Watch The Ten Commandments For Free

Great Film overall

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This nine decade-old picture still remains a great surprise. Seemingly inferior to its glamorous remake, today, it occurs to have stood a test of time. But what comes to mind first is not the entire movie but its renowned prologue, screenwriter Jeanie MacPherson's initial idea, the action of which is set more than 3,000 years ago when Children of Israel were led to freedom from bondage of false masters: a unique answer to human cry for a better world. Made at the time when epics saw their beginnings and not being able to echo any earlier productions (except for only few made in Italy or D.W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE), Cecil B DeMille's silent TEN COMMANDMENTS was a highly new, fresh screen experience. When the iconic screen Moses, Charlton Heston, was born, Theodore Roberts (as Chris Scott Edwards described him "wild-eyed, ferocious and unkempt") embodied the prophet for the first time in cinema and for the first time under DeMille. And, unlike the 'greater than life' overlong 1956 remake which could have been titled MOSES' PHASES OF LIFE depicting a prince, an exile, a deliverer, the lawgiver, this 1923 version is, actually, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS because of its two parts where not 'laws' but 'the Law,' as DeMille referred to it, is truly at the core of its broadest appeal. Moreover, due to the context it emerged from (post-Great War period with Hollywood incidents like Fatty Arbuckle scandal mentioned by Katherine Orrison), there was a need for a moral message through the medium. Therefore, at the dawn of cinema, Paramount was lucky to 'promote' the Decalogue and release a skillful combination of the Bible as its source, DeMille as its deliverer and the roaring twenties as its initial addressee. Since The Exodus and the modern part can be treated as two separate films differently seen, let me divide my review in a similar fashion.EXODUS. Lauded as "quite the landmark of the director" (Sean Axmaker, 2011); amazing with "their sheer weirdness and scale" filled with "Vegas-feel to this sermon" (C.S Edwards); "DeMille's ultra drama of the ages" (Kyle Westphal), it is not hard to agree with all the 'praise the work' opinions. Everything is spectacular about it, including 500 carpenters, 400 painters, 600 chariots and its silent nature provides the movie with additional mystery. Because of its considerably short length, it clearly corresponds to the intentions herein incorporated. Great matte system by the technical director Roy Pomeroy, marvelous City of Rameses (DeMille's Lost City rediscovered years later by Peter Brosnan), some interesting details and the cast, including Estelle Taylor as Miriam, Charles de Rochefort as Rameses, Julia Faye as Pharao's wife (prototype of Nefretiri's character), Theodore Roberts as Moses, of course, and hundreds of extras of Jewish ancestry. Although the filming locations were less authentic than in the remake (though still a 'location', no 'vacation' as Rita Kissin memorably recalls), the extras, authentically stun us including 250 Orthodox Jews from Los Angeles who really experienced deep personal contribution to the film. The Camp DeMille became their 'tent' while they could truly identify with their ancestors, renewing their identity, holding the banners with the Star of David with eyes filled with sand, perhaps, but hearts with praise and joy. DeMille himself, whose mother Beatrice was Jewish, stated about these extras that "they give the best possible performance as the Children of Israel." No accent was of any significance but just their looks and hearts set in the story. Leatrice Joy, who was also among the extras observed that "they were living the time." And what remains in today's viewers' memories after viewing the Exodus? Every minute seems precious from the very first image of the Sphynx, the colossal City of Rameses, the hauntingly effective organ score by Gaylord Carter, the grandiose images of the pharaoh and his court, the Passover night, 600 chariots, the Red Sea sequence, the pillar of fire to the Mount Sinai sequence and the scenes with Golden Calf (Marshall). With the tablets of the Law and Miriam, Moses' sister uttering "I have worshiped idols and become a leper" our attention is drawn onto the roaring twenties when sin and righteousness clashed powerfully...MODERN STORY touched by 'defiance' and 'redemption' – a pure product of generation clash in the roaring twenties is a debatable part. Inspired by F.C. Nelson's phrasing "You cannot break the Ten Commandments - they will break you," it appears to be a solid 'modern' parallel to the universalism of those commandments. And here, it all depends on audiences and rightly so. What if they don't agree? Just ignoring the philosophical dilemma, let me address the cinematic one and state: unlike the Exodus, the part requires a viewer to be accustomed to silent cinema, its style, methods and conventions. Here, the opinions differ and tend to be critical of the entire achievement. "Dated" (Marshall Weiss); "split identity production" (Axmaker); "a series of disastrous plot turns" (Hal Erikson)... Among the critics was Mae Tinee of Chicago Tribune. Mr DeMille, in his defense, memorably observed the destruction caused by 'mental and emotional Red Sea.' Actually, I agree with him. As the brothers may occur clichéd, the part includes some stunning cinematography, lavish decor, great images of San Francisco and, foremost, noteworthy performances. 'Villains are more memorable' corresponds with the character of Dan (Rod LaRocque)- 'one emblematic modern man who violates all ten commandments' (Westphal). Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy) parallels to Miriam, Nita Naldi is the fire incarnate VAMPire while Martha McTavish represents the old generation, the reminder of the covenant's timelessness. In the death scene, she clearly makes her own Exodus from the Old Testamental 'law' to the New Testamental 'Love' and DeMille makes his point most powerfully. In the final biblical reference, the divided becomes united in order to lead all to the light. With Christ as the new Passover of humanity, DeMille brings the movie to a jubilant Christian conclusion and a radiant renewing experience of risen human being.

