George-C.-Scott Movie Reviews

Ladislas Farago wrote the definitive biography of General George S. Patton back in the 70's.... which was the book upon which the film with George C. Scott was based. Even though Patton is a little older, fatter and wiser in this film, it still coveys the historical accuracy of the general's final days. Scott's portrayal of Patton has lost none of its personality and deserves its rightful place as volume two of the Patton story.

I FIND THAT GEORGE C. SCOTT PORTRAYED GENERAL PATTON EXCELLENTLY JUST AS IN THE ORIGINAL PATTON MOVIE.

IN THIS MOVIE,GENERAL PATTON IS SHOWN EXACTLY AS HE WAS IN LIFE,SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING,AND SOMEONE WHO BUCKED AUTHORITY NO MATTER WHAT THE COST TO HIM WAS.

THE ONE THING IN THE MOVIE I FIND HARD TO BELIEVE HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE IS WHERE HE HAD HIS WIFE DEMONSTRATE AND DRIVE A TANK FOR HIS SUPERIORS.

OTHER THAN THAT,I RATE THE MOVIE VERY HIGHLY.

Actor George C. Scott delivers an encore performance of his most famous character: Lt. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. Just as the original "Patton" was based in part on Ladislas Farago's biography "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph," so too is the sequel based on Farago's second installment of the same title.It is ironic, perhaps that Scott seems tired in this follow-up role and does not deliver a tour de force comparable to his original performance. Then again, the real life Patton was also tired: relieved of command of his beloved Third Army for not being what today would be termed "politically correct," and instead placed in command of a "paper army" whose mission was to write the history of the Second WorldWar. Disgruntled with the turn his military career had taken, Patton was to return home, hang up his ivory-handled pistols for good and write a tell all memoir. A day of pheasant hunting in Germany was all that seperated Patton the soldier from Patton the civilian. The out-spoken general never made it. He suffered a broken neck en route in a silly fender-bender with an army 6 x 6 and died of complications twelve days later. In spite of Scott's subdued portrayal of Patton II, the scenes are superb; the supporting cast top-notch; and the story-line, including the usual amount of dramatic license, holds true to the facts. Throughout the film, the viewer is treated to flashbacks memories of Patton's earlier life as a child, as a young junior officer, and themes the first "Patton" dared not touch, such as Patton's supposed wartime affair with his wife's niece, a woman half the general's age. Unlike the first "Patton," these flashbacks give the film a true biographical feel. I was touched with the strength his wife Beatrice exhibited by her husband's side, reading to him from his favorite books by the likes of Napolean and other great captains while her injured husband lay with a head brace and fish hooks embedded in his scalp in an effort to support his shattered neck. If Scott gave us the mythical "Patton" in his first role, he also gave us the human "Patton" in his second. This DVD should be appart of the collection of anyone interested in this truely complex individual we have come to know simply as Patton.

Watching this you cant help but be overcome by the senselessness of the entire boxing industry. For two decades I followed pro boxing (I almost became one myself!)- Ive seen hundreds of pro fights- both current boxers, and old fighters on film. Marciano and Louis were the best heavyweights ever. This film's emotional highlight is Marciano's destruction of his idol Joe Louis. I predict the boxing industry will eventually be outlawed, or at best watered-down to a harmless sport like pro "wrestling".

THE ACTING WAS GREAT THE STORY WAS GREAT AND THE FIGHT SCENES WERE GREAT.I liked how it was inspirational, how an unlikely boxer rose to being the only undefeated heavyweight champion.

I have to say that this movie was extremaly well made. The True Story of a Great legend. "Rocky Marciano" Not only was the acting a 5 star Job well done, But the Music was very Beautiful. The fight scenes were awesome. The best fight was the Marciano/Louis fight. This fight brought a few tears to my eyes. The way they kept goin back and forth. The Music was emotional. The Touchin scene of Rocky visiting Louis after the fight in the dressing room. How that scene went back and forth where Rock was with Louis at the mental institute. Very Terrific film. I can't wait to purchase the Video.

