Review of The Ten Commandments (1956) by Forrest P — 24 Sep 2010

This was one of the hardest movies to get a good feel for I've ever watched. Sometimes I loved it, sometimes I thought it was mediocre at best. And even after I finished it and let it sit with me for a few days, coming up with what I could say was a fair score for it was still a difficult task. Why is this? Because when The Ten Commandments is good, it's EXCELLENT. However, when it's bad, it's REALLY bad.

So what split me in two about this picture? I'll begin with the sets. Even though a few of the sets in this picture were very obviously studio sets, they were still absolutely magnificent to look at. One of the things that kept drawing me back into the picture was the sincerity of the plot and genuine passion that was put into it. And the sets are a fine example of this. Of course, the 50s were a prime era for film sets--this was a period in film history in which movie sets were at their best (and they've never been as good since, in my opinion), and I really don't want to undermine how good these sets were.

However, the acting was less than satisfying. I mean, this was not the *worst* acting I've ever seen, but it was still pretty bad, even for 1956. I think some of this could be attributed to a simple different style of acting, but not all of it. For instance, there was a scene in which the very old Pharaoh dies (this is not a spoiler; the audience knows far ahead of time he will die). I didn't buy that this guy was really on his death bed. In fact, he seemed perfectly healthy to me. I think a lot more effort could have been put in by the actors. I know that this is an ensemble cast with such actors as Charlton Heston, Yul Brynner, Vincent Price, Edward G. Robinson, and Anne Baxter all sharing the screen. But that doesn't make up for some of the campy acting they try to get away with. Still, I do want to point out that I thought the best actor in the picture was Edward G. Robinson, who I saw earlier this summer in Little Caesar and was impressed with then. I was still impressed with him and I thought his character had some of the best scenes in the movie.

Then there are the absolutely astounding costumes in this film. I'm talking about some of the greatest costumes I've seen in the films. I know it sounds a little two-dimensional to cite this, but these costumes were *so* well done. A lot of time and passion and care were put into these costumes. They're elegant and flashy and gritty and tangible.

But the dialogue was not as good. I don't want to say that I hated the dialogue. I don't even want to say that this is anywhere near some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... but the screenwriters--AEneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky, Jr., Jack Gariss, and Frederick M. Frank--made the mistake of trying to hard to have a screenplay that sounded epic rather than having it sound like these characters were actually talking to each other. They're in over their heads here, and it's honestly one of the greatest detractors from the film. It's one of the reasons I thought the acting was so bad. Worst of all, they let slide a lot of stuff that I don't think should have... Here are just a few of the plot holes I found while watching this picture:

+ Moses declares that he sees a bush that is burning without being consumed by the fire. Even though he and Joshua both clearly see this, Moses appears to walk for several miles up and then into a mountain, and then into a cave to get to the aforementioned bush. How did they see that?

+ Moses nearly dies in the desert of thirst and hunger before finding food and water. After a few hours rest, however, Moses goes from being barely strong enough to stand to being able to fight off four other men without any difficulty.

+ Why didn?t Moses just allow himself to become Pharaoh and then set the slaves free when he had the authority? I know that they're trying to keep close to the Biblical story, but they could have at least acknowledged the thought behind this.

+ Even if Pharaoh denies Moses has anything to do with the plague, why not just banish him or kill him anyway? Especially when he continues to make threats? Pharaoh was not hesitant about this before.

+ It also astounds me that slaves would be able to care for so much livestock.

Those are the biggest ones that really bothered me.

However, I do have to acknowledge the fact that even though there were some astounding problems with the screenplay--and I do mean *astounding*--I still found this movie's plot oddly captivating. I never checked out during the film and I was never wondering how much time was left in it, even though it's nearly four hours long. I think there is one big reason for this: Cecil B. DeMille is an EXCELLENT director. His direction in this picture is nearly flawless, save for one detail. There are parts of this picture when DeMille himself narrates what's happening onscreen. I found that extremely annoying and horrendously unnecessary. A movie is intended to show us the story it's telling--not outright tell it to us. How different would it have been if Francis Ford Coppola had done a voice-over of the christening scene, explaining to us the turmoil that was sure to come with Michael Corleone now head of the family in The Godfather?

But, sincerely, with the exception of that one flaw, Cecil B. DeMille's direction is without fault. And I wish I could say that about the actors or the screenplay. I suppose I did get some entertainment out of it. Mostly because of the passion and scope that was put into it. The sets, costumes, direction, and plot were really big contributors to my overall enjoyment of the film. However, the screenplay was really bad, and the acting was not much better.

In short, The Ten Commandments has not aged very well. During its prime, it was absolutely spectacular. Now, it's not that impressive at all.

6/10.