I've been waiting for this ever since your top 11 underrated nostalgic classics.

Woohoo, new old vs new... man these never cease to slay me! :) and thank goodness the poster above me wasn't uttering the dreaded "F-Word".

i have to say i find this to be the most interesting of all the old vs.new,i love the prince of egypt and the ten commandments. I say this because in my opinion neither makes me feel like i'm being preached at.

its wierd for me to watch the NC doing an actual review of a great movie
i prefer him just kicking the crap out of bad movies and making jokes

I couldn't agree more with this review. I remember when I first saw The Ten Commandments. I was still little and my dad was watching it for the millionth time! the first time I saw it I fell in love with it! Though when God popped out I kinda got terrified. haha

and when I saw the Prince of Egypt I ended up loving it more. when God spoke to Mosses I thought thats how he should of sounded, with love and warmth, I felt the love of God and i almost cried, and the suffering between the King of Egypt and Mosses made it even better. You could tell they loved eachother but it was like if they had no choice to do what they had to do. and when his son dies you see how angry depressed and lost he felt. that movie was trully my favirote

Great review NC you did Great work with this review. IMO your best Old. V. New.


KEEP IT UP DOUG!!!!!

why does god at the end sound like the hummell figurine from ask that guy with the glasses?

But what about the plagues? Shouldn't those have been a criteria?
Still great review.

Hmm, a movie based on a touchy subject with over the top acting & a boring subject matter or a Pixar cartoon where most of the potential offenciveness is pasteurized & the Egyptians are rightfully noncaucasian. I'll take Prince of Per...I mean Egypt & the box of Honeycomb. I'll even go so far as to say that Vincent Price is the 10 Commandments only saving grace. ::dodges flying trash::

Prince of Egypt isn't Pixar, it's Dreamworks. He even says that right in the beginning.

The Jack Skelington musical brought the critic out of his funk, son.

Oh, I see. I guess I was expecting a really horrible movie to be reviewed, cough Eragon, thus giving the Nostalgia Critic a reason to, cough Eragon, resume his role and be contented, cough Eragon, to review movies for the rest of forever.

Another thing; in my last comment; I wasn't criticizing the Nostalgia Critic; I said this segment was well done. I just thought he was going to continue the idea from the last video. That is all.

Or maybe everyone was just voting my comment down because I forgot the whole Jack Skellington song segment. Wow, I'm stupid.

"Oh, I see. I guess I was expecting a really horrible movie to be reviewed, cough Eragon, thus giving the Nostalgia Critic a reason to, cough Eragon, resume his role and be contented, cough Eragon, to review movies for the rest of forever."

>.> BaltoStephenWinter...I don't know how much I'm reading into your post there, but...you *do* know Eragon was done in the 2000's and not considered Nostaligic, right? He's not going to review Eragon. Sorry. ^^;

He makes the occasional exception.

i agree Eragon was made in 2006, if that is nostalgic then so is xbox 360 since it was out at that time.
i guess if you're 12 now everything feels nostalgic to you or you do not know the meaning of the word.

*cough* i think it's because you have the attention span of a sparrow which makes you miss information and obviously entire songs from videos *cough*

Power to Mel Brooks in the title card of this vid!
"Lord, I shall give these laws unto thy people. Hear Me! Oh Hear Me! All pay head! The Lord Jehovah has given unto you these 15 *crash*....oy, 10! 10 Commandments! For all to obey!"

I just died laughing! Mel Brooks wins. NC should review a Mel Brooks film.

This was your best Old vs. New yet, NC, and definitely your funniest. The Popeye joke and the “One Moses To Live” joke were my personal favorites. As always, your analysis was spot on and great to listen to.

As a Pixar fan, Dreamworks has a nebulous standing for me. Looking back at their full output since their first movie “Antz” (The first of several Pixar rip-offs), only about 1/3 have been truly excellent; but hey, 7 fantastic movies is almost as good as Pixar’s 10. The Prince Of Egypt is probably my favorite. This movie blew my mind as a kid, and it scared my little sister half to death; reactions like that are usually reserved for Disney movies. I wonder if it’s a coincidence then that several members of the creative team were people who jumped ship from Disney with Jeffrey Katzenberg…

Nope, definitely not a coincidence.

Seconded - I'll add that this is the first Old v New that I didn't immediately know which one NC was going to pick.

The Prince of Egypt is one of the few movies I really connected with as a kid, and all of the reasons for it are enumerated here. Though I think I'm going to have to re-watch the Ten Commandments now, just so I can see what you're talking about.

