gridoon2018 "The Bible" was pretty much the swan song of the big Hollywood religious epic (with a few exceptions over the years), and you can sort of see why. The story is a complete fairy tale, of course, but the director, John Huston, brings off some spectacular effects, and they, along with his tongue-in-cheek approach in the Noah's Ark segment in which he also stars, help dilute the proselytizing. The film has some extraordinary moments (like King Nimrod shooting an arrow into heaven from the top of the Tower of Babel, or Peter O'Toole's (dis)appearance(s)), but it's too episodic and frequently tedious. Also, Huston should have chosen someone with a more imposing voice than his own to provide the voice of God - George C. Scott maybe? **1/2 out of 4.

Edgar Soberon Torchia It is true that this is a long and often boring film, something inevitable, considering De Laurentiis' initial project… But the diverse elements that integrate it are good: Mario Chiari's production design, Toshirô Mayuzumi's score, Maria De Mattei's costumes, Ernst Haas' direction and cinematography for the prologue ("The Creation") and Giuseppe Rotunno's images for the rest; plus so many splendid faces of the Italian cinema including Eleonora Rossi Drago as Lot's wife; Giovanna Galletti, from "Rome: Open City", as a citizen of Sodom, and Puppella Maggio as Noah's wife; the big first opportunities for Michael Parks and Franco Nero (as Adam and Abel), and Huston's own fine performance as Noah. According to some sources, Orson Welles contributed to the script.

Steffi_P About the making of the 1959 Christian epic Ben Hur, director William Wyler made a quip along the lines of "It takes a Jew to do this sort of thing properly". However, looking at this tale of Old Testament fire and brimstone directed by non-believer John Huston, one could say what it really takes is an atheist. You see, you have a problem when trying to make a cinematic presentation of the first portions of the bible, which are pretty much a litany of genocide, misanthropy and dubious morality in which it appears God is to be endured rather than praised. How do you present such a story in humane and accessible terms? The Bible: In the Beginning was written by noted Quaker playwright Christopher Fry. Fry does two very important things – firstly, he arranges a handful of bible stories into one satisfying arc, in which God's vindictiveness towards humanity is made a running theme, ending with the final act of mercy in the story or Abraham and Isaac, making this one story rather than a collection. The second thing Fry does is to avoid doing a realist job. Rather than doing what most of the ancient world epics before this did, filling in gaps and fleshing out characters to create a kind of biblical drama, Fry uses only what is actually in the bible. He doesn't, for example, try to imagine what Cain and Abel might have argued over as children, or what bedtime stories Sarah told to Isaac; what little dialogue there is is either lifted directly or adapted closely from Genesis itself. Whether or not it was Fry's intention, the effect is to keep the narrative at the level of a distant, mythical tale. It also leaves the story open to a broad visual interpretation.This is where Huston comes in. Huston makes The Bible: In the Beginning a real feast for the eyes, from the kaleidoscopic creation scenes, to the gorgeous glimmering light in the garden of Eden, to the arc towering over the plains like a Dali painting to the cryptic use of darkness and shadow in the city of Sodom. By and large, Huston's vision is one of mysterious beauty, like gazing upon some ancient artefact. I say "by and large"; the latitude afforded Huston by the Fry script also allows him to do the Noah's arc story with a touch of slapstick comedy. He originally wanted Charlie Chaplin to play the part of Noah, and I so wish Chaplin hadn't turned him down. Nevertheless, Huston himself steps into the breech and does a passable Chaplin-esquire act, and this segments comedy is gentle enough to fit in with the overall tone of solemnity. Huston's collaborators are crucial to the overall effect too. Of particular note is the musical score by Toshiro Mayuzumi, at times playfully Mickey-Mousing the action, at others matching the imagery in its surreal grandeur. The best of the acting performances is certainly George C. Scott's powerful turn as Abraham. Scott is unashamedly theatrical, but again this is in line with the style of the production, going for extravagant presentation rather than dramatic realism.The Bible: In the Beginning was the very last of the wave of ancient world epics that began back in 1949 with Cecil B. DeMille's Samson and Delilah, but it is also quite probably the best. Rather than trying to put a recognisable human spin on the story and sermonising directly at its audience, Huston's epic takes the bible for what it is: a work of mythology, on the same level as The Iliad or The Nibelungenlied. And when taken as a mythical saga rather than an apologist piece for God at his most belligerent, it can be viewed as a picture of incredible power and beauty.

les6969 Well made considering the time it was done, even the special effects are quite believable and the sequence with the Animals entering the Arc were quite amazing considering. Of course there are inaccuracies but that's to be expected. The animals went in by twos and others in sevens depending if they were clean or unclean, the Arc was more likely box shaped and not shaped like a boat. ( Read Secrets of the Lost Races ) Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden scenes were a bit dark with too much in the shadows and the garden didn't really seem like a paradise to me. Noah and ALL his family, including his daughters in law were all white which seems a little odd considering they populated the whole earth afterwards. Noah's daughters sleeping with him to have children wasn't covered but then this was a few decades ago and Isaac was most likely in his early 20s not the teenager portrayed in this film. Having said all that it is a very watchable for all the family.