Review of The Ten Commandments (1956) by Daniel K — 11 Jan 2012

1: Ludicrous, just ludicrous. I think the only way I would buy this story is as a comedy or as a supernatural action/adventure film. However, to play it as a literal story based on historical fact just makes it seem laughable.

It reads and plays exactly like an other myth, but the writers, director, and actors take everything so seriously it's impossible not to blanch a little. It seems to be the height of commercial crassness to me, right down to the personal introduction by Cecil B.

DeMille before the curtain rises. The manner in which it is photographed, staged, decorated, costumed, scored, performed, etc is all wrong as well. The lighting is just awful. It makes everything, and I mean everything, seem incredibly artificial and trashy.

The same goes for the sets and costumes. The locations seem terribly constricted and anything but epic and expansive. Almost everything is tightly contained when it should be grand and majestic. It seems like a big budget high school production, especially when compared with both the similar genre work of D.

W. Griffith from the 1910's, as well as the work of David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, George Stevens, William Wyler, etc from the 50's and 60's. I could write about this for much longer, but I don't really think its worth it.

I much prefer the Mel Brooks version and I'm not even a Mel brooks fan. Basically, all it has going for it are a few rather nice painted backdrops. Heston's performance is pretty funny too I guess.