EDIT: And I believe that, in the original story, the Priests actually DO have powers, but they're not godly, so you're meant to assume that they're evil in nature. The Prince of Egypt's portrayal of the two as charlatans has always bothered me, because it avoids that particular aspect. But hey, this is the kind of story that will never stop being told - maybe the next interpretation will be even better than these two.

Actually, I was gonna point this out as well. The original priests DID have powers, and in the Bible itself, it lent to the strength of Moses' God over Egypt's God by having Moses'... err... snake-staff... eat the other two's snake... staves.

And no. There is NO way to say that without sounding dirty.

"8 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron. 9 He said, "Pharaoh will say to you, 'Do a miracle.' When he does, speak to Aaron. Tell him, 'Take your wooden staff and throw it down in front of Pharaoh.' It will turn into a snake."

10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh. They did exactly as the Lord had commanded them. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials. It turned into a snake.

11 Then Pharaoh sent for wise men and those who do evil magic. By doing their magic tricks, the Egyptian magicians did the same things Aaron had done. 12 Each one threw his staff down. Each staff turned into a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed theirs up."

Though still an amazing review, and comparing two such amazing films must have been QUITE the chore!

I am quite impressed that even though it has been quite a chore, Doug has done all of it well. :) He does his job greatly!

As a preacher's kid, I was paying close attention to see if the Critic had any new errors to exploit here, so I'm happy to see that someone's done their homework for me in this case. Yes, the Egyptian priests also worked miracles, though God's strength over the demons they worshiped was shown throughout.

Now, as for God's personality of wrathful versus loving... Eh, personally, I've come to the belief that he's downright crazy and changes as it suits him, but who am I to say?

As I understand it, God doesn't so much change his modus operandi, it's just a matter of what gets through to people. Back then, people needed great signs to show them power. Nowadays, we're much more receptive to a loving God.

God is a Tsundere, great now I can't get it out of my head,

Ah yes, both movies seem to avoid Aaron's various miraculary.
He had such a nice Iolaus-in-the-Labours-of- Hercules quality to him in the Good Book.

That isnt the first thing they released that was their first CG movie in my opinion Dreamworks problem is that they take the throw enough mud at a wall and sees what sticks method of telling jokes. They are far and away much better at writing drama then comedy and all of their dramatic movies have been great.

Now this is an Old VS New I've eagerly been awaiting ever since it was announced. And when it was delayed I was disappointed. But watching it now, it was totally worth the wait.

Back when I was living in the US, ever religious holiday that isn't Christmas would play 10 Commandments, and it's a movie I never got tired of watching, it's a freaking classic. Prince of Egypt I watched a couple of times, and I did enjoy it to an extent.

It's interesting to see where the comparisons are drawn and which one is the better retelling of the Exodus. All in all, your choice in the ultimately better story was a good one.

A missed opportunity for a joke IMO is Yul Brynner's "Moses! Moses! Moses! I think he shall have been a fool!" from The King and I. A bit hilarious in hindsight, actually.

Don't forget some sort of "Moses supposes his toeses are roses" reference. Though I don't know where it would fit...

When he sticks out his foot during the silent scene perhaps?

Things sure have changed, eh? A station airing the 10 Commandments now would get attacked by the Political Correctness Police!

*checks the Christmas TV listings from the last 50 years or so*

Nah, not exactly.

Which is actually really stupid they should play this movie during passover seeing as the ten commandments has far more to do with the history of that holiday then it ever will with christmas.

10 Commandments is played on at least 3 major networks EVERY year around Easter/Passover.

I agree with the kinder God, rather than the "ARG! Do as I command or YOU WILL ALL SUFFER!" Really, what's the difference between that and the Devil with an attitude like that?

I loved how honest you were with the compareisons.

Sorry but that's what god is on the bible. Does god that kill's everyone else than Noah family sound's like a loving god? I dont really think so.

And by the way the Devil actually wasen't that bad of a person before he was casted away from heaven. It's pretty much that he didin't want to be god's slave so he decided to fight against god.

Old testament is full of violence caused by god really.

-Atheist

You do make some good points and some not so, but let's not get into that.

Let's just say from the Moses story point of view and not the whole bible that the kinder God is more appealing to an audiance rather than a vengeful one.

Of course it's more appealing to audience but you were talking like the animated film's god is the god in the bible and that's definitely not how it goes.

It's just like Doug said: "It depends on peoples' point of view."

I was stating my view and personal beliefs rather than the bible, just like you are for yours. :)

So, ya looking forward to any of Doug's next reviews? :D

:D

I'm pretty much looking forward any of his work because he almost always get good stuff out of the film's. It dosen't really matter if the film has nostalgia value for me or not not.

Though i'm particularly looking forward the waterworld review.