The Day of the Dolphin was savaged by critics when it was released. They saw the film as nonsense that made an important issue trivial. While it isn't a perfect film, the adaption by Mike Nichols and Buck Henry (Catch 22) is an entertaining adaption of the popular novel. At one time it showed up fairly frequently on network television but has been forgotten over the years. In some respects, Dolphin is a far more successful film adaption than Nichols' and Henry's film version of Catch 22. They were trying to turn a popular satirical novel turned cultural icon into an entertaining film satire. Many fans of the novel were disappointed and critics were, at times, less than kind to it. Here at least the two were working with a lesser novel and there wasn't as much baggage to go with it.

George C. Scott gives a passionate performance. In fact, one thing that you'll note about Scott is whether or not he appeared in trash (The List of Adrian Messenger) or treasure (Patton), his performance is alwasys powerful and committed. Trish Van DeVere also gives a strong performance. She was always underrated as an actress because 1) She was married to Scott and 2)she was always in his shadow. Her performance helps ground what was at the time a farfetched scenerio in reality.

Buck Henry's intelligent screenplay does have some narrative problems but, on the whole, he cleans up the novel's unbelievable plot and jumpy narrative. His screenplay is crisp, clean and his characters strong. An interview with Henry is provided as an extra and his comments demonstrate that he doesn't hold his work on the film in very high regard. It's a pity as he does wonders with the material.

Nichols always straddled the fence between being an actor's director and a film director. As in his past efforts, this pays off handsomely. His work with Scott and the strong supporting cast (including the marvelous Fritz Weaver, Paul Sorvino in one of his early film roles, Edward Herrmann among many other fine character actors)shines.

The plot is fairly straight forward; Scott plays a scientist that has been able to teach Dolphins English and train them to do a number of compliated tasks. He's unaware, though, that the organization funding his efforts has plans to use his research in an assassination attempt on a highly placed political figure.Given what we've learned about the CIA and other organizations over the past decade, it's plot isn't so far fetched. After all, it's certainly more believable than using a powder to make Castro's beard fall out so as to undermine his political power.

The superior DVD transfer surprised me given the age of the film. Virtually free of all analog artifacts, this enhanced transfers looks marvelous. It's a pity that Nichols couldn't provide a director's commentary (or Buck Henry for that matter). Since Scott is gone, it would have been fascinating to get Nichols' take on the film and the performances. While is isn't a 5 star film, it's an engrossing and enjoyable bit of entertainment with a cautionary tale at its core.

THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN (Home Vision Entertainment), released thirty years ago, is as timely as ever. Recent reports of dolphins as underwater spies in the Middle Eastern waters mirrors the plot. George C. Scott is a scientist who teaches dolphins to speak, only to discover them kidnapped in a government conspiracy. Directed by Mike Nichols from Robert Merle's novel, this beautiful-looking, entertaining, adventure-thriller reflects the ground-breaking dolphin research of Dr. John Lily. Cool interview with writer Buck Henry. Great family film. Recommended.

DAY OF THE DOLPHIN (1973): In a Florida research compound, Dr. Jake Terrell (George C. Scott) and his marine biologist associates devote years secretly teaching two dolphins, Fa and Bee, how to speak a simple form of English. The sweet and loving dolphins are incredibly intelligent and have developed an intense devotion to Dr. Terrell. Word of the success of Terrell's project is leaked to the outside world, and the skills of the easily trained dolphins are eventually sought by a well financed, shadowy consortium with evil intentions.

Arguably the last great film directed by Mike Nichols, DAY OF THE DOLPHIN is a classy, beautifully produced science fiction/political conspiracy thriller with a heart. Despite its potentially maudlin storyline, Buck Henry's serious, unironic screenplay and Nichols' graceful direction carefully avoid sentimentality at every possible turn. Initially the story concentrates on Terrell and his relationship with his coworkers as their long work with the two dolphins is revealed to have achieved truly astounding results. Fa and Bee are lovely and enchanting creatures with very sweet, babyish voices. Things become deadly serious in the film's relentless second half, but because the conspiracy theme has been introduced so gradually the change in tone and the orchestrated melodramatics are perfectly acceptable.

George C. Scott plays the bad tempered Terrell with the actor's trademark intensity. Its a passionate and powerful performance, and its perfectly easy to see why the dolphins look at him like some kind of god who towers above the other humans. Scott is the main show here, but the superb supporting cast, led by Paul Sorvino, Edward Herrmann, Fritz Weaver, Severn Darden and Scott's wife Trish Van Devere ably bring a strong sense of realism to all of the fantasy on view.

