The Ten Commandments Review

Most people don't have the time, money, or energy to watch a lot of movies, so when you do get a chance to watch something, you want it to be good. That's why Rotten Tomatoes exists: to give a snapshot of whether a movie is worth your time. But does it always work? I'll be watching all of Rotten Tomatoes’ Certified Fresh movies from this Wikipedia list starting in the year 1990, the decade I was born, and we'll see if these movies are really worth the hype.

Movie 6 of 1990:

The Ten Commandments, directed by Cecil B. DeMille, was first released in 1956 but had a re-release in 1990, which is why it makes our list. This sprawling Epic has a run time of almost 4 hours, and I can't imagine sitting in a movie theater that long. I suppose that shows how times have changed because in the 1950s or even in the 1990s, that was probably a fun way to spend a day. I have, however, been spoiled by streaming and VOD. I just like my subtitles, my own snacks, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, the lack of rude audience members, and the list could go on.

It's safe to say that I wasn't gripped by this movie. It was much too long, and I would have rather watched the superior animated film The Prince of Egypt. The Moses story is one that I grew up hearing, so there were no surprises in the story to keep me engaged. Perhaps when I was a kid and found stories like this to be impactful, I would have enjoyed it more. I do still understand why this has become an Easter Classic for so many people. Someone who loves this story could view this as an event film, like so many Christmas movies are, and there's nothing wrong with that. Different people find different things nostalgic.

As far as characters go, I was not a fan of Charlton Heston's Moses or Yul Brynner’s Ramses. Maybe it's just the acting style of the time that feels inauthentic to me, but there are still plenty of films and performances from the 1950s that I find impactful. My favorite character was Anne Baxter's Nefretiri because at least she was having fun and giving the most entertaining performance in the film.

It makes sense that this film's design elements were more recognized at the Oscars than the performances. It received seven nominations, including Best Picture, and won for Best Special Effects. That was a very well-deserved win because some of the things they are doing here with effects I didn't even think were possible in the 1950s. I particularly loved the staff turning into a snake. The sheer scale of everything was also nice to see. There were so many large sets, and this was also filmed on location. It was also quite impressive that there were so many extras and animals all in period-accurate garb. 

On to the things that I didn't care for. First of all, the run time. I firmly believe that there are very few movies that need to be longer than 3 hours. There were a lot of unnecessary plot lines added here that had nothing to do with the original biblical story. An entire hour could have probably been cut, if I'm being honest. It's also always wild to me when I see a movie that is drowning its white actors in bronzer in order to change their skin tone. I know that was pretty standard and uncontroversial for the time, but I still don't like it.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 84%

Is it worth the hype?:

Not really. If you already know or don't care about the story of Moses, this probably isn't the movie for you. I personally don't think many movies are worth four hours of your time, especially when The Prince of Egypt is right there. Maybe give this one a shot if you are a fan of well-crafted design and lengthy epics.