Water World! My dad took my sister, brother and I to it back in ‘95 ‘cuz he really wanted to see it. I don’t remember too much about it; the only thing I really remember is the girl with the stupid tattoo and how she stared into the distance all the time and how really stupid the ‘bad’ eye looked on the one guy...I was 9 when I saw it last. But what I do remember is that my dad was PISSED at the end and fumed about it all the way home.

He never had been mad at the theater before and the last time he was angry was when they started to play those stinkin’ commercials in the theater! ARG!

Oh, boy that review should be fun! The one I’m looking forward to is the Thief and the Cobbler, because I actually really like that movie, but I’m looking forward at laughing at it as well!

The word "Waterworld" leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Great OvN, Doug! I always found the conflict between Moses and Rameses to be one of the greatest conflicts in cinema.

And whether you're the type to see the glass half-full or half-empty.

It depends on who your God is.

Lucifer was once the most beautiful angel in Heaven, the "Morning Star." However, his position filled him with great pride and he wanted to be above God. In fact he believed he was higher than God. Therefore he wanted to overthrow his Lord. Lucifer was cast out of Heaven and took with him followers (demons). Now understand that Lucifer is not in Hell, but on Earth tempting mankind into sin along with his demons and has been doing this since the beginning. He tempted Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, causing them to sin and introducing the knowledge of Good & Evil into the world. According to the Christian faith when the final day comes, Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire. Peace.

Read Ezekiel 28:11-19 (The passage talks about Lucifer as he once was). Also don't bother with the KJV. Read the NIV or ESV Bible versions instead for an exact translation.

PS-I look forward to the Waterworld review as well.

There are many interpretations of the Lucifer story, and sometimes they all find a way to make sense. I feel like they've warped my fragile little mind.

Good thing I'm Agnostic. Yet, I've always wondered why my dad's divorce lawyer was such a prick.

The more you know...

That passage was about the King of Tyre. Not Satan.
"Lucifer" as the name of a fallen angel appears nowhere in the Bible. A fallen man, yes.

"the Devil actually wasen't that bad of a person before he was casted away from heaven. It's pretty much that he didin't want to be god's slave so he decided to fight against god."

And your proof text is what?

God is both loving and vengeful. We deserve punishment but God has provided, through His Grace, a means of forgiveness.

The following is not preaching but proof text. If you don't like it, that's OK. I don't like your Atheism either but I don't try to censor your speech.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth...For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Romans 1:18,21; 2:1-3; 3:21-26

Except that it isn't "proof text". Because you first make the assumption that the Bible is truly the word of God. quoting the bible is preaching.

No,no,no. "Proof Text" when referring to Biblical Hermeneutics, is when you make a scriptural claim (or a claim on a persona or event that appears in Scripture) and can point to a specific passage which justifies it.

In this case, Winkuru has no "proof text" on that statement because it doesn't come from Scripture, Rabbinical Literature , or anything of that nature. He is basing it on Milton's Lucifer character from "Paradise Lost".

Not even close. Satan decided one day that he wanted to be God, so he tried to take God's throne, thus sparking the war in Heaven. God was having none of that, so he cast Satan and all of his followers out of Heaven. Not into Hell mind you, but out of Heaven.

That's kind of closeer. In the various apocrypha stories and modern tales, Satan is cast out because he refuses to be subservient to a lesser and newer creation (either Man or Jesus depending on the story), or because he thought it was unfair that Man has free will but angels do not, as in Paradise Lost. Other stories are because he simply disagreed with God's plan for Man's salvation.
Satan comes from ha-satan which means adversary, obstacle or (most often) Prosecutor (thus also signifying God as the ultimate Judge). Anytime ha-satan is used in the Old Testament, it is a title, not a name, given to an angel acting on God's behalf to test Mankind.
The story about lucifer attempting to take the throne of heaven for himself is a mythological metaphor for the planet Venus, the Morning Star (which is what lucifer means) which rises in the morning and ascends in the sky but begins to descend again as the sun comes up. This myth was popular among the Canaanites and Babylonians for centuries before the Hebrews returned to the area, which is why it was used in the book of Isaiah to mock the fallen Babylonian king and later in Ezekial to mock the king of Tyre. The Devil, as an enemy of God, does not appear within the modern canonical Bible until Revelations where the Dragon that Michael WILL fight (in the future)is referred to as the serpent of old.
Of course, we could discuss that in more depth too because nowhere else in the bible does it say the serpent was evil and the serpent has been a symbol of hidden knowledge in various cultures all over the world since the beginning of time.

A few things, Winkuru...

1. Genesis is written in parabolic language to teach lessons (as such the examples are very black and white and extreme). So you are kinda missing the point on the Noah score.

