In the Beginning (TV Mini Series 2000) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Ponderous and overlong TV mini-series but definitely worth watching
ma-cortes14 September 2019
Enjoyable Biblical stories from the books of Genesis and Exodus , from creation to commandments , man's greatest journey starts here . It includes the exciting tales of Abraham , Issac , Jacob , Joseph , Moiseh , among others . Epic TV miniseries formed by two parts , packing known actors , great production design and spectacular scenes . It begins with with Abraham's devotion , well played by Martin Landau , and his long journey to the promised land . Abraham (Martin Landau) tells his tribe the history of the Genesis : covering the world creation , Garden of Eden , Adam (Ramamurthy) , Eve (Terri Seymour) , Caín, Abel , Noah , the grand universal flood and anything else . Abraham married Sarah (Jacqueline Bisset) , they will have not children , then Abraham's slave , Agar (Sara Carver) , had a son from Abraham called Ismael . Later on , a son was born from an elderly Sarah : Isaac . After that, Abraham is ordered by God to sacrifice his son Isaac . It goes with Issac (Sean Pertwee) who married Rebeccah (Rachael Stirling as Young Rebeccah and Diana Rigg as Mature Rebeccah) , they had two sons Jacob (Frederick Weller) , and Esau (Grainger) . Shortly after , Jacob posing as Esau is blessed by Isaac as his successor .

Subsequently , in the second part is treated the Bíblical story of Joseph's betrayal , who is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers . Joseph (Eddie Cibrian) is sold to Pothiphar, (Steven Berkoff) , one day is seduced by his tempting wife , (Amanda Donohue) , and Joseph is locked . In prison he prophetizes the future by interpreting dark dreams . He is called by Pharaoh Ramses I , (Christopher Lee) , and he describes the famous dreams about seven fat cows , and seven thin cows , that is why after 7 years of plenty of harvest , Egypt will suffer 7 years of starvation . Convinced Pharaoh appointed Joseph as the main chancellor . Later on , the series concerns Moses , (Bill Campbell) , leading Jews out of Egypt . He was son of a Jewish slave and abandoned on a based over river Nile , being picked up by an Egyptian princess . He becomes an Egyptian prince ; when his Hebrew origin is revealed , he flees but he returns Egypt along with his brother Aaron , (David Threlfall) , getting freedom for the Jews . Moíses faces off Pharaon Ramses II , (Art Malik) , and Happatezoah, Pharaoh's Magician (Victor Spinetti) , with the known consequences , plagues, river of blood , mosquitos , death of Egyptian children , among others . Then Pharaoh seeks vengeance ....Moiseh as liberador Jews leads his people through the sunny desert and finally climbs the Mount Sinai , bringing the Holy Tablets . Meanwhile , Jewish people worshipping the golden calf.

Professionally made Bíblical production dealing with relevant epic deeds in the Old testament . It is a luxuriously mounted and well intentioned production that gives an feeling of religious spectacle . The series was well directed by Kevin Connor . Kevin is an expert filmmaker usually for TV and ocasionally for cinema . He has shot various biography movies as Marco Polo, BlackBeard , Mary mother of Jesus, Mother Teresa and Elizabeth Taylor story . Kevin Connor made in similar style various adventure movies , such as : ¨The land that time forgot (1975)¨, ¨Warlord of Atlantis¨ (76) , and ¨The people that time forgot (77)¨.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Wonderful, if overlong, Hallmark miniseries.
vip_ebriega24 March 2009
My Take: An all-star cast and a few glorious visuals make a rather interesting TV movie.

Martin Landau as Abraham? Jacqueline Bisset as his wife Sarah? Christopher Lee in gratuitous cameo as Rameses I? Only TV's Hallmark Entertainment could make this possible. The producer back at Hallmark who might nearly have enough money to make a macho Hollywood blockbuster spend it yet again on a another 3-hour two-part miniseries meant to set ratings on fire. Well not really, but they do come up with a rather interesting and marginally entertaining TV special with an agreeable cast and a modest budget. The movie is basically a 3-hour long adaptation of the most important events of the Old Testament. From Adam and Eve (with cut-for-TV nudity), Abraham and how he became "the Father of All Nations", Joesph and his multicolored dreamcoat and the grand story of Moses and the Exodus, the movie has it all and has time to spare. It's a bit long when watched on DVD rather than the two-part miniseries on TV, but it's an adequate and actually well-crafted effort. Just don't expect it to be anything grand ala Cecil B. Demille, or at least something that would make a cinch to get ratings.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth a rental or even a purchase
joshualieder31 August 2001
I enjoyed this though I found the disclaimer at the beginning amusing. I didn't look in my Bible to see how close to the text it was but found the stories involving and the effects passable (I'm usually concerned with reverent truthful approaches to the subject matter). Dramatic license? Sure...but better than most efforts. Joseph's reunion with his father was particularly touching. Enjoy this film...I did!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
okay, but casting a problem
gbennie17 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was somewhat bemused by some of the odd casting choices in this TV film. First of all, there is a great variety in nationalities such as British, American, Indian, Pakistani etc. Getting down to character specifics, some of the cast worked and others did not.

