The Bible in the Beginning... (1966) User Reviews

A Few Gems Amid the Burlap

[kayaker36 · 6/10 · 26 March 2008]

Just a year after his triumph in "Becket", Peter O'Toole is almost unrecognizable but does high class work as the Angel of the Lord--he's **trium in uno**--opposite Abraham and Sarah as portrayed by Ava Gardner and George C. Scott. These two great but very different actors play wonderfully off one another--Scott's earthy energy against the elegant tones and sorrowful eyes of O'Toole--who is on his way to destroy the sin cities of Sodom and Gommorah with all their inhabitants.

The other fine portrayal is of Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before the Lord", by the late actor Steven Boyd. In a single, four minutes scene he captures all the kingly hubris of this biblical figure-- the first in the book of Genesis who does not represent a nation. He who built the Tower of Babel, and saw it destroyed.

Children would be entertained by the carnival of the animals sequence depicting Noah and the Ark.

Expensively made production dealing with relevant biblical deeds in the Old Testament

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 27 December 2014]

Spectacular as well as extravagant production of the first part of the book of Genesis and dealing with five of the early stories in the Old Testament .The title is a bit of a misnomer as the film only covers the first 22 chapters of the first book of Genesis . It covers various Biblical episodes and and open with the Creation of the World and arrive at the Garden of Eden with Adam (Michael Parks) and Eve, Cain and Abel (Richard Harris and Franco Nero play brothers-turned-enemies) Noah (John Huston , though Charles Chaplin and Alec Guinness was also offered the role ) and the Flood and the story of Nimrod (Stephen Boyd) , King of Babel and the emergence of man's vanity . Furthermore , Lot (Gabriele Ferzetti) , Lot's Wife (Eleonora Rossi Drago), Sodomah and Gomorra destruction , and three such Heavenly Messengers (Peter O'Toole) appeared in the course of events along with Abraham (George C Scott) , Sarah (Ava Gardner) , his slave Hagar and sons Isaac and Ismael.

This overblown all-star cast Biblical treatment contains emotion , religious feeling , human touch and grandeur events . The best episode results to be Noah tale in which John Huston gives an intelligent as well as sympathetic acting ; when God talks to Noah, that's actually the voice of John Huston speaking to the actor John Huston . Filming of The Tower of Babel sequence was disrupted when Egyptian extras staged a rock-throwing riot . One of the first mainstream American films to feature male and female nudity -albeit artfully filmed in a light-and-shadow style- in the Garden of Eden sequences . Reportedly , neither Michael Parks nor Ulla Bergryd used body doubles for these scenes . Lavishly produced by Dino De Laurentiis , he originally announced that this would be the first in a series of feature films based on the books of the bible ; however it didn't take place . Rousing and extraordinary musical score by Toshirô Mayuzumi and uncredited Ennio Morricone ; though Huston wanted Igor Stravinsky to score the film . As with many epics of the 1950s and 1960s Paul Francis Webster was called in to supply promotional lyrics to the main theme. The song was entitled "Song of the Bible" and Webster devised the following lyrics to fit Mayuzumi's opening theme music . Colorful as well as evocative cinematography by Giuseppe Rotunno , Fellini's ordinary ; this was the first film shot in the Dimension 150 process. This process was credited as simply "D-150" .

This luxuriously mounted production was well directed by John Huston who gives the feel of a Cecil B De Mille spectacle . However , French director Robert Bresson was firstly hired in 1964 and wen he shot the deluge, he requested the use of all the animals in Rome city zoo , but the only thing Bresson filmed was the tracks of the animals upon a sandy beach , then Bresson was fired, John Huston took over the project, delaying production a further six month. Rating : 6,5/10 . Well worth watching . Better than average . The movie will appeal to religious and epic films buffs .-

Decent Telling of the Book of Genesis (Spoiler for those who do not know the Bible)

[artemis_5 · 6/10 · 20 April 2004]