2. That story is from Milton's "Paradise Lost". In reality, the figure of the Devil is far different from that in actual Judeo-Christian theology. In fact, the two belief systems have radically different views on the subject (no surprise). In Judaism, the Devil is a representation of Natural Evil, a manifestation of the cruelties of a fallen world. In Christianity, the Devil is an entity driven by jealousy and rage.

3. In the OT, God doesn't cause any violence, really. He merely responds to human wrongs in the function of a judge. For every action there is a consequence. So it would be more accurate to say that humans cause violence.

As such your statement is incorrect.

Yes but part of making an adaption is adapting it to modern standards the modern standard is a loving god.

Its all for a good cause though. Were you expecting the Bible to be the Care Bears with no pictures? A whole lot of crazy shit happens in both the Old and New testaments, but God never causes absolute senseless violence. I would go into more depth and detail, but I really don't want to get caught up in an internet war.

"I would go into more depth and detail, but I really don't want to get caught up in an internet war."

Agreed.

cause an atheist would know the most. Aside from Satan changing with not even starting as an angel, he always disliked mankind.

In otherwords, not much is known so how would you be the one who knows? Satan was something that changed, sometimes existing before man, sometimes it was a title, a metaphorical thing. Sometimes it was whatever was against God. Lucifer isn't always Satan, Satan isn't always the devil.

If things weren't clear enough for you, the mentions of lucifer being cast out aren't even clear. him being an okay guy is totally your speculation. And what his efforts were are open to interpretation.

That Winkuru is an ignorant fool to say such things. The devils name was originally Lucifer which means "Morning Star" He was GOD's Second in command and most cherished and respected angel in Heaven. Then he decided he wanted to take GODs place,because he thought he could do a better job than the all knowing,all powerful GOD who created him,NOT decide to not be his slave.GOD gives us all free will to do whatever we chose to do. GOD knew what he was going to do but did nothing and gave him a chance to change his mind,but he didn't. Lucifer is the source or every type of Greed and evil in this world and man is a selfish, megalomaniacal creature who thinks that its better than every other creature in the universe,including GOD himself,and has caused the worst violence in the history of this planet. You will be judged weather you believe in GOD or not so get ready! Try reading the bible and research before you spit out trash about my GOD like that again!

Also GOD is a loving GOD yes,but he just cant let evil things happen all the time and not do anything about it. SO He is both a loving and vengeful GOD. HE has to be for there to be order out of chaos. It does seem like evil reigns in this world but think about that for a minute? If evil is so prevalent then why isn't this entire world in darkness? Why isn't every single person on the planet going through hell and high-water?Moreover,how can there be happiness and joy if evil controls the entire world? Because GOD keeps it at bay. Granted things are getting worse,but its all a part of the plan. One day there will be no more evil and GOD will Reign right here on earth. And that whole thing about,"well Good cant exist without evil and evil cant exist without good",is a load of crap. Plain and simple GOD is gonna come and destroy all evil forever and there will be peace for all-time. That concept bothers alot of people because they want and even need drama and evil in their lives! Why?? I cannot say....

True, God possess supreme compassion and is by nature a loving God, but He can also be wrathful, and we see that mostly through the plagues He strikes Egypt with. What they left out in Prince of Egypt is when the Hebrews make the golden calf which is another point God puts His foot down and gets smite-y. I suppose to put it as simply as it can be put, He's like a parent; a parent loves their children, but when they do bad things the parents ground the kids. It's just that, if you break God's rules, a punishment can be anything from boils to an eternal time out. Isn't that right, Critic? XD Anyway, epic review, I love both movies. I reckon it's time to review Exodus.

Nice review as always. Though im just waiting till after january, review Small Soldiers, that movie totally needs to be reviewed hardcore XD

My mind has convinced me that I like Small Soldiers... but then again, my mind also convinced me that Thumbelina was the saddest movie of all time.

That depends on your definition of "sad."

Do you mean "sad" as in the movie's story evoked sadness, or "sad" as in the movie was pathetic?

OMG! You have made an Old vs New, finally!"
AND WITH MY FAVORITE FILM!!!
THANK YOU DUDE!

I am actually kind of surprised by the final result but not in a bad way. :)

Great video Doug! :D

I thought Doug's God impression sounded a bit more like Satan.

Well according to the old testament... god can act as either... consider these things... in the course of freeing the jews he killed every first born. yes it was to punish the egyptians... but was it their fault? not every egyptian had slaves, and not every egyptian probably agreed with having slaves, but when the person you believe to be a god says "have slaves and like it... or die" you go with it... he also killed many troops when he flooded allowed them to be swept away when crossing that body of water that i can't remember the name of... i mean... they were just following orders! god also liked to test people by destroying their lives, then being like "oh yeah, that was a test, congratulations, you pass, now you can never go back to the happy life you once had." lets not forget destroying everyone on the planet except for one family... i mean were there really no other people worth saving? none? and then expecting that one family, and those singular pairs of animals to repopulate the entire planet? that is pretty cruel imo.