Martin Landau was rather good as Abraham but perhaps too dominant, with anger in his voice in the opening scene. Jacqueline Bisset had a natural complexion but was too young and her grey wig was quite obvious. In this film she is supposed to be way past maternity age yet it seems surprising that in "Joan of Arc" the year before she played Joan's mother quite convincingly. Geraldine Chaplin as Yocheved might have been a better choice for Sarah, by switching their roles. Joseph looked the part but unfortunately had an American accent. As other reviews stated, I did not think Moses was done too badly apart from his prosthetic nose in the last scene. Perhaps the candidate for the worst acting was Sara Carver as Hagar, who as an African American, asked too many questions that her role did not call for. She also had a strong British accent. I was also surprised by the scene where Abraham attempts to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, where he is described as a "boy" in the Bible and not 24, Luke Mably's age.

Amongst these casting frustrations, others delivered well such as Rachel and Leah (who bore enough similarities so that they could be possibly mistaken for one another), Rebeccah and Rameses II.

The stories had to be abridged but did not need such a simple script. Sarah's line about Hagar being beautiful, in particular, was definitely not necessary.

The effects were attempted well though the snakes turned from staffs looked animated as did the thunder on top of Mount Sinai, when Moses was getting the Ten Commandments. The plagues were skipped through rather quickly with little build up to the parting of the Red Sea. The Garden of Eden looked like a set especially when Adam and Eve were being banished and running through the thunder and wind. Also, before Moses pushed it over, the golden calf looked like it was made from paper-mache.

I like the fact that this was not a Hollywood adaptation and tried to be realistic in the scenery. However, at times this film was perhaps too dull and uninteresting that I found myself fast-forwarding sections.

Do not expect great performances or special effects but this adaptation still tries to remain true to the Biblical stories.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Literary license" for motivation and character
drystyx22 November 2015
The best way to accurately give a review of this look at Genesis and the Bible, is to call it a film based on "literary license" or "poetic license" for the motivation of characters involved.

For example, when one reads Genesis, one can't find a reason to legitimize the deceit Jacob shows in stealing from his brother.

This also lead to the quandary of how it was recorded in the first place. If Jacob was just a selfish thief, why would the first people who recorded the story even say he was justified? This film sets out to give plausible explanations for such questions.

Are they the correct interpretations? Who knows? They certainly fit the criteria of "credibility" for the way in which the stories are recorded.

That's because we not only deal with the stories, but with the people who record them, and who listen to them.

The men make mistakes, but learn from them.

I was most impressed with the saga of Jacob.

The most disappointing to me, was the story of the twelve sons of Jacob. I understand why, though. Very few films have the time to delve into twelve characters. It's natural to show Reuben's first born mistakes, and the cruelty of Simeon. Here, the cruelty of Levi is left out, probably because there is a need to go to the important fourth brother of Judah.

All in all, it's a credible rendition that is worth watching, if only to agree or disagree with.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not the best movie
jarmlar12 September 2003
"In the Beginning" is a movie(mini) that takes us through the five first books in the Bible. You can expect some visual effects, and average acting.