"La Bibbia" or "The Bible" is director John Huston's attempt to bring the stories of the book of Genesis to life. His movie, while not compelling, is interesting and holds the viewers attention. Many big names, including Huston himself, are featured. The movie begins where the bible begins, with the creation of the world. Michael Parks and Ulla Bergryd exude child-like innocence as Adam and Eve. After their fall and banishment from Eden, they are cursed by God to suffer for their disobedience, although it quickly becomes clear that they have not been abandoned by him. They have children, Cain and Abel. Richard Harris and Franco Nero play the famous brothers (they would go on to play best friends a year later in "Camelot"), although it is Harris who steals the scene by quickly dispatching his brother. Stephen Boyd brings his signature good looks and booming voice to the role of Nimrod, although the story of the building of the Tower of Babel is fairly short, and Boyd's role limited.

By far the most charming part of the film features Huston as Noah. Huston brings humor to his role, and the segment is a delight for any animal lover.

The movie concludes suitably with the story of Abraham and Sarah, the biblical patriarch and matriarch of the nation of Israel, although there is a detour to cover the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah by the Angel of God. The legendary figures of Abraham and Sarah are played appropriately enough by two legendary actors, George C. Scott and Ava Gardner. Of the two, Scott offers the more compelling performance, although Gardner holds her own. They are visited by Peter O'Toole, whose appearance in the film is more along the lines of a cameo.

An honorable mention must go out to little Alberto Lucantoni, who injects feeling into his role as Isaac, particularly in the last scene of the sacrifice. This is quite a feat for a child actor.

In conclusion, although this is not the best biblical film I have seen, it is by far not the worse, and worth at least a rental from your local video store.

The Film Deserves Better Recognition

[Eric-62-2 · 24 May 2000]

I've always noticed an interesting trend among critics when they review a Biblical movie. Since most critics are of a skeptical nature, they usually carry with them the bias that unless the movie deviates from a traditional telling of what the Bible says it is somehow dull cinema. That somehow there can't be anything compelling in seeing the stories of the Bible dramatized in a straightforward manner with no inane attempts to "humanize" the tales through the lens of a modern, secular society.

Well, I make no apologies for being one of the devout and saying that I prefer my Bible stories straight, without any modernistic elements that are meant to make hidden slams at why the stories are important to begin with. For me, "The Bible" is one of the best Biblical epics precisely because it takes its subject material seriously and only alters a few details (Nimrod for instance is not identified as the king at the time of the Tower of Babel) to get a coherent cinematic presentation in place. Christopher Fry, whose uncredited rewrite of "Ben Hur's" screenplay helped make that film a literate masterpiece of cinema brings the same touch here. And Huston does a fine job of directing.

Those who bash this film, much like those who are given to bashing movies like "The Greatest Story Ever Told" while praising garbage like "The Last Temptation Of Christ" are often saying more about themselves than they are about the film they've just reviewed. What they regard as "boring" I regard as a noble effort to give a visual understanding to the events of the Bible. And "The Bible" despite only covering the first half of the book of Genesis succeeds brilliantly at it.

Genesis

[dbdumonteil · 6/10 · 28 December 2007]

In her memoirs ,Ava Gardner wrote that she hated some of her lines,notably when she had to tell her servant she would give children to her husband ."I just cannot say that,it's not my style" But the director answered:"my dear,you will".

"The Bible" is par excellence the movie Huston's fans love to hate ;other examples are "the roots of Heaven" or "the barbarian and the geisha " .Hindsight displays its charms:first,it is an accurate rendition of the Genesis (the title reads "in the beginning" and it is exactly what it is).There's more voice over than dialog but if you have read the Bible (and I'm sure you have)you know that the characters have only a few lines to say .