Well, let's think about the alternatives. Keep in mind, the plague of the firstborn took place at the end of the plagues, meaning that nine more had already occurred; and yet, Pharaoh still refused to let the people go. If the plague of the firstborn had not happened, the Israelites would still be building pyramids and sphynxes well into Roman times.

Also, let's keep in mind that, even if we were to presume that at least some of the Egyptians didn't agree with their policy on slavery (a point for which we have no evidence, I might add), we are also never told that a single Egyptian ever stood up to protect them. Moses' example is the only case we are given in which someone actually did try to stop the oppression of the Egyptians, and he did so because he was a Hebrew himself (despite the movies portraying him as believing he was Egyptian - that was just poetic license on their part). Allowing oppression and cruelty to be inflicted on another without offering a defense is just as bad as inflicting that cruelty. Passive oppression is just as wrong as active oppression.

And the alternative to having the Egyptian army destroyed in the Red Sea would have been to let them overtake the Israelites and slaughter them. So much for rescuing His people from oppression. And keep in mind, even if they were just obeying orders, they did obey them and would have killed the Israelites if given the chance. Had they been righteous soldiers, they would have recognized that attacking unarmed people violated every notion of military justice that has ever existed. We hold our soldiers accountable if they act immorally, even if ordered to do so by their superiors, and in the same way, the Lord YHWH held them accountable for attempting to murder His people, even if they were "just obeying orders." Besides, as soldiers, their lot in life was to die for Pharaoh. And that's exactly what they did.

And the tests of which you speak, I seem to recall that it was not God Himself who did the inflicting in those cases. And the only case of which I am aware that any explanation is offered is essentially a poem anyway. But to paraphrase the Lord's own words spoken in the last few chapters that poem, "I am the Creator, and you're the creature. I'm in control, and you're not. I know what I'm doing, and you don't."

And I see you touch on the "scandal of particularity", the point that God selects certain ones to be saved, and not others. In the case of Noah, if you'll go back and read the texts, it was because the entire earth had become so corrupted and wicked that it really was the case that only one family was worth saving. The rest, because of their wickedness and cruelty, deserved death. But that's just it; with our modern human sensibilities, we don't like to think in terms of anyone deserving death.

"1.Just giving quick note that the story i'm referring ain't in the classic bible but it's not a poem either. Actually for example it seems the story has actually included on Koran. This version of the devil story in my opinion give's far better portrayal of god that fit's as creator of this world."

Wrong on all counts.

The story you referred to is English Literature,it is not in any religious text (Koran or Bible). Furthermore, the meaning of "Paradise Lost" was not that the Devil was a hero, but rather that he represented human selfishness and a lust for power. Of course, given your absolutely abysmal understanding of Lit, Scripture and ANE Culture, it is no surprise that you didn't know that and that that your judgment of God is completely off the rails as a result.


"Just to quick respond Quineapig too. It's pretty drastic that the god doesn't have any other way's to guide the mankind other than killing us all. It's not like the whole thing actually even worked if taken literally (looking at people that habit the current world) "

What part of "it's a parable" don't you get? The purpose of a parable is to teach a lesson through a hypothetical situation(the lesson in the Noah story is that even when others are doing wrong, you have to stand for your convictions). So yes, it uses an extreme example, so to judge God based on it is to miss the point entirely. But seeing as you don't know oranges about Scripture, I'm not surprised you still haven't gotten it.

"World is a cruel a place and believing in some bullying entity ain't the right way to get relief if you ask me."

No, the world is a neutral place where life comes and goes to which man brings evil. It is our choices which can bring evil or good, and it is for our choices that we are judged. God is not a bully, he simply gives us what we have coming. This is the core of all the Abrahamic religions. So it's a good thing nobody "asked" you, because as you have proven you are not only ignorant of even the most basic precepts of Scripture, but you are completely closed off to thinking differently even when you are shown you are wrong.

"Actually for example it seems the story has actually included on Koran. This version of the devil story in my opinion give's far better portrayal of god that fit's as creator of this world."

No. You are referring to two separate stories while dishonestly trying to treat them as on and the same. The first story you are referring to is a book from Milton which portrays the devil as an arrogant dick who tries to usurp the abrahamic god because the devil is a power hungry maniac.

The "Koran" story you are referring to is from arabic literature and is not a mainline islamic belief (or even featured in recognized copies of the Koran). Even then, this devil is a dick who tries to screw over humanity just because he wants to be the supreme creation.