I did not enjoy the movie, but I didn't either hate it, so watch it once, and let go with that. I rate it 5/10.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Wasn't that bad
bryanwx102 June 2006
I see this movie for the non-believer or someone who is fresh in Christianity because the movie did stay true to the overall truth but it simply left out certain facts which happens when you convert a book to a movie...I am not saying that this is right...but what I am saying is that a person who watches the movie and enjoys it will definitely be intrigued to read the stories for themselves and receive a deeper understanding...I would recommend this movie for the believer or the non-believer overall good movie which acts like a fisherman of men! I agree with some of the comments of the first reviewer but I think he should remember not everyone is on his level...and that the Christian 101 who might just be intrigued by the New Testament will find solace and understanding before they tackle Genesis and Exodus.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not worth the time to watch, choose much better films that are accurate
chrismcreynolds6 May 2006
I rate this film as just above awful. To those that approve of this film, they rationalize by stating that there is no real way to know if the Bible is more accurate than this film. If that is the case, then the whole point of worship is a waste of time (if you don't even trust the Bible to convey the stories accurately). There are a number of films that cover the same period with much closer accuracy. There is the film called "Jacob" with Mathew Modine that is superb, including each important detail from the Bible (the only authentic source) and it even manages to show the dream of "Jacob's Latter" in a scene that seems to me as completely possible as authentic. The acting of each character is absolutely superb whereas this film deviates so much that one would not possibly understand much of the story if they rely on this film. It is sad because it not only suffered from too much "compression" (which is some times a legitimate decision) but it replaces the actual Biblical dialogue with its own similar but very misleading telling of the stories. There is a series of 5 films produced by TNT that is infinitely superior and can be purchased as a set. Please do not ever use this film as a primary source for understanding these books from the Bible. The script was obviously written by a non-believer with the idea that the Bible can't be trusted anyway, so why not take liberties like so many other American adaptations? The end result is at times blasphemous.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent to Watch
nicholas.rhodes25 August 2005
I recently found this on a cheap DVD in the UK on my last visit. It makes for very interesting watching. No-one really knows what happened at the time of the events so it is useless to try and ascertain whether the film is true to reality or not, and those of your readers that try to do so are simply wasting their time ! On a cinematic level, then, things are very well done and I did love the limited amount of special effects. Being a catholic, I had of course studied the Bible at school but had forgotten large portions of the old testament. This film puts things back in place in an agreable way. It's a little difficult for me first time round as all those bearded men seem to resemble each other but the beauty of the DVD is to play it over and over again, of course. Peplums and Biblical Films are not my strong point but I like to watch them occasionally for a change. My verdict then is that of a neophyte as regards this type of film but is definitely on the positive side. Also, there is excellent picture and sound quality and the soundtrack is not bad at all !
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fabulously Awful!!
mareiarden8 April 2006
Yes, I only gave it a 1 out of 10, but if you're voting on the Fabulously Awful Scale then it's really probably a 10 out of 10...I only caught the last 20 minutes on the Hallmark Channel today, but I could tell from just that short period of time that this one is a keeper for my Hilariously Hideous Films collection...Highlights: 1) the Egyptians costumes, 2) the bad make-up job on Moses, darkening his skin. (He looked like he had a streaky, orange fake tan, a la Charlize Theron at the Oscars)...and my personal favorite, 3) Joshua being randomly British, when all the other actors sounded American. (Perhaps it was explained earlier in the film somehow? Like, was Joshua from a different tribe or something?) Overall?...I'd say it was totally great, if you enjoy bad movies.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very good. This is one of the better versions of the Old testament type films.
msammut25 July 2005
I see a lot of biblical type movies and I must say this is one of the better ones. It takes a humanist view of the stories. The fact that an apple is not used in the Adam and Eve scene should not detract from understanding the story itself. If anyone wants to understand the Old testament stories such as Jacob and Esau and know nothing about it then I would strongly suggest that this version is the better of what is currently available as far as commercial movies are concerned.

The acting is first rate. I do agree that the effects are cheesy but the story, plots an acting convey the messages within the bible well.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know about the popular stories of the Old Testament and have no prior knowledge of them.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Probably not good for believers to watch
bousozoku18 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This played just last night on PAX TV, a small network that often runs religious-themed programming. I had seen it partly when it was new.

I was surprised to find that Abraham, who is revered in the big 3 western religions, to be an adulterer with a slave girl mistress and seemingly a liar, manipulating the words of god to fit his emotional weakness and his manipulative wife.

Joseph seemed to be there, not so much as glue to tie the Egyptians with the Jews, but as eye candy. I'm sure the producers and screenwriters were trying to avoid tripping over all those other stories but was the bathing scene so necessary? The whole thing seems more as a weapon to show how ignorant, selfish, and manipulative these people were. Perhaps, the faithful should avoid it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great Biblical movie of historical value
mikedavis91418 August 2009
I was born in the era that you feared God and when it comes to the bible, "let it be written, let it be so".