Chapters include the Creation and the wonders of nature ;Adam and Eve;Abel and Cain (should Abel have gone veggie,crime would never happen );Noah 's ark where the animals went in two by two just to get out of the rain and the huge hippopotamus -featured in the movie- did not get stuck in the door ,thanks to the patriarch's watchful eye (played by the director himself);Nemrod (a hardly recognizable Stephen Boyd)and the tower of Babel;Abraham whose segment is the most important in the whole movie (about one hour is given over to his alliance with God,Sara and Agar -the scene of the pieces of dried fruit is worth the price of admission-,Isaac,Jehovah asking the patriarch to kill Him a son );and Loth's adventures in Sodom where the Angel warns him :do not

look back when you escape from the doomed city .Poor wife! The cinematography is splendid ,particularly in the first sequences .But the most satisfying sequences are to be found towards the end: Abraham's sacrifice takes place in the desert among ruins and here Huston seems to transcend his subject whereas in the other segments ,he only makes a picture book.

Compared to Sergio Leone's "Sodom and Gomorrah",is it so bad?

Limited adventure of viewer from the beginning to the end...but has its precious moments, too!

[marcin_kukuczka · 6/10 · 3 February 2006]

The 1960s saw the heyday of great spectacle epics concerning ancient stories set in Rome, Greece, Egypt as well as the adaptations of selected biblical texts. John Huston, after the successful production BARABBAS (1961) by Richard Fleischer in Dino De Laurentiis Studios, made a film concerning the first part of the Book of Genesis, from the Creation to Abraham. Spectacular cast of stars was one of his key aspects in the film - George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Peter O'Toole (soon after his magnificent LAWRENCE OF ARABIA), and the director himself. But the content? Very predictable! Yet, though you may know the text perfectly well, it does not mean that the film will bore you to death. It has some very strong points and moments of fine cinematography (despite being a sluggish word for word Bible on screen). Nevertheless, when judging the film at once, one has to be very careful since Huston's film turns out to be different than other movies. When I saw THE BIBLE for the first time, I could not evaluate the film easily as one piece of work. Because of its particularly specific content, the movie has to be treated according to its different stories it deals with.

The creation is filmed nicely, and though it does not bring anything new, the viewer may rely on visual experience. The beauties of Iceland, Galapagos Islands seen from time to time, the waterfalls of Iguazu ... all these marvelous locations add a splendor to the director's imagination of how God created the world. Then, we see Man, Adam (Michael Parks) and Woman, Eve (Ulla Bergryd). The sequence with the forbidden apple is so long that one can fall asleep before something else happens. The event is treated literally, which is proved by the fact that the snake speaks. And then we all know what happened... The director shows the adventure of man from the beginning... The story of Cain and Abel is presented quite briefly. Then comes the explanation of how men spread on earth and we move to a magnificent story, Noah's.

This sequence is the blooming part of the film shot in a gorgeous way, which makes THE BIBLE really worth seeing. Noah, played by the director himself, John Huston, builds an arch with his sons. We see a group of people strangely worn who are mocking outrageously at him. I loved the later moment when animals are entering the arch. It's humor combined with great visual effects and wonderful music, the exotic tune begun by Noah who plays his flute. The whole sequence in the arch when great waters flood the old world holds viewer's attention throughout! I remember one brilliant moment when, after many days of rain, Noah looks outside and the sunshine appears in the arch, which causes the joy of animals and the dance of Noah's family. Another splendid moment is the rainbow appearing in the sky, God's everlasting alliance with men, when all the animals are already stepping on the new earth. This sequence is truly, as the trailer of the film said, full of "delight, humor, and humanity."

Noah's story is followed by a moral and a short Babel Tower sequence. We see King Nimrod (Stephen Boyd) who walks up the tower to reach God with his arrow. This is a fine performance of Boyd, the actor difficult to be recognized because of the exotic make up, but besides him, there is nothing spectacular. There is a glimpse at people speaking different languages but, comparing it to other stories, the Babel sequence is very condensed and could have been longer and more creative. That is, more or less, the moment which marks the half of the film.