Georges Delerue's stirringly emotional music adds immeasurably to the effectiveness of the film; his sad, lovely score turns the deeply moving climactic sequence into a heartbreaking apocalypse of despair. This utterly bleak finale is one of the most potent and uncompromising endings in the fantasy genre.

William A. Fraker's gorgeous cinematography makes the sparkling, shifting waters and deep blue skies breathtakingly luminous. Fraker's stunning imagery alone makes the movie a total pleasure to watch. The underwater scenes, shot by Jordan Klein, contain absolutely some of the finest such work ever seen.

The Home Vision Entertainment DVD is highly recommended for fans of this wonderful film. Presented in the film's original theatrical release aspect ratio (2.35:1), its a spectacularly perfect transfer, with vivid, lush colors and no noticeable speckles or flaws of any kind. A skimpy assortment of extras include an interview with writer Buck Henry, who is clearly and bizarrely embarrassed by his association with this great film, additional interviews with cast members Leslie Charleson and Edward Herrmann, and a trivia gallery. The liner notes are incredibly silly and juvenile. Despite its disappointing array of mostly worthless extras, this DVD is a spectacularly worthy investment for any serious movie fan, the definitive presentation of one of the most exciting and thought provoking of all conspiracy thrillers.

Exorcist 3 is a sequel to the first exorcist in terms of story line and characters. But you can't compare the two as the two movies are not the same. Exorcist 3 is more like a serial killer movie and it is a very good one. Too bad this movie was a flop during its theatrical run so it never achieved the same popularity as the first Exorcist. But it is a very creepy and scary movie and suprisingly there is no gore portrayed in the movie. Check out chapter 22, I think that has the greatest jump in horror movie. The scene I am talking about only last a couple seconds but I guarantee that if you think of Exorcist 3 you will remember that particular scene. The late George C Scott gave superb performance as Detective Bill Kenderman who is puzzled as a serial killer that was executed in the electric chair 15 years ago appear to strike again. Look for cameo by Patrick Ewing and Fabio in a dream sequence. I would have given this 5 stars if only Warner has released this DVD with some extra features. This DVD has none except one theatrical trailer which I think shouldn't be considered as an extra feature. Warner has released the first Exorcist 3 times on DVD. I do hope they rerelease this with extra features. Meanwhile for [price] list price DVD this is an absolute must for horror fans.

Exorcist writer William Peter Blatty adapted his novel Legion, an honest attempt to further study the nature of faith as well as good and evil, and, thankfully, he managed to capture some of the novel's powerful concept. There is also several good seat jumping moments sprinkled throughout what is essentially a character driven story. Until the end, when the special effect exorcism takes over. That part isn't in the book, if I'm recalling it correctly, and it cheapens the over all feel of the movie. Nonetheless, this is an intelligent thriller that wants to do more than just shock and scare you. Highly recommended.

This was a landmark film for me when I first saw it back in 1990. And it's true, in many ways this movie is as good as the original Academy Award winning The Exorcist. I just bought the Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen), and with the new added scenes and commentary by director William Freidkin, I'd saw that the film has been improved over it's original 1973 release. Now I am a student of this series, having also (unfortunately) seen Exorcist II: The Heretic. I have also read both of William Peter Blatty's novels: The Exorcist and Legion, which Exorcist III: Legion is based on. In both cases, the books I think are far superior to the films, but the movies are still beyond excellent adaptations of the novels and better than 90% of the films that have been made in the last 30 years. But let's stick to Legion. The title is taken from a verse in the Bible in which Jesus casts out a demon from a possessed man, into a group of pigs as I remember it. Interesting. Although Legion will scare the daylights out of any sane person, and that it is worthy of praise, I will point out a few of its very minor flaws. First off, we are told that Kinderman (George C. Scott) and Father Karras (Jason Miller) were "best friends". I find this exceptionally hard to believe based on the facts we are given in the original Exorcist. Kinderman and Karras get on very well and are friendly right from the get go in the original film. But based on their brief meeting and the fact that the story probably only takes place within the span of a few weeks, makes it very hard for me to accept that the two men grew to become as Kinderman says in Legions: best friends. Even to the extent that Kinderman has a photo on his desk with the two men laughing arm and arm. How did that happen? When in the span of the first film did the two men happen to have time to pose for this picture together? Also, Blatty who directed this time out does change up the story of Legion from a suspense thriller, to more of a supernatural piece with only overtones of the Gemini Killer story, gone into MUCH greater detail in the novel. But these are prudish comments on my part, I just felt obligated to let you know. Otherwise, the film is flawless. Excellent writing, superb acting, great story and shot in a style SO eerie that only Alfred Hitchcock could do better. Be prepared to be shocked, challenged and have nightmares at the utter evil that is conjured up in this film. You're faith may be shaken, but the final ending to the film is SPECTACULAR! Kinderman's "I believe" declaration in stunning. And lastly, some evil moments to watch for: the evil "clown/joker" priest in the hallway, elderly woman clinging to the ceiling, the confession booth scene..."she bled a great deal." Stunning. Don't hesitate, lock the doors and turn off the lights and be prepared to have the best scare of your life.

Exorcist 3 is a sequel to the first exorcist in terms of story line and characters. But you can't compare the two as the two movies are not the same. Exorcist 3 is more like a serial killer movie and it is a very good one. Too bad this movie was a flop during its theatrical run so it never achieved the same popularity as the first Exorcist. But it is a very creepy and scary movie and suprisingly there is no gore portrayed in the movie. Check out chapter 22, I think that has the greatest jump in horror movie. The scene I am talking about only last a couple seconds but I guarantee that if you think of Exorcist 3 you will remember that particular scene. The late George C Scott gave superb performance as Detective Bill Kenderman who is puzzled as a serial killer that was executed in the electric chair 15 years ago appear to strike again. Look for cameo by Patrick Ewing and Fabio in a dream sequence. I would have given this 5 stars if only Warner has released this DVD with some extra features. This DVD has none except one theatrical trailer which I think shouldn't be considered as an extra feature. Warner has released the first Exorcist 3 times on DVD. I do hope they rerelease this with extra features. Meanwhile for [price] list price DVD this is an absolute must for horror fans.

Exorcist writer William Peter Blatty adapted his novel Legion, an honest attempt to further study the nature of faith as well as good and evil, and, thankfully, he managed to capture some of the novel's powerful concept. There is also several good seat jumping moments sprinkled throughout what is essentially a character driven story. Until the end, when the special effect exorcism takes over. That part isn't in the book, if I'm recalling it correctly, and it cheapens the over all feel of the movie. Nonetheless, this is an intelligent thriller that wants to do more than just shock and scare you. Highly recommended.

This was a landmark film for me when I first saw it back in 1990. And it's true, in many ways this movie is as good as the original Academy Award winning The Exorcist. I just bought the Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen), and with the new added scenes and commentary by director William Freidkin, I'd saw that the film has been improved over it's original 1973 release. Now I am a student of this series, having also (unfortunately) seen Exorcist II: The Heretic. I have also read both of William Peter Blatty's novels: The Exorcist and Legion, which Exorcist III: Legion is based on. In both cases, the books I think are far superior to the films, but the movies are still beyond excellent adaptations of the novels and better than 90% of the films that have been made in the last 30 years. But let's stick to Legion. The title is taken from a verse in the Bible in which Jesus casts out a demon from a possessed man, into a group of pigs as I remember it. Interesting. Although Legion will scare the daylights out of any sane person, and that it is worthy of praise, I will point out a few of its very minor flaws. First off, we are told that Kinderman (George C. Scott) and Father Karras (Jason Miller) were "best friends". I find this exceptionally hard to believe based on the facts we are given in the original Exorcist. Kinderman and Karras get on very well and are friendly right from the get go in the original film. But based on their brief meeting and the fact that the story probably only takes place within the span of a few weeks, makes it very hard for me to accept that the two men grew to become as Kinderman says in Legions: best friends. Even to the extent that Kinderman has a photo on his desk with the two men laughing arm and arm. How did that happen? When in the span of the first film did the two men happen to have time to pose for this picture together? Also, Blatty who directed this time out does change up the story of Legion from a suspense thriller, to more of a supernatural piece with only overtones of the Gemini Killer story, gone into MUCH greater detail in the novel. But these are prudish comments on my part, I just felt obligated to let you know. Otherwise, the film is flawless. Excellent writing, superb acting, great story and shot in a style SO eerie that only Alfred Hitchcock could do better. Be prepared to be shocked, challenged and have nightmares at the utter evil that is conjured up in this film. You're faith may be shaken, but the final ending to the film is SPECTACULAR! Kinderman's "I believe" declaration in stunning. And lastly, some evil moments to watch for: the evil "clown/joker" priest in the hallway, elderly woman clinging to the ceiling, the confession booth scene..."she bled a great deal." Stunning. Don't hesitate, lock the doors and turn off the lights and be prepared to have the best scare of your life.

It is almost always a bad idea to remake as classic a movie as Twelve Angry Men. It is nigh guaranteed to result in disappointment. So it is with William Friedkin's remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film. Because it sticks closely to the original script, and has a few welcome veterans in the cast, it is saved from being totally unenjoyable. But still, even George C Scott and Jack Lemmon are no match for Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda. The original cast had a certain presence that is not even neared by the lineup of familiar faces on show here.

The production also suffers from its unbelievability. Back in 1957, a few logical holes and incredulities seemed not to matter, being compensated for by the drama and tension. Set in the 1990s, however, it is simply anachronistic. Technical advances in the forensic science seem to be unknown to the characters in this transplant to modern-day. It loses credibility. The occasional changes in the dialogue are arbitrary and unnecessary at best; banal and inexplicable at worst.

Overall, the Friedkin version lacks the atmosphere and tension of the original. Lumet's version was brilliantly edited and photographed so as to maximize the claustrophobic atmosphere and lend mood and ambience to the interplay of the characters. Friedkin's second-best begins with an annoying shaky camera technique and goes on to a flat cinematography style that does little to enhance the drama.

At least there is the treat of rehearing Kenyon Hopkins' original theme (however briefly it is heard in both versions) rearranged for jazz quartet. It is poor compensation, however, for the disappointment of seeing a masterwork reproduced in a manner that results in a pale and unsatisfying imitation of a brilliant original.

I love the classics, but I never pass up looking at the remakes. Sometimes they are not as good as the originals. In this case I think I like the remake just a little better. The reason is that the original used some angle shots that made the cast look unworldly and to me that detracted from it. The cast to me only had 3 people that stood out, Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Joseph Sweeney. Don't get me wrong the first one has some strong acting, but the remake seems like more of the cast is what I would really expect. Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, William Petersen, Edward Olmos, Ossie Davis, and the rest the cast left more of an impression on me. The original did not impress me with people I knew on the street in the 1950s. The remake though did seem to have people I could meet in a court room in the 1990s. As for one person commentng on the lack of forensics for the time, I hate to tell you not every city has a CSI team as good as the TV shows. I thought the evidence presented was believable, certainly as much so as the original.

I think both the 1957 and 1997 versions are great movies and I will alternate watching both over the years. Given the passage of 40 years, they are bound to be different The older of the two will compare less favorably, because acting styles and attitudes toward race have changed. So have people. In the 1957 version Lee J. Cobb portrayed a man so oblivious to the facts, that every time he opened his mouth, he made the case for the other side, often humorously. George C. Scott never quite achieves that. However in the final scene Scott surpasses Cobb in revealing his bias, and breaking down. Lemmon's remark to Scott, "He's not your son, he's someone else" is not contained in the first movie and is an appropriate added touch. I like both Fonda's and Lemmon's performances as juror Number 8. The pivotal person is actually Mykelti Williams who plays the Ed Begley role (juror number 10, who has a cold). As the nation of Islam fanatic, he divides the African-American jurors among themselves. This adds some credibility and complexity, so the fight is not just black vs. white. Inevitably, the complexities of modern American society are more accurately reflected in the 1997 version. Before the 1960s, we just didn't address race head-on. The older version is accurate testament to that. Still, the 1957 version is amazing. E. G. Marshall's portrayal of the stock broker is commanding and genuinely fun to watch. His conversion from guilty to not guilty is the single most dramatic moment in either movie. The cinematography on his face showing his transformation from confident to doubtful is wonderful work. The claustrophobia in the 1957 version surpasses the 1997 version. I choose to treat these movies as complimenting one another. My only question is when will they put the 1997 version on DVD? Get both versions and appreciate the differences. They are both superior films. Both accurately reflect the times in which they were made.