I am 50 years old and a believer. This movie helped me understand all the events that happened in early history. I believe in every word that is in the bible and so should you.

This movie will explain (no matter how corny the costumes are, the actors are etc) the events from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob forward. I find it fascinating how the movie is so correct to what the bible teaches.

Some may criticize the directing and acting but the story is real and should be taken to heart. If you are a true believer, you will see this movie many times in your life as well as the 10 Commandments movie.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well-intentioned, but...
mermatt13 November 2000
This is another of those well-intentioned Biblical TV-movies that comes across as a mixture of a Sunday School lesson and Cliff Notes for the Bible. A decent cast is wasted in superficial summaries, and the FX are simply cheesy. Instead of trying to tell everything from Creation to the Chosen People arriving in the Promised Land in two two-hour segments (with a total story time of less than three hours), it might have been better to focus more on one or two stories at most.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"In the Beginning" Makes for Must See TV
JLRMovieReviews6 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very moving telling of the "beginning" of the Bible. If you know practically nothing about the bible, like me, except for some basic fundamentals, you will rewarded in learning some of the stories and will be entertained by the way they are brought to life in this television movie. It does have a foreword to it, saying they took some dramatic license, but you get the feeling they are very true to the heart and depth to the Bible and are very reverent of its subject. Its main emphasis is on Joseph and His Coat of Many Colors, but it does make reference to Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel; Abraham and his wife, Sarah; Jacob; Esau; and Moses. The role of Joseph was cast well with Eddie Cibrian, and Martin Landau gives his usual best and sincerity as Abraham. At first, I was wary of Billy Campbell as Moses, but as he aged I liked him more and more. I particularly liked the part where the sea parted and Moses didn't make any dramatic speech. He stands high on the rock, in silence and felt God's presence and power, and the sea parted. "In the Beginning" is a very powerful and faithful movie that knows that less is more and tells the story without the DeMille flashy touches of "The Ten Commandments." I wish they could have acted out the whole Bible. But it does make me want to read my Bible. So, it is very successful in making the viewer want to learn more about our beginnings.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wonderful movie
phydaux361 June 2009
I found this a delightful movie. It is pretty accurate to what the Bible reads, and extremely entertaining. I do think that some of the special effects and make-up were a little to "Cheesy", but other than that, I was very satisfied. I see this as a good choice of a family movie, since there is only "Implied" nudity during the Adam and Eve segment. There is some violence, but this is only because these events had violence. I found that Martin Landau played a very good Abraham, and Christopher Lee was perfect as Ramesis the first. As I mentioned, I would recommend this movie for anyone looking for just entertainment and those seeking a truthful account of these events in history. Good job Kevin Conner.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Passing Resemblance to the Bible, Missed the Important Bit
jacobw-12 February 2002
As typical, the Christianised version tried to 'rationalise' the Biblical story. For example, the parting of the Red Sea is described in the Bible that the Children of Israel travelled on 'dry land' not mud. Aaron's staff swallowed the other staffs - the fact that the snake swallowed other snakes would not have been frightening. Moses and Aaron were 80 and 83 respectively, not 30 & 40. Moses did not age - the final section of Deuteronomy testifies to this. However, these are details. But skipping the revelation at Mount Sinai - that was sacreligious. This is the central event that has shaped the Children of Israel (read Jews) for more than three millenia. This is what separates montheistic Judaism from all other religions - the direct communication between God and two million people. All other religions started with a single charismatic person infusing belief in others. Judaism is based upon the witnessing of the diving revelation by the entire nation. Without this event, what was so bad about the Golden Calf? (Incidentally, the reason why Aaron acquiesed is that his nephew was killed when he protested and that Aaron procrastinated rather than see more bloodshed.) Also, no mention is made of the Biblical reason why the Children of Israel stayed in the desert for 40 years - the spies who betrayed them. Moses was not allowed into the land of Israel because of his miscontruing the command to grant water from the rock (in the final year of wandering after the death of Miriam). I agree with another reader that it's better to focus on a specific event, or dedicate the appropriate amount of time - 10+ hours - to really telling the story, even using the plain text of the Bible. Here we have a disjointed story, poor visual FX, bad makeup (Moses' beard was laughable) and villains who the audience were begged to sympathise with (Rameses II was a typical despot who only let the Israelites go because he was a firstborn and he thought he would die.) My rating - 1 out 5 - at least they got most of the names right.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed