Eric Stevenson I was interested in seeing this movie because it was one of the earliest feature length films based on the Bible. Obviously, I've seen other versions of the Ten Commandments story and wanted to see how this did it. It actually starts with the plagues and immediately goes to Moses getting the ten commandments. I was so confused when the scene suddenly transitioned to modern times with people reading the Bible! Yeah, I thought this movie would be a complete retelling of Moses, but the majority of it actually took place recently! It's weird that I consider something recent when the movie was made in 1923.I really appreciate how unpredictable this was. Most of the movie features these two brothers, one of whom abandons religion and sees how much of a bigger success he can become. It really does raise a lot of great questions as to how religion is still relevant today. How much can a person gain from reading the Bible? The best part might be when because he was using defective concrete, his mother dies. Her dying words are that she apologizes for teaching him that he should fear God and not love God. There's a lot going on here and it really is a profound film. ***1/2

bkoganbing Going on 90 years since it was first released, the original The Ten Commandments can still overawe you with the spectacle of both the biblical prologue and the modern story. Modern in the sense that it was set during the Jazz Age Roaring Twenties, the 1923 when Paramount released what would become that studio's biggest moneymaker up to that time.You'll recognize the biblical prologue if you've seen the 1956 remake, it is almost a 45 minute scene for scene remake of the time that Charlton Heston and John Carradine arrive at the Egyptian court until the destruction of the Golden calf. They weren't giving Oscars back in 1923, but the parting of the Red Sea was incredible for its time and would have given Cecil B. DeMille yet another Oscar for the same event.You won't recognize a lot of the biblical prologue cast, but they were part and parcel of a DeMille stock company that he developed during silent era and continued to a lesser degree after the coming of sound. Best known probably was Estelle Taylor who was married to Jack Dempsey at the time as Miriam, the sister of Moses. The bulk of the film is the modern story which has the theme break the Ten Commandments and they'll break you. The stars are Richard Dix and Rod LaRocque a pair of brothers, one good and one bad, sons of a most pious mother Edythe Chapman. Dix is a good, honest, and steady carpenter by trade and LaRocque through his ruthlessness and who winds up breaking all the Commandments becomes the richest contractor in the state. LaRocque is pretty ruthless in his private affairs, he breaks the Commandments regarding those as well. He marries Leatrice Joy who Dix likes as well, but then gets a fetching Eurasian mistress in Nita Naldi. Nita is in the slinky and sexy tradition of all DeMille's bad girls. It all ends really bad for LaRocque as his sins catch up with him. During the modern story DeMille hand with spectacle is a good one in the scene of the church collapse and later on during the climatic escape LaRocque is attempting to make with a speedboat on a stormy night at sea.The influence of DeMille's educator father Henry and his friend David Belasco are strong here as they are in all DeMille work. The modern story is the kind of morality play that Belasco would produce and write for the stage for years. It's from the Victorian era, but the Roaring Twenties audience wanted something that reflected traditional values occasionally as if nervously waiting for its excesses to catch up. It's partly the reason why they could find comfort in a Congregationalist president of the USA in Calvin Coolidge. Though the story is unbelievably dated, DeMille's cinematic techniques are hardly that. The original Ten Commandments in many ways will tell you about its creator warts and all.

MartinHafer When I reviewed "The Ten Commandments" (1956), I received a lot of 'Not Helpful' ratings. I assume this is because, unlike the average review, I did NOT particularly like the film and said so. Once again, I buck the crowd as I definitely did NOT like this previous version as well. In the case of both films, I seriously wonder whether or not the movies actually were a boon to atheists because the films were so incredibly bad--even with the incredible Egyptian sets.Unlike the more famous 1956 version, only the first 56 minutes of the film are about the Jews and the creation of the Commandments. The biggest differences you'll notice is that Moses is a very superficial character--and has very little to do in most of the film. In addition, the Children of Israel actually leave Egypt about 20-25 minutes into the film--and it's a 136 minute film. The rest of the film is actually set in the present day (1923) and is a very, very heavy-handed morality tale with absolutely no hint of subtlety--none. It comes on so strong and heavy-handed that I am sure many will laugh at its histrionics and silly plot.So what is to like about this film. Well, first and foremost, the DVD copy is perhaps the most pristine I have ever seen in a silent film--it's very, very crisp and clean. And, the Egyptian sets (as I mentioned above) are very nice. Apart from that, the rest is just pretty silly. The famed parting of the red sea looked like melty jello. And, imagine my surprise when I later read on IMDb that's really all it was!!! And, as for the story it was bad in two serious ways. First, the creation of the Commandments section was just too superficial and dispassionate--like the folks are acting out some half-baked passion play--where they really aren't too concerned with quality--just getting the stupid thing done! Second, the modern portion is much worse with it's message that comes across with all the subtlety of a 2x4 upside your skull!! As a result, unless you are a die-hard silent film fan or an atheist who hates God, don't bother with this silly film. Why Cecil B. DeMille has somehow been considered a genius for his (anti-) religious epics, I have no idea! By the way a few final thoughts. First, despite both of DeMille's films saying to the contrary, archaeological evidence AND written accounts of the day indicate the Jews did NOT build the pyramids but professional builders. Second, why did the Godly mother die in the film?! Didn't this seem to reinforce the notion that God is not real?! Talk about an illogically constructed religious message!! Though, now that I think about it, illogic was DeMille's forte--with nudity and bestiality in his other 'religious' epic "Sign of the Cross"!! And, though it was NOT a DeMille film, think about the original "Ben Hur"--as in the end, Jesus STAYED DEAD!!! What a whacked out message! All very Pre-Code in their sensibilities and all CLAIMING to be family religious entertainment!

dav07dan02 Director: Cecil B. Demille, Script: Jeaine Macpherson, Cast: Theodore Roberts (Moses), Charles de Rochfort (Rameses), Estelle Taylor (Miriam,sister of Moses), Julia Faye (wife of pharaoh), James Neill (Aaron), Edythe Chapman (Mrs. Martha Mc Tavish), Richard Dix (John,son), Rod La Rosque (Dan,son), Nita Naldi (Sally Lung,Eurasian)Most people today have probably never seen this film. It is now available on the 50th anniversary set with the 1956 version. The 1956 version was an amazing movie but in many ways I prefer this one, Cecil B Demille's 1923 original. Many people will be surprised upon first viewing of this film. Demille uses a different approach thin in his 1956 remake. This film has two parts. The first part is set during the time of the exodus in the old testament. The Hebrew nation is enslaved by the Egyptians under the ruthless rule of the pharaoh Rameses. Moses as the chosen leader of the Jews frees his people from the Egyptians. God gives him the power to inflict plagues upon the Egyptians. He then leads his people on the great exodus across the desert to the Red Sea. God gives him the power to part the sea so the Jewish people can cross. Phaorah orders his army to go after the Jews across the parted Red Sea but God had the sea 'return to normal' so the army drowns.Make no mistake, this film was a major production in its day and very high budget for its time. Demille uses very elaborate sets for this production. The exterior wall of the great Egyptian city is just like the one used in the 1956 version. Many extras were used in the making of this film. During the great exodus, there appears to be people for as far as the eye can see. You can see this great line of people spread out across the desert. Camels were seen during the exodus but as it turns out, camels were not in the middle east during that time period. The parting of the Red Sea in the 1956 version was considered an amazing special effect for its time. I was very curious as to how they would be able to pull this off in 1923! I was quite amazed!! The special effects used for the parting of the sea is just as good as the 56 perhaps better. One thing I really like about the special effects of this film is the wall of fire that Moses creates to keep the Egyptian army at bay. In the 56 version animation was used for the fire. In this version real fire was used using a double exposure technique that I thought was more impressive. Mr Demille was very loyal to his actors. He would use many of the same actors in a number of his films. The women who plays the part of pharaoh's wife and the boy that played his son are both involved in the 56 version as well as the film editor.The film switches gears totally for the second half. We are now in modern times. It starts with a mother reading passages from the book of Exodus to her two sons. All the drama from the first half was simply her reading being acted out. The rest of the film is a morality tale between two sons. The mother and one son are deeply religious while the other son is a nonbeliever. He makes fun of his brother's silly beliefs so the mother kicks him out of the house for being a heathen. The believing son lives a modest life while the unbelieving son becomes very wealthy. He even gets the women they both like! He becomes a wealthy contractor employing his brother as a worker. However, the unbelieving brother's life will be filed with misfortune eventually leading to his death. The twist in the second half of the film makes for a interesting viewing experience. I like the contrast between ancient and modern times. Katherine Orrison in her commentary states that the modern sequence will probably seem more dated to the average viewer. I tend to agree. It is interesting to see how people lived and dressed during those times. The modern sequence is filmed mostly on location in San Francisco. It is cool to see how San Fran looked back then. The generation gap between the mother and her sons is very evident. This was the roaring 20's! Katherine Orrison gives an insightful commentary on both films but see seems to have a special fondness for this one. I can understand why.