It is almost always a bad idea to remake as classic a movie as Twelve Angry Men. It is nigh guaranteed to result in disappointment. So it is with William Friedkin's remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film. Because it sticks closely to the original script, and has a few welcome veterans in the cast, it is saved from being totally unenjoyable. But still, even George C Scott and Jack Lemmon are no match for Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda. The original cast had a certain presence that is not even neared by the lineup of familiar faces on show here.

The production also suffers from its unbelievability. Back in 1957, a few logical holes and incredulities seemed not to matter, being compensated for by the drama and tension. Set in the 1990s, however, it is simply anachronistic. Technical advances in the forensic science seem to be unknown to the characters in this transplant to modern-day. It loses credibility. The occasional changes in the dialogue are arbitrary and unnecessary at best; banal and inexplicable at worst.

Overall, the Friedkin version lacks the atmosphere and tension of the original. Lumet's version was brilliantly edited and photographed so as to maximize the claustrophobic atmosphere and lend mood and ambience to the interplay of the characters. Friedkin's second-best begins with an annoying shaky camera technique and goes on to a flat cinematography style that does little to enhance the drama.

At least there is the treat of rehearing Kenyon Hopkins' original theme (however briefly it is heard in both versions) rearranged for jazz quartet. It is poor compensation, however, for the disappointment of seeing a masterwork reproduced in a manner that results in a pale and unsatisfying imitation of a brilliant original.

I love the classics, but I never pass up looking at the remakes. Sometimes they are not as good as the originals. In this case I think I like the remake just a little better. The reason is that the original used some angle shots that made the cast look unworldly and to me that detracted from it. The cast to me only had 3 people that stood out, Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Joseph Sweeney. Don't get me wrong the first one has some strong acting, but the remake seems like more of the cast is what I would really expect. Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, William Petersen, Edward Olmos, Ossie Davis, and the rest the cast left more of an impression on me. The original did not impress me with people I knew on the street in the 1950s. The remake though did seem to have people I could meet in a court room in the 1990s. As for one person commentng on the lack of forensics for the time, I hate to tell you not every city has a CSI team as good as the TV shows. I thought the evidence presented was believable, certainly as much so as the original.

I think both the 1957 and 1997 versions are great movies and I will alternate watching both over the years. Given the passage of 40 years, they are bound to be different The older of the two will compare less favorably, because acting styles and attitudes toward race have changed. So have people. In the 1957 version Lee J. Cobb portrayed a man so oblivious to the facts, that every time he opened his mouth, he made the case for the other side, often humorously. George C. Scott never quite achieves that. However in the final scene Scott surpasses Cobb in revealing his bias, and breaking down. Lemmon's remark to Scott, "He's not your son, he's someone else" is not contained in the first movie and is an appropriate added touch. I like both Fonda's and Lemmon's performances as juror Number 8. The pivotal person is actually Mykelti Williams who plays the Ed Begley role (juror number 10, who has a cold). As the nation of Islam fanatic, he divides the African-American jurors among themselves. This adds some credibility and complexity, so the fight is not just black vs. white. Inevitably, the complexities of modern American society are more accurately reflected in the 1997 version. Before the 1960s, we just didn't address race head-on. The older version is accurate testament to that. Still, the 1957 version is amazing. E. G. Marshall's portrayal of the stock broker is commanding and genuinely fun to watch. His conversion from guilty to not guilty is the single most dramatic moment in either movie. The cinematography on his face showing his transformation from confident to doubtful is wonderful work. The claustrophobia in the 1957 version surpasses the 1997 version. I choose to treat these movies as complimenting one another. My only question is when will they put the 1997 version on DVD? Get both versions and appreciate the differences. They are both superior films. Both accurately reflect the times in which they were made.

