This remake is better than the original on several fronts. It is a lot more realistic (in the original version, Moses is too "nice" to be able to achieve what he did). It also covers a lot more of the events described in the Bible, whereas the original concentrated too much on Moses' life as a prince which isn't covered much in the Bible. For these reasons, the remake is a lot more instructive although perhaps not more entertaining. Despite what the Washignton Post says, the special effects are also very good, especially the parting of the sea.… Expand

I turned it off after the first 1/2 hour. Not only was it inaccurate (moses never met his parents and was not called "mosses" until his trek to the desert), but the acting was horrid.

I love the movies made from stories in the Bible; The Robe, Jesus of Nazareth, The Ten Commandments (Charlton Heston), but this... We turned it off half way through part 1!

Wow, this was bad. I mean REALLY bad. I can't imagine a worse retelling of the Moses/Ten Commandments/Exodus story than this. It emphasizes all the wrong things... it's not just that this monstrosity is boring and has bad acting, but it lacks zero inspiration and depicts God as a vicious baby killer who sadistically toys with Moses and the Israelites. It's not just bad, it's mean-spirited, offensive, and is a depressing piece of trash.… Expand

Dreadfully boring,with shoddy production values. This and DeMille's version have equally incredulous plot lines: Moses literally parts the Red Sea for the Hebrews' escape, yet they later doubt him and his demonstrably omnipotent God who had just saved them. Right! At least DeMille's version was exciting with impressive production values.

The BIG WRONG (of many wrongs) in this version is that most of the Egyptians look like they have never seen the sun did they have sun screen for "white" Egyptians in those days? This telling of the famous tale has no tension what so ever. Moses kills a man in the 1956 film after finding out as an ADULT that he is Hebrew-that makes much more sense.

It's pretty darned good TV-movie that holds its own against the 1956 classic. [It] is perilously close to Hollywood hokum, but manages to rise above it by featuring the ever-interesting Dougray Scott in the lead role of Moses.

horrible--why does 50 year old film look so much better--was Mosses really a wimp??

So I turn into this show, right? Try to give it a chance and all but guess what? I hear the writing and whoa. Unbelievable. Get this, they actually had a line about one of the characters going his own way and they referred to it like this..."I guess he has to strike out on his own". Isn't striking out a BASEBALL term? Was baseball around in the days of Moses? Maybe they had GPS for those desert treks and an iPod to keep things fresh too.… Expand

At least they got the names right and that is about it. Terrible Show and not worth the time. Finally gave up and couldn't take the last 45 minutes.

Can not tell you how disappointed I was after watching it. Can anyone tell me if there was a parental discression advisory? I found that the facts, acting and "special" effects to be terrible. I let my 13 year old watch with me and was disgused by the extreme violence shown. We actually turned the channel after seeing children getting their throats slashed. All of the violence was unneccessary. I thought the story was suppose to show God as a loving figure. The only thing we got out of it was that he can be very hatefull. There was no happiness or loving feeling at all in the movie. Shame on ABC and Hallmark!… Expand

terrible. characters not developed at all, and plot line sketchy at best.

So disappointed. I thought it would be more true to the Bible. And I've never even heard of the character that N. Andrew's played. Moses had a speech problem, and that is why Aaron went with him. Miriam didn't go, and when Jethro arrived in the desert with Zephorah, she stayed and he went back home. There was no adultry in the desert, and Moses' birth wasn't prophesy. The only reason the newborn boys were killed was the Hebrews were beginning to out-number the Egyptians, and that frightened Pharoah. Maybe someone will get it right next time, and should consult a historian or Mel Gibson to get the story correct. Boo, boo and more boos!!!!… Expand

Hollywood likes glamour. That is what you get in the original "Ten Commandments." There was nothing glamourous about the Exodus. God was pretty clear and direct with his commands to the Israelites. When they did not obey him there were severe consequences. This prortrayal was much closer to what I saw in my mind as I read my bible. If people were to pull out their bibles and read them, they would find this rendtion much closer to the truth. God is not some warm fuzzy character that some people like to protray, He is an all powerful God and he sees justice done as in the case of the Egyptians.… Expand

i thought it was great

I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essense and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silient, cruel, disciplinary void. In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. Ok, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but when this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.… Expand

This movie has to be the worst retelling of the story yet. The director claims he wanted it authentic???!!!! Your research forgot the most important book of all.... The Bible

This was extremely disappointing, to my way of thinking, it wasn't even close to the Bible. Portraying Moses as a violent man just doesn't seem right, and showing children getting their throats cut was disgusting. Dougray Scott was not a good choice for the role of Moses and why was he portrayed as a Jesus type figure. If this mini-series ever reruns on tv I for one will NOT be watching. Thank God we have the 1956 version of The Ten Commandments.… Expand

Brown brown brown, and depressing! Why no color? These nations had some of the most beautiful creations. It reminded me of how Russia used to be portrayed growing up-dull and grey- and as a kid I thought that was how it was. Forget Moses-that attitude does not seem to be the 'meekest man' in the bible. Oh he was irritating. I stopped watching midway through because I couldn';t take him anymore.… Expand

Far more interesting than the 1956 version, where Moses ceases to be human after the burning bush incident and turns into a swept back hair cartoonish preacher. This version actually shows the bizarre and brutal nature of the Old Testament. We have women and children murdering wounded enemies on the battlefield and the mass killings after the golden calf as Moses purged those who disagreed with him. Unlike the 1956 version, where the murder of the firstborn of all Egypt is shown as the King of Egypt's own doing, this version lays it all on the feet of the Hebrews god as does the text. Moses fictional Egyptian adopted brother gets to make the statement after his firstborn is murdered by Moses god, that "your god is cruel." Indeed. And this version deserves great kudos for being willing to show the cruelty of the text and oddness of the people, and not turn it into some sort of macabe mixture of 1950's jingoistic American patriotic zealotry married to modern Christian fundamentalism as the 1956 version does. Certainly the acting was not always the best and wooden here and there, but geesh have you seen Heston's Moses? What's curious is how this version continues to follow some of the odd extrabiblical material in De Mille's version, such as the murder of the Hebrew children being done because of some odd Egyptian prophecy, and one wonders what the makers where thinking by including this. However, many questions come up from this version which are critical to our era to answer, such as were Moses conversations with his god nothing more than internal projections, and what is the place of people who claim to have heard the voice of their god in the modern world? Sept 11 was wrought by those who claimed to have contact and knowledge of their gods will, and this movie, in the final mass murder where even children are killed, showed where that viewpoint leads us. Overall this is thoughtful TV.… Expand

Accuracy of Old Testament is questionable. Boring to watch. Special effects were better in the 1956 version. Acting was sub-standard. All in all, a disappointment. Hard to beat the original.