The second half of Huston's BIBLE deals only with Abraham and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah within it. Although George C. Scott gives a marvelous performance as the father of many nations, the story is presented in a boring way. There are, however, some little brilliant moments in it that should never be skipped when one decides to see the film. These are, for instance, the visit of the three guests at Abraham's (Peter O'Toole). Except for the seemingly ordinary visit, there is a thrill of mystery felt throughout. The figure of man-angel disappears gradually as Abraham asks him about Sodom. Other moments worth considering are the final scenes when Abraham walks with his son to make sacrifice of Isaac, his only son. They step on the ruins of Sodom. George C. Scott wonderfully portrays a man divided within, obedient to God but at the same time rebelling against Him, loving Him and quarreling with Him. We only hear the echo of his voice to God while seeing the skeletons and ruined Sodom's temples and gates. Finally, the sinful cities are showed in a way nobody later did show (e.g. SODOM AND GOMORRAH (1962) by Robert Aldrich, entirely different in its treatment). Here, we see a ROTTEN decadence of its inhabitants, for example, a woman having ecstasy at the sight of a calf and an orgy of people with painted faces. Besides these little moments, the story of Abraham in THE BIBLE is definitely too long and tedious.

But when watching the film, one has to have certain goals. To see THE BIBLE just for the sake of it makes the film quite useless. So either I see it because I want to admire the cast, get to know the beginning of Genesis Book in a visual way, or I want to see the film as a cinema work of the middle 1960s (which is of interest to me personally). Therefore, it is a very specific film that is hard to evaluate once and for all. Some people may get bored with it entirely while some others may find it very interesting. It depends on viewers. I recommend it mostly because of Noah's sequence, but do not promise a rousing adventure. 6/10

A very authentic cinema piece about the most treasured book

[daviddaphneredding · 6/10 · 18 October 2012]

I was impressed by the various settings of the book, and the depicting of various accounts in the Bible, all the way from beginning to end. And as a minister I'm sensitive to this. Seldom if ever have I seen, in particular, the accounts of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and then the slaying of Abel by Cain. (As Cain, Richard Harris was his hostile, feisty self, perfect for the role of the vindictive brother.) Also, I have never seen any depicting of the flood of Noah, nor of the fall of the tower of Babel. I have seen the depicting of Sodom and Gommorah, but this was unusually well-done here. All the scenes appeared to be authentic.

And I liked the cast. Michael Parks was adept at playing Adam, and his female counterpart was excellent as Eve. I was impressed with, again, the flood of Noah, though in places it maybe was a bit more comical than it was intended to be. John Huston performed well his part of Noah, and he had a good voice, that of God and his narration voice was excellent. Stephen Boyd was as mean as ever as Nimrod. George C. Scott conveyed well an aging Abraham, Peter O'Toole acted well his triple role (that of the three angels who visited Sarah,) and Ava Gardner was her beautiful self as she betrayed to the screen that Sarah was still a beautiful lady even in her older years. But I do have one objection to the production. While I liked the scenes and, again, the manifestation of the various Biblical stories, I frankly thought the acting left something to be desired. I'm not trying to rescind, but while I still think the actors came across well in their individual roles, they seemed to just say their lines and, thus, in places did not put much feeling into what they said.

But overall, it was an outstanding work for Dino DeLaurentiis and John Huston, and is highly recommendable.

That unmistakable smell of money

[borromeot · 4/10 · 1 April 2018]

John Huston directed it and played Noah, yep. John Huston you know, the director of The Treasure Of Sierra Madre and The Maltese Falcon and his atheism shouldn't be an excuse for the embarrassment of The Bible...In the Beginning. Pier Paolo Pasolini was a Marxist, atheist, homosexual who made one of the greatest religious films of all time with The Gospel According To St Matthew. No, here, I suspect, the mastermind behind this super production is Dino De Laurentiis, the producer, the first name in the opening titles. Huge. Famous for very expensive movies with dubious results and intentions. Fortunately this - Highlights from Genesis and beyond - have a narration trying to explain the inexplicable. De Laurentiis believed in a cast of big names - like Harvey Weinstein - yes that's the laziest way to put together a production. Michael Parks is a beautiful 1960's Adam and so is Ulla Bergryd, his Eve. Richard Harris is Cain and Franco Nero Abel, George C Scott is Abraham, Ava Gardner, Sarah. and the film is now nearly forgotten. Pasolini used an unknown in the lead of his Gospel According to St Matthew, Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus and it became a classic. Commercial operations are one thing, great movies quite another.

