here in UK and flicking through the 100 plus channels i find this about to start showing in two parts with a five min advert gap.It,s not good for a 70 year old film writer to admit, but i didn't know that this had been made.First on a big TV screen this looks for the most part very good. There is some dodgy CGI in the crowd scenes but that famous parting of the Red Sea, the money shot,looks really good.The acting is ok with a stand out performance from Paul Rhys with a tortured soul playing Ramses.The story most pleasing of all unlike the two previous all out Hollywood crowd pleasers carries it past these and rounds things up properly.I do not have a religion and as i watched God killing innocent children in order to get his way, i now know why.But credit where it's due this is an above average TV movie for your family to see. Mike Lang on langmike29@google.uk
At 9:43 pm, April 16, 2022,
FSS said…
Very good movie. The best so far on this subject.
At 7:53 am, April 20, 2022,
Matt Page said…
Thanks for your comment. I'd be interested to hear more about why you appreciate it so much.
Matt
At 2:21 am, June 28, 2023,
Anonymous said…
Great movie watch it a few times
At 10:36 pm, March 17, 2025,
Anonymous said…
This was awful and not respectful of God. Moses was petulant and disrespectful. Strayed very far from scripture. God was not glorified and Moses was proud and arrogant. Nothing like the Moses of the Bible. Christian’s avoid.
At 9:57 pm, March 20, 2025,
Matt Page said…
Thanks for your comments. I'm struggling to remember this from almost 20 years ago (!) . I guess htinking about the biblical story, Moses does argue with both God and the king,so while that's not necessarily petulant and disrespectful, he certainly likes to argue the toss and is not respecter of authority, even if he disagrees with authority in respectful ways. But I confess I can't remember how the show handles this, so perhaps I'm wrong. WOuld you care to elaborate?
Post a Comment
<< Home