Legendary director John Huston's "The Bible...In the Beginning" is something of a mixed bag. Though undeniably reverent and generally (though not totally) faithful to the original Scriptures, Huston's film is ultimately epic in scope but too often cold and unmoving. There are certainly some fine scenes, particularly in the Creation , the story of the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve's storm-shrouded exile from Paradise is perhaps the most powerful moment in the whole film), Cain and Abel, and an especially moving interlude between Abraham and only son Isaac in the ruins of sinful Sodom. But Huston fails to make the movie emotionally appealing on a consistent basis, so that what should have been an enthralling picture is merely adequate--which, after all, is not so bad. The cast is very powerful, featuring Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott, Peter O'Toole, and Huston himself as an endearing Noah. If only Huston had let his performers live a little on camera, this might have rivaled The Ten Commandments. As it is, the whole is respectable but flawed, too passionless and slow-paced to match The Ten Commandment's grandeur. Even so, "The Bible" does bring the opening chapters of Scripture to life, and if this movie is not thrilling, it is nonetheless enlightening.

1966: Huston's film covers the first twenty chapters of Genesis- from the Creation, the Flood to Isaac's near sacrifice. With lush cinematography, fine acting and superb music. Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole are among the cast. In the 60's, and in fact years before in the 50's, the bible dramas were quite popular and appealed to many audiences who had undergone war and conflict from home- it was the turbulent 60's after all. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur were transcendent films only a couple of years before.

Making a film about the first book in the Bible, the most mysterious and most alluring, Genesis, must not have been an easy task for director John Huston, nor was it easy enough for actors portraying biblical characters. But this film is exquisite, well-done with fine performances by the actors, most notably Richard Harris as Noah and George C. Scott as Abraham. The actor and actress playing Adam and Eve are just as most of us imagine them to be - gorgeous in the nude, walking around a beautiful, semi-tropical garden and being seduced by the apple in a tree which a treacherous snake deceived them into eating.

The film goes on to describe the biblical scenario established before the Flood, of humankind's lechery and vice in Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath resulting in destruction. Very powerful imagery and very fine interpretation. It is not just a Christian or Catholic film, it is a film worth watching just for the moving drama. After all, life is but a drama, a film of which we all take part of. The music to this film is also very inspiring, although subtle and haunting. "The Bible.. In The Beginning" (as this film is often called) makes a great assignment to watch in a college or high school in which students read the Bible as a form of literature and work of human history, mainly that of the ancient Hebrews.

I watched this movie on TV and I thought it was very good. All of the actors were very good but I especially liked John Huston as Noah, George C. Scott as Abraham, Ava Gardner as Sarah and Richard Harris as Cain. I think John Huston did an excellent job directing the movie but he also acted in this movie and I think he was very good as Noah. For a Biblical movie I think John Huston's The Bible is pretty low-key and simple rather than a super glossy Hollywood movie and I think some people were maybe expecting a big glossy Hollywood movie and though they can be very good I enjoyed this more subdued movie and I'm planning on buying the DVD.

Legendary director John Huston's "The Bible...In the Beginning" is something of a mixed bag. Though undeniably reverent and generally (though not totally) faithful to the original Scriptures, Huston's film is ultimately epic in scope but too often cold and unmoving. There are certainly some fine scenes, particularly in the Creation , the story of the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve's storm-shrouded exile from Paradise is perhaps the most powerful moment in the whole film), Cain and Abel, and an especially moving interlude between Abraham and only son Isaac in the ruins of sinful Sodom. But Huston fails to make the movie emotionally appealing on a consistent basis, so that what should have been an enthralling picture is merely adequate--which, after all, is not so bad. The cast is very powerful, featuring Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott, Peter O'Toole, and Huston himself as an endearing Noah. If only Huston had let his performers live a little on camera, this might have rivaled The Ten Commandments. As it is, the whole is respectable but flawed, too passionless and slow-paced to match The Ten Commandment's grandeur. Even so, "The Bible" does bring the opening chapters of Scripture to life, and if this movie is not thrilling, it is nonetheless enlightening.

1966: Huston's film covers the first twenty chapters of Genesis- from the Creation, the Flood to Isaac's near sacrifice. With lush cinematography, fine acting and superb music. Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole are among the cast. In the 60's, and in fact years before in the 50's, the bible dramas were quite popular and appealed to many audiences who had undergone war and conflict from home- it was the turbulent 60's after all. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur were transcendent films only a couple of years before.

Making a film about the first book in the Bible, the most mysterious and most alluring, Genesis, must not have been an easy task for director John Huston, nor was it easy enough for actors portraying biblical characters. But this film is exquisite, well-done with fine performances by the actors, most notably Richard Harris as Noah and George C. Scott as Abraham. The actor and actress playing Adam and Eve are just as most of us imagine them to be - gorgeous in the nude, walking around a beautiful, semi-tropical garden and being seduced by the apple in a tree which a treacherous snake deceived them into eating.