So no, your argument has no basis in either belief system and even if it did, it actually wounds your argument further because in both cases, the devil was the dick, not the abrahamic god.

...and if YOU'D read Job you'd know that wasn't the case (IE Satan here is a representation of Natural Evil and is looked down upon by God).

But why read the literature and actually UNDERSTAND what you're yelling at when you can just throw around uneducated nonsense, right?

@kyuuketsuki YOu have to understand that GOD knows all things,that includes a persons heart and intentions. GOD did what he had to do to protect the only people on the planet that worshiped Him and served Him wholeheartedly.To protect his only children who truly believed in Him. Those men had evil intentions:to kill every person tryin to escape the Egyptians. Tell me,is that not enough to protect them? Like a father to his children,he protected them anyway he could.What would you do if the Government came to your house and tried to kill your family? What would you do?? Orders or not a person has to do what is right,not what they are told! Whats the excuse for the Nazis who followed Hilter? I was following orders to kill innocent human beings because I was told too? Give me a break! As for the whole Noah thing. The bible says that there was not one person on the entire planet who had a good heart,not one!! Only Noah and his family were the only good people n the entire planet!! Tell me,would you let evil people live in your house? GOD did what he had to do to preserve the human race,even as extreme as that seems to you,it was necessary. A great man once said,I think it was Winston Churchhill: Evil Triumphs when Good men do nothing...think about that

Sigh...

1. Not all the Egyptians were punished, if you read the Torah you'll find references to Egyptians who heard Moses warnings and took steps to follow his instructions to avoid the plagues, same as the Hebrews. In fact, amongst the Hebrews there were many Egyptians who joined them on their trek out of Egypt (essentially converting to Judaism as a result).

2. Yeah, the soldiers were following orders...TO MURDER THE JEWS IN VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT THAT PHARAOH MADE. God was simply defending his people and punishing Pharaoh for breaking his word with violence. First rule of ALL Ancient Near Eastern cultures: Breaking a contract or an oath is one of the lowest, foulest, and most dishonorable things you could do.

3. God never destroyed anyone to test them. If you are referring to Job, that was a parable (an aesop, a morality play, a hypothetical situation, get it yet?) designed to teach a point about Natural Evil (bad things that happen as a result of human evils or natural disasters and which are part of the life of any ecosystem). Even in the context of the parable, God didn't do anything. "Satan" (the representation of Natural Evil) did it. In other words, it was a result of bad things just happening (bandits, storms, and disease) that God didn't influence. So not only have you missed the point of the parable, but also blamed the wrong party.

4. Noah was another parable about standing up for one's convictions even when everyone else is doing wrong (because you will be judged on your own merits and you can't blame others in Semitic Theology). So you've once again missed the point.

Look, crack open the Bible (or your Torah guide) and actually try to understand what you are ranting about (For you, I recommend "Studying the Torah: A Guide to in-Depth Interpretation"). That way you won't make a fool of yourself next time.

Man i remember the prince of egypt, the visuals were amazing. I believe Kilmer's character the 'every man' is better, much more realistic and likeable to me.

Prince of Egypt has always been one of my favorites and I'd have to agree with you on Moses. It was the only point NC made that I couldn't quite agree with. The entire point of Moses in the Bible was that he was in fact, just a regular person and the everyman. He didn't possess any great speaking abilities, he actually had a speaking impediment. He wasn't a natural leader and the Prince of Egypt did a better job of portraying his reaction to God calling on him. Making Moses out to be an awesome guy straight from the start takes away from the story, because it takes away the chance for development. I don't remember viewing The Ten Commandments myself, so I can't go into if that was entirely true with the movie, but given what I've been shown of it by NC, that's the conclusion I can currently reach.

This was an awesome old v. new. I liked it especially because it had a lot of new jokes and ideas, but incorporated some older stuff (like God's voice) in there too. It was thought provoking yet hilarious and an all around good vid :) THE NC IS BACK WITH A VENGEANCE!....though with an angry God on his ass....hrm well we can't have everything.

Good job

I just got done watching this through Blip TV. Nice job, Critic! :D

i sow both and i like The Prince of Egypt more :P

Are you saying that because you thought it was good or because Time Magazine/the AFI told you it was good?

Doug agrees on that point but liking one thing more because "its a classic" is one of the most annoying biases ever. Just because on is older it is not better!

yay, thought you might have taken a break this week! :)

great job, been waitin for this

I AM THE VENGEFUL GOD.

aww man, I was hoping your ass would actually turn into grass

It seems like you gave the point to Prince of Egypt for having Ramses as more of a realistic, complex, and human character, but did not give the point to Prince of Egypt for having Moses as being more realistic and human...Correct me if I'm wrong about that

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I think the deal breaker was the relationship between the characters as brothers, which was anchored more by Ramses in The Prince of Egypt. If there was better acknowlegement of that in The Ten Commandments, I'm sure it would have been given the point.