The first version of 'The Ten Commandments' is two films in one, really, and within its two hour running time you can see hints and ideas which were taken forward by other filmmakers in later years; not just DeMille referencing himself with the parting of the Red Sea in his 1950s remake, but in The Fountainhead (referencing the shot with the lift going up the side of the cathedral), Psycho (Nina Naldi pulling the curtain off the rail as she falls), and Sunset Boulevard (Naldi again, hands like claws as she extracts herself from the sack of jute in which she smuggled herself).The story is fairly simple - most of the first hour is the standard Moses and let my people go tale from Exodus in the Old Testament, well developed and shot with some great special effects (the aforementioned parting of the sea). The rest of the film is modern moral - Edythe Chapman, a god-fearing old lady, has two sons - Danny (Rod La Rocque)and John (Richard Dix). Danny doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments and considers them outmoded and a barrier to success. When Mary (Leatrice Joy) comes into their lives, she causes problems between the brothers and unwittingly sets Danny on a path which leads him to slowly break one Commandments after another.As this is a moral story, it does get a little preachy in places, but in the context of the time it was made that was probably expected. It is a spectacle and an epic of sorts, although not as much as its remake - it is actually a simple but effective film, which although a little creaky and not boasting the most subtle performances, still stands up to viewing today, and makes a fascinating comparison to Charlton Heston's Moses years later.

Isaw both versions of Ten Commandments on a special DVC, so I suppose one would call it Tenty Commandments.I also watched the commentary for both films. The poem on the page where Mary Leigh writes Good Bye near the end of the prologues is the poem Helas by Oscar Wilde. The narrator of the commentary did not know this, so I feel that I have staged something of a coup. It does not look like the place in the book where Mary pressed the orange blossoms, she takes them out then flips a few pages before writing.The narrator also compared the rock where Danny wrecks his boat to Mount Sainai, but it looks more to me like the rock at the edge of the Red Sea, the Israelites destination, and figuratively the Rock on which Pharao crashed. The Orthodox Monastary of Saint Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai is called a Greek ORTHODOX monastery in some of the commentary on the 1956 film. The Orthodox Church of Sainai is an independent Orthodoc Church, it is the Church of Sinai, so the monastery is a Sinai Orthjodox monastery. It is a common misnomer to call any Orthodox Church the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox Church is the Church of Greece only, other countries have their own Orthodox Churches.

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.