Hard To Believe John Huston Was An Atheist

[possumopossum · 9/10 · 30 June 2007]

Whatever religious beliefs John Huston did or did not have, he treated the Scriptures with a great deal of respect. I don't see why an atheist would do a movie like this in the first place. I would think he wouldn't have wanted to touch it. But the beauty and poetry of this film is simply awesome. I would have given it ten stars, but he did take some artistic license with Scripture and he did kind of ham it up in the Noah's Ark sequence. Also, he left out the part where Noah got drunk after the flood and cursed one of his sons because they made fun of his nakedness. Otherwise, this is a beautiful film. It reminded me a little bit of HOW THE WEST WAS WON, in that he chronicled a few generations in this story, and many of the actors had little more than cameo appearances. The Creation scenes were absolutely gorgeous. I read somewhere that he didn't want to use animation drawings for the Creation, because he felt that the world was in a constant state of creation, and he had a crew film some of the wonders of the world at work. The results are stunning. The world really looks fresh and new in this film. You can tell he put a lot of care in making this film.

As a musician, I have to comment on the music in this film. It is as beautiful as the film. Too bad the soundtrack is out of print now. I had the album when I was younger and I played it nearly every chance I got. I never knew until I saw on this site that Ennio Morricone had a hand in writing some of this score (don't know which parts) but was uncredited. Instead, a Japanese composer named Toshiro Mayuzumi did most of this score, a composer I haven't heard of since.

Until PASSION OF THE Christ, this was the last of the big Bible epics and is an underrated masterpiece worth seeing. (THE LAST TEMPTATION OF Christ doesn't count because it took the Scriptures and butchered them.) 9 out of 10.

The Genesis Story

[rdeveza-50499 · 6/10 · 26 June 2021]

From the Creation to the story of Abraham, The Bible...In the Beginning, covers the first half of the Book of Genesis, with an all star ensemble.

"Ham! We have need of more pitch!"

[utgard14 · 3/10 · 29 August 2014]

John Huston takes us to Sunday school in this overlong biblical epic that covers the first 22 chapters of Genesis. Huston directs and narrates as the voice of Sominex...I mean, God. Opening creation/Adam & Eve segment is boring and not the best way to start the movie. The next part is Cain and Abel's story, which is okay but short. Richard Harris' overacting as Cain would have been interesting to see for a little longer. Then we have the story of Noah, played by John Huston. This is the most light-hearted part of the movie and also the best. The Tower of Babel part that follows is interesting but too brief. The final, and longest, story is that of Abraham. This includes Sodom & Gomorrah and Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. This segment is worth watching solely for the hilarious love scene between George C. Scott and Ava Gardner.

Huston seems more in love with the language of the Bible than the content. His presentation is lacking in artistry, save for snippets such as the scene where God first speaks to Abraham. It's overlong and dull to the point of putting you to sleep. They really should have cut a lot out. Read the book instead.

I would own a DVD copy for my collection, It's a Keeper!!!

[tm1956 · 10/10 · 23 September 2004]

I won't waste anyone's time with a lot of dribble. I first saw the film for the first time on television(CBS) to be exact. I enjoyed the movie very much - I just recently bought a copy on DVD; obviously, it's not something I'll play over and over again. But whenever I am the mood I would definitely watch this film, I enjoyed John Huston's work on the film. This is merely an introduction of the bible to people who never read it. Bible(movie) covers from Creation to Sacrifice of Isaac. To me I never found any of the scenes in the movie boring.

Ponderous, but definitely worth seeing

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 20 June 2011]

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

Well, at least I don't have to mark any "spoilers"....

[innocuous · 4/10 · 26 June 2008]

No spoilers here. Things turn out just as you would expect, if you have any familiarity with the book of Genesis.