The film goes on to describe the biblical scenario established before the Flood, of humankind's lechery and vice in Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath resulting in destruction. Very powerful imagery and very fine interpretation. It is not just a Christian or Catholic film, it is a film worth watching just for the moving drama. After all, life is but a drama, a film of which we all take part of. The music to this film is also very inspiring, although subtle and haunting. "The Bible.. In The Beginning" (as this film is often called) makes a great assignment to watch in a college or high school in which students read the Bible as a form of literature and work of human history, mainly that of the ancient Hebrews.

I watched this movie on TV and I thought it was very good. All of the actors were very good but I especially liked John Huston as Noah, George C. Scott as Abraham, Ava Gardner as Sarah and Richard Harris as Cain. I think John Huston did an excellent job directing the movie but he also acted in this movie and I think he was very good as Noah. For a Biblical movie I think John Huston's The Bible is pretty low-key and simple rather than a super glossy Hollywood movie and I think some people were maybe expecting a big glossy Hollywood movie and though they can be very good I enjoyed this more subdued movie and I'm planning on buying the DVD.

Legendary director John Huston's "The Bible...In the Beginning" is something of a mixed bag. Though undeniably reverent and generally (though not totally) faithful to the original Scriptures, Huston's film is ultimately epic in scope but too often cold and unmoving. There are certainly some fine scenes, particularly in the Creation , the story of the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve's storm-shrouded exile from Paradise is perhaps the most powerful moment in the whole film), Cain and Abel, and an especially moving interlude between Abraham and only son Isaac in the ruins of sinful Sodom. But Huston fails to make the movie emotionally appealing on a consistent basis, so that what should have been an enthralling picture is merely adequate--which, after all, is not so bad. The cast is very powerful, featuring Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott, Peter O'Toole, and Huston himself as an endearing Noah. If only Huston had let his performers live a little on camera, this might have rivaled The Ten Commandments. As it is, the whole is respectable but flawed, too passionless and slow-paced to match The Ten Commandment's grandeur. Even so, "The Bible" does bring the opening chapters of Scripture to life, and if this movie is not thrilling, it is nonetheless enlightening.

1966: Huston's film covers the first twenty chapters of Genesis- from the Creation, the Flood to Isaac's near sacrifice. With lush cinematography, fine acting and superb music. Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole are among the cast. In the 60's, and in fact years before in the 50's, the bible dramas were quite popular and appealed to many audiences who had undergone war and conflict from home- it was the turbulent 60's after all. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur were transcendent films only a couple of years before.

Making a film about the first book in the Bible, the most mysterious and most alluring, Genesis, must not have been an easy task for director John Huston, nor was it easy enough for actors portraying biblical characters. But this film is exquisite, well-done with fine performances by the actors, most notably Richard Harris as Noah and George C. Scott as Abraham. The actor and actress playing Adam and Eve are just as most of us imagine them to be - gorgeous in the nude, walking around a beautiful, semi-tropical garden and being seduced by the apple in a tree which a treacherous snake deceived them into eating.

The film goes on to describe the biblical scenario established before the Flood, of humankind's lechery and vice in Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath resulting in destruction. Very powerful imagery and very fine interpretation. It is not just a Christian or Catholic film, it is a film worth watching just for the moving drama. After all, life is but a drama, a film of which we all take part of. The music to this film is also very inspiring, although subtle and haunting. "The Bible.. In The Beginning" (as this film is often called) makes a great assignment to watch in a college or high school in which students read the Bible as a form of literature and work of human history, mainly that of the ancient Hebrews.

I watched this movie on TV and I thought it was very good. All of the actors were very good but I especially liked John Huston as Noah, George C. Scott as Abraham, Ava Gardner as Sarah and Richard Harris as Cain. I think John Huston did an excellent job directing the movie but he also acted in this movie and I think he was very good as Noah. For a Biblical movie I think John Huston's The Bible is pretty low-key and simple rather than a super glossy Hollywood movie and I think some people were maybe expecting a big glossy Hollywood movie and though they can be very good I enjoyed this more subdued movie and I'm planning on buying the DVD.