PodBill Just what I expected

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

robjsmerdon Other than the portrayal of the Ark; which unequivocally is chest shaped & not as presented and secondly no mention of God's personal name - Jehovah, this is a well thought through and accurate depiction of the Bible account to the time of Abraham; superbly acted by as fine a cast as could be desired.

JohnHowardReid The chief problem in filming the Bible for large-scale commercial release, is resolving the conflict between Christianity and commerce. On the one hand, there has to be more than an inkling of spectacle and sensationalism to draw in the paying customers. On the other, there has to be an acceptable level of traditional reverence to forestall the censor. This has resulted in your standard religious epic — of which The Bible is a representative example — in which scenes of movement and destruction, teeming with thousands of costumed extras, jostle with episodes of interminable boredom in which the bad characters are berated and "good" morals are indefatigably promoted. This traditional, reverential approach to the Bible by the churches — both Christian and Jewish — imposed upon Hollywood's traditional preoccupation with sex and scandal, results in films that are unsatisfying, both as Biblical interpretations and as entertainments.Underlying this problem is the failure by both Hollywood and the churches to understand what the Bible really is. If we look below its surface layer of viciousness, cruelty and intrigue — the aspects always so well played-up by Hollywood — we find the Bible is not primarily a blueprint for well-ordered moral and ethical behavior, but it is principally a record of God's dealings with Man in the past (and a dismal record of Man's failures to respond to God's repeated invitations at that!) and an indication of how God intends to deal with Man now and in the future. Admittedly, most churchmen are ever ready to point to the Bible's dire warnings of future punishments, but they see the present only in terms of the Bible's moral and ethical teachings — Thou shalt not do this and thou shalt not do that!The relationship between God and man, expressed in the Bible is actually one of intimacy and vitality. This is the experience and the ideal relationship we should all be seeking to-day. This in fact is what the bible is all about. Yet this film sees its characters as quaint and even ludicrous, its relationships outmoded and its events as dusty and dead as antiquity. As far as fidelity to the text is concerned, both in letter and especially in spirit, this film fails utterly.In fact, this movie could justly be described as ridiculously blasphemous and sacrilegious. It's clothed in unintentionally risible dialogue — with Huston himself sanctimoniously quoting Genesis. In fact, thanks to its laughable off-screen commentary, in addition to its pretentious photography and special effects, it becomes hard to say a good word about "The Bible: In the Beginning". True, Richard Harris does half-nobly by the thankless part of Cain. Unfortunately, his efforts to make Cain a sympathetic character (Cain tills hard at the unyielding soil, whilst Abel lazes around, blowing his pipes of Pan. It's no sweat for Abel to offer God the first of his flocks, he did no work at all to produce them), are rather at odds with your traditional Sunday School interpretations. In any event, the part is not all that large. Cain has only a few lines of dialogue — including the famous "Am I my brother's keeper?" which Harris delivers in a striking fashion. A couple of other times, however, Huston has him acting in outrageous pantomime: uplifting his fist to heaven, rolling his eyes...In fact, rolling my eyes, is precisely my over all reaction to this disappointing monstrosity of a movie!

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.

TheLittleSongbird This is not John Huston's worst movie, not in a million light-years, but it is not his best either. This is a decent if flawed epic, John Huston does do a very good job directing and you can tell a lot of effort went into making this.The acting was good enough, my favourite was Stephen Boyd, while his screen time is not large, he commands every second of it. Peter O'Toole, George C.Scott and John Huston also do sterling work, on the other hand there are some like Franco Nero for instance who comes across as a little bland.The film is overlong and is ponderous in pace. Plus there are moments of disjointed writing.That said, the film does look absolutely stunning and still holds up. The cinematography is very beautiful, and the scenery and costumes are splendid. The score is also excellent.Overall, it is flawed but I think it is worth the look. 6/10 Bethany Cox