That was an excellent one.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

This was evidently made to go more into details about the Moses case than was possible in "The Ten Commandments" of 1956, which remains the best Moses film. For this version Anthony Burgess among other writers were consulted to make deeper research into the problems, which results in a much more interesting and controversial picture of Moses with his more debatable sides and complexities such as his cruelty and intolerance. We did not see much of Aaron in "The Ten Commandments" while he is here lifted forth to great advantage, convincingly played by Anthony Quayle, showing both his merits and weaknesses. After all, Burt Lancaster gives a sympathetic interpretation of Moses, which completes the efforts of Charlton Heston, who was only convincing and interesting as the prince and fugitive from Egypt. Best, however, is Laurent Terzieff as Pharaoh Mernephta, who is presented as a very conciliatory and human ruler placed in a very delicate and tough spot, - although he is historically entirely wrong. Mernephtah succeeded Ramses II at 66 years of age and did not rule very long, while he is here presented as a very delicate young man. It is more probable that Ramses was the pharaoh who had to deal with Moses, but that's the only flaw of the film, to which Ennio Morricone had great pains in making suitable music. The Red Sea sequence is as always the highlight of the drama, no film can fail in making that a great spectacle, and here is even included Miriam's celebrations afterward, which adds to the films many deserts.

I had high hopes when I bought this. Who knows, Burt Lancaster is not just any actor. But oh, was I wrong. Even though you have to consider the time (1974) when there were no blue screen and visual effects departments like in these days, the editor did a bad job. Beside that there more flaws. Simple things like 2 different baby's Moses... and the biggest question: where did the director get the story from? You don't have to believe in the Bible to watch this movie, but even then, the whole movie is based on things that are pure imagination of the director but have nothing to do with any of the biblical stories, or even Jewish tradition. It was a huge disappointment, and I advise everyone if they want to see a good movie, and closer to reality, to watch the movie classic the Ten Commandments.

It is completely erroneous (and useless) to try grouping together films totally unrelated like the big—budget Antiquity themed Hollywoodian movies, the Italian muscle-men flicks of the '50—'60s, the various epics, the swashbucklers, the exotic movies about non—European civilizations, history, fantasy, myth, literature and adventure, legends and plays, the religious or religion—themed films, Gibson's movies, the Italian TV Biblical biopics, Ivanhoe, adaptations, historical films, fantasy and mythological productions, Middle Ages outings—in a word, every movie set before the last century, under the pretext that they have something in common. Nothing links them; they are unrelated—Gibson's films, SPARTACUS, BEN—HUR, IVANHOE, the many Maciste/ Hercules/ Samson etc. Italian flicks, BLACK ROBE, MONTE CRISTO, etc.. This is not even eclecticism—it is chaos.This Lancaster epic is a transitional movie—between the big—budgeted blockbusters of the '50s—'60s,and the small decent honest TV Biblical stories of the '90s. The film is not very inspired, nor very appealing; its main merit is the cast. Lancaster performs in a conventional Hollywoodian way the disconcerting and enigmatic Old Testament prophet. Another epic from the same transitional period is MASSADA, which boasts O'Toole's high voltage, decadent, picturesque role. MOSES looks and feels more like the '60s epics. One quality is the feel of the tepid tiring crossing of the desert, the tough experience of dwelling for decades in the wilderness. Quayle also reminds the '60s epic blockbusters. Mrs. Papas is reliable as ever. The atmosphere is not the lesser accomplishment of MOSES. The probably ugly experience of the desert's crossing, after the initial exultation of the glorious escape, is well captured and rendered. In this respect, it's a resolute depart from the previous epics' habits. It's not triumphal in what it depicts; it shares the feel of its subject. The Hollywoodian conception behind all such epics (this one is a TV production, nevertheless ) is objectionable; yet the movies remain interesting and worth--wile.In sum,this is the exodus as seen from below, from the common people involved in the exodus POW.Recommended.

This earthy and realistic film is an excellent piece of Biblical History. It is true to the story in the Bible and is very engaging. Anyone that loves the Bible or just a historical piece will appreciate the effort that went into this. Burt Lancaster's son Bill plays the young Moses and does a brilliant job! Burt, of course, picks up where his son leaves off and gives a great performance. When you watch the actors in the scenes of the desert you can feel the heat and sweat. The earthy tones in the film give it a distinct character. The narrator does an excellent job while not interfering with the story itself. The lavish scenery gives the viewer a feast to behold.