TBITB has two claims to fame: First, it is quite faithful to the Biblical accounts from Genesis. Second, it is quite a spectacle, if not an epic. As I recall, there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the movie, though not at all comparable to that directed at Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" or Scorsese's "The Last Tempatation of Christ."

Unfortunately, the movie has not aged well. The spectacular aspects of the film are simply not on a par with films that were produced even 30 years earlier, and the split-screen/optical effects are very noticeable. (I am always amused by the relative size of the polar bears as they trot by Noah when entering the ark...they appear about the size of large pigs.) It is also distracting to see the big-name stars in relatively small and unchallenging parts. Huston himself is quite unconvincing in the role of Noah (which he took only because several other stars to whom he offered it turned it down.)

Ultimately, though, TBITB is just boring. Clocking in at nearly three hours, it gives the impression that each actor wanted the maximum screen time (and who blames them?) at the expense of every other consideration. Since there's virtually no suspense (will the angels find at least 10 righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah?) there's very little for the viewer to look forward to. It ends up being a somewhat impressive, but rather dry, filming of well-known Sunday school stories.

The Last Of The Biblical Epics And One Of The Best

[Eric-62 · 15 April 1999]

Maybe it's because I consider myself one of the devout, but I think this last of the great Biblical epics that began in 1949 with "Samson And Delilah" works very well. Christopher Fry, who was responsible for making "Ben Hur's" script literate and compelling manages to do the same here, and Huston does a fine job of directing as well as providing a noble touch as narrator/voice of God and Noah.

About the only ineffective touch comes at the end, where it is all too clear that the fire is causing George C. Scott's age makeup to run.

not as bad as people think

[tsf-1962 · 6/10 · 18 November 2006]

I've always enjoyed this movie, and it's not as bad as people think. Apart from Pasolini's "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" this is one of the few Biblical epics I've seen that makes a serious attempt at meeting the material on its own terms rather than spicing it up with extraneous material. Sure, the scenes of Adam and Eve are like a bad "Star Trek" episode, but the photography for the Creation sequence is spectacular. John Huston clearly had fun playing Noah, and the loading of the animals into the Ark is the best part of the movie. I also enjoyed George C. Scott as Abraham and Ava Gardner as Sarah, and Peter O'Toole's understated performance as the Angel of the Lord. Unfortunately, the Sodom and Gomorrah sequence was pretty bad; John Huston was a great director, but he didn't have Cecil B. DeMille's flair for scenes of pagan debauchery. An Italian director like Pasolini or possibly Visconti might have done better.

"Literally" is a big word

[bluemoon1059 · 7/10 · 14 June 2009]

The best parts of this movie are those that depict the story of Noah and certain portions of the story of Abraham, particularly the Epiphany sequences surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Covenant sacrifice. John Huston, with a mixture of seriousness and sweet humor, is terrific as Noah, and George C. Scott's Abraham is not only the very best ever put on film, it is one of the very best performances Scott has ever given, a performance that ranks with his other great ones in Patton, Dr. Strangelove and The Hospital.

For those of you who are not learned readers of scripture, "the three angels" are actually an appearance of the Angel of the Lord--in Christian theology, an incorporeal, howbeit, visible visitation of the pre-incarnate Christ. The Angel of the Lord is not a created being, i.e., a mere messenger, but God Himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. These rare appearances in the Old Testament known as the Epiphanies strictly occur within the spiritual realm, for Christ has not yet taken on human flesh. Moses and Abraham are among the very few persons in history to have witnessed them. They are instances whereupon the veil that separates the overlapping spiritual and temporal dimensions is pulled back so that they may be seen by humans. The Burning Bush, for example, is another of these Epiphanies. Huston, a great reader, was familiar with this Christian tradition. In scripture, the Angel of the Lord's appearance to Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah consists of three beings in human form talking and acting in concert or consists of the Epiphany and two angelic beings at His side. Scripture may be construed either way. Huston mostly went with the former while allowing for the latter. Hence, they are all Peter O'Toole, alternately speaking as one, though the greater attention is given to the specter in the center. Elegant.