Well I think it's because Heston has a more commanding presence than Kilmer.

I think what he meant was that Heston comes across as a more heroic character.

Frankly, I do tend to like the Kilmer performance better. I like that he does develop as a character, just as Rameses does. Neither man is who he is at the start, and they both grow into their respective roles as hero and villain.

By contrast, just as Rameses in 10 Commandments comes across as something of a stock villain - an ahole for the sake of being an ahole - Heston comes across as something of a stock hero. He is good and kind (mostly) by nature, and wants to protect the weak and innocent, whereas Kilmer doesn't even really understand what's at stake (partly because he doesn't even know who he really is).

I haven't seen either movie in a long time, but from what I remember from Exodus, wasn't Moses actually raised by his birth mother? IF that was the case, then wouldn't he have had some idea who he really was? It would certainly explain why he would murder an Egyptian slaver to defend a Hebrew slave.

Back to my point, I do tend to appreciate how Prince of Egypt went for the drama between the two brothers. In Ten Commandments, you'd never know they were ever brothers, even when they were still brothers. I really do think that it is this drama that makes the story so heart-wrenching.

Now, of course, none of these family issues were really addressed in the texts. What's at stake there is God delivering His people from an oppressive subjugation. The texts don't even give us the sense that the two "brothers" knew each other at all. Which might have been the case - Egyptian pharaohs tended not to live very long lives, and yet Moses was in his 80s when he began his career. It is more likely he dealt with a son or grandson of an adopted sibling, rather than a brother.

Moses was raised by the Pharoah's daughter, I believe.

I watched Prince Of Egypt again not long ago, and to this day it still makes me get choked up and cry. I was raised non-religious, but that never lessened my sheer love of that movie. It has its kiddie moments, sure, but the characters are all complex and tragic and flawed in a way that you wouldn't necessarily expect from a 90s animated film.

I'll be honest, though; the death of the firstborn scene utterly traumatised me as a child. If I ever do a list of scariest moments from my childhood (and I plan to) that scene is going on there.

Amen. That and the hyroglyphic dream sequence made me almost horrified of watching the movie, despite it being tied with Toy Story for my favorite animated film. Especially since I am a firstborn son!

I can relate to that. The same scene traumatized me too, although not in Prince of Egypt (I was 11 or 12 when it came out where I live) but in Ten Commandments and actually even before that, when I first heard the story in Sunday school. I was six years old and I still remember it so well I can practically hear it and I was just terrified. It took me years before I learned not to be morbidly afraid of God.

No, the Bible is "littered" with God judging people for what they have done and giving what they have coming to them. All the while, trying to reconcile with his creations and trying to get them to act right to others and themselves. Of course, you'd know that that if you'd READ the book, but that's hoping for too much, I think.

I was seven or eight when PoE came out, so, well, you can imagine...

Happy Birthday Doug "Nostalgic Critic" Walker! Happy Birthday to you!

Oh god! "I'm going to judge God!" Clasic!

I also do like in The Prince of Egypt how God also had a female voice (although it was so quiet at some points you couldn't ever hear it.)

It's apparently the entire voice cast.
They were told to whisper God's lines and they were going to amalgamate them into a single voice so as to not offend anyone (calling God neither a male nor female)

They discovered it wasn't strong enough, so Val Kilmer, instead of whispering, simply spoke his lines to add some strength behind the whispers. I think the effect came out really well, as if the many voices coallesing formed this one strong voice.

This...was...epic! Thanks for the review! :D!!!!

Bee-atch! hehehe

I never would have thought to compare these two movies, but I agree with a lot of your assessments. Both are great films in their own way!
Oh, and thank you for pronouncing Ralph Fiennes name correctly, lol.

"I'm Popeye the sailor man!"

And speaking of Popeye, he should really do a review on that awful 'Popeye and son' show someday xD

I liked the concept of brother drama more, but i'd still give story to the original. Still had lots of lols with this vid to.

Yay~ been waiting for this review, NC! =D

Normally I don't comment but something kinda struck me as I was watching this and you were talking about how Heston was the more "extraordinary" of the two men and therefore more interesting. I agree, but at the same time, I can't help but think of the biblical account and how HUGELY different that summation is from the "really old" version here.

In Ten Commandments, Heston was an unusual, confident man. In Prince of Egypt, he was an average joe and a bit of a scamp. Either way, with his odd personality and connection to Ramses, you can see why God would use him.

In the biblical account, Moses was a very timid man. ^^; He actually had a terrible stuttering problem and had to have Aaron back him up to speak for him as he was worried he couldn't even do that in public. He didn't just argue with God at the burning bush, he bitched and moaned and had to be shown multiple miracles to even get him to consider going to Egypt.

And his brother, Ramses? Ramses was in truth, probably more of an uncle or a vaguely familiar relation to Moses...in fact I think "uncle" is about what it was. Either way, they weren't close, just moreso than the slaves would be to the pharaoh, granting Moses an audience with him.

The thing I have yet to see any adaptation of Moses' story tell the truth on is that he knew he was a slave child from birth. His birth mother was invited to the palace to nurse him and raise him for a few years, and he was never in confusion about being a "real prince of Egypt." In fact, Moses had a temper problem and killed the egyptian for that reason, as he was probably doing something slave drivers did all the time in abusing a slave. Moses always knew he had been born a slave.

Man...imagine if they made a movie out of that! @_@ It's a little less epic, don't you think? =P

Side note: that bit in PoE with Ramses seriously is some of the best character animation I've ever seen. ^_^ There was a lot of great subtlety in that movie by Hollywood standards, let alone animated film standards.

That's a fascinating story, Jesu. I admit its been a while since I read these stories, but I never knew about that side of the story. I think they want to tell a more romanticized version of the story since that may speak more to people's faith than a direct version of the story, but that is just me.

^^Thanks for that insight, JO. I think that just hilights once again that the rule of thumb for making an adaptation should be to put making a good story above making as faithful an adaptation as possible. This was Walt Disney's #1 policy, and he did a lot of adaptations. The author of the original Mary Poppins stories was really pissed about the movie, and he flat out told everyone who worked on The Jungle Book not to read the source material. It really speaks volumes that the best part of The Prince Of Egypt was that it focused on human drama that wasn't even pressent in the source material.

Of course, it's easier to get away with semi-faithfully adaptating something as old as The Bible, vs, say, Harry Potter.

@pap64 I think the goal was to speak to peoples' emotions rather than their faith. You don't have to be Jewish or Christian to empathize with the dramatic inner struggles that Rameses and Moses face in the movie.

That's true, batfan, and I agree. Thinking about it, even though God is involved and this is a Bible story, the story of Moses is definitely more about the relationship he had with his brother more than about faith (though it does play a role in the story, since it was Moses's faith that lead him to try and save his people).

Wow JO. Not only do you make kickass reviews, but kickass comments as well.

Actually, instead of "uncle", I'm thinking more along the lines of "nephew" or "cousin twice removed." Moses was pretty old when he started his career, and pharaohs tended not to live very long.

The fact that he also got 2 thumbs down on this comment is somewhat confusing.

In any case, yeah I had no idea about that story of Aaron being translator (since my name is Aaron and I have a tendency to mumble and/or talk super fast most times), so it makes me wish I was that guy instead.

And I can see Moses now, arguing with a burning bush.

I wanna make a parody out of that story, actually. Perhaps I'll pay Egoraptor to do the voices or something.

I did know about that, and I have yet to see a rendition actually make Moses a whiny guy. And not only did he bitch and moan for as long as possible with the burning bush, but that bitching and moaning got his ticket to the promised land taken away!

I gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised. I really didn't think this comparison could work, to me the two films are just too different and I didn't think one should triumph over the other. I still feel that way to a point, I mean largely as you said, a lot of it is personal preference what elements you like. I mean, one is one of the greatest epics of all time, the other is an underrated animated film. But you made your arguments very well, I know where you're coming from on this, even though they are more your opinions than analysis of quality. I generally enjoy the movies because they're entirely different stories. But I gotta say, it was worth it just to have you judge god.

So great job, I enjoyed it, but I've got my eye on you for next week.

i was kind of sad you didn't compare the visuals of the plagues, oh well

i have seen both versions, and yes.. The Prince of Egypt is the best one, OF COURSE!!"
But one thing i dont understand, i dont understand why you dont like the songs that well D8
Its the best musical in animated history.. and from non-disney movies ..

You should at least say that the music is very strong, it gives you a teary eye and your heart starts beating, and full of power..
AT LEAST GIVE IT CREDIT!"

He didn't say he didn't like them. He even called them "not half-bad" in his Top 11 list. And I agree, Prince of Egypt has my favorite songs in any movie.

There is a one word connection between Thanksgiving and the Book of Exodus: Pilgrims.

There are some really interesting stories about them. They appear all over the history books as well as sacred works. Last time I checked, the Mayflower's crew actually thought about such stories all the time while in the Americas. Some inspirations from the Law of Moses to these people formed parts of what was to become the First Amendment. Thanksgiving is just as religious as it is patriotic.