Let's get back to that word "literally" and the rhyme behind the reason of my digression will become apparent.

Many great developments have occurred in the fields of science and biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) in the last two centuries especially. Their dramatic revelations for a believer like me are delightful, even thrilling. But for some, both believers and non-believers, they have served to create a great deal of tension that is both unnecessary and tragic. For example, there remains a sincere and well-meaning segment of the orthodox Christian community which staunchly insists that scripture calls for a young-earth creationism, when in fact it does not. This error is compounded by non-believers--mostly ignorant of the biblical text and its theology--who insist that the Bible necessarily calls for a young-earth creationism as well. These are the sort who talk about ancient biblical history as myth or legend--a collection of absurdities supposedly exposed by scientific fact.

Their premise is wrong.

The perceived and ultimately illusory tension between natural history and revelation arises from two problems: (1) the age of the universe and (2) the origins of life. All of the other varies controversies are contingent to these. The eternal, static universe model that was once passionately defended by Darwinists, by the way, for reasons that should be obvious, can no longer be rationally sustained. It is essentially dead. It appears to be the stuff of scientific myth. The finite,expanding universe model, based on the so-called "Big Bang Theory", is perfectly consistent with scripture. Score one for the Bible.

The origins of life, of course, is a much more complex matter. Too many Christians have simply walked off the field of battle. Insisting on a young earth, they fail to realize that the expanding universe model supports their position of a finite creation with a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner--of one sort or another. Also, a finite, expanding universe dramatically shortens the period of time that evolutionists once claimed was required for all of their various mechanisms to produce life as we know it today. Obviously, this hasn't caused evolutionists to abandon their theory, just modify it.

In spite of what so many evolutionists disingenuously claim, the jury is still out, and some of us, who believe that both the general revelation (or natural history) and the special revelation are ultimately consistent, understand precisely the nature of their slight of hand and their motive. We are not hemmed in by any other particular model or mode of interpretation other than the knowledge that God is the author of both the general and special revelations. We are open.

So was Huston. And that's the point. Too many commenting on this board fail to realize that his film, like the Bible, allows for a much broader understanding of both the scientific data and the biblical account--in both is metaphoric and literal senses--than they would allow for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the reasonably established facts in and of themselves.

Too many have already made up theirs minds based on nothing more substantial than faulty premises and foolish prejudices. If this were more generally understood, Huston's film, in spite of its faults, would be more highly regarded.

De Laurentiis' Wide-Screen Ambition

[EdgarST · 7/10 · 7 July 2011]

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.

Only as good (or bad) as the source material

[bwilkening · 3/10 · 15 December 2007]

As much as I wanted to try and rate this film independently of my own beliefs (as an atheist), I found it impossible to separate said beliefs from my appraisal of the film. The film succeeds to some extent purely from the standpoint of a dramatic retelling of the stories in the book of Genesis. The stories are retold faithfully, albeit with an air of solemnity and drama that even exceeds that found in the Bible. However, as someone who doesn't believe in the historical accuracy of the episodes depicted here, the film didn't do anything for me other than turn me off even more from religion. For not only are these stories made up, I find them profoundly immoral. Those who believe in the Bible and think that there is some profound moral lesson in the stories of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, of Lot's wife turning into salt, or of Adam and Eve being cast out of paradise for their "disobedience," well, they will probably love the film. As someone who finds the lessons expressed in those stories repugnant, this film contributes nothing to human progress. Perhaps the most reprehensible scene in the history of film is the depiction of the half-naked homosexuals of Sodom and Gomorrah, whom the loving God of the Old Testament annihilates in a fireball that looks suspiciously like a nuclear bomb. Thank God (pun intended) we've come far enough since this film was made that such depictions of gays are rightfully deemed not only politically incorrect but downright despicable.

The End of an Era, a Beginning for Me

[Randwulf · 9/10 · 24 January 2012]

This film was released in September of 1966, which placed it at the close of a long tradition of Hollywood Biblical epics. I was around ten years old and had a vinyl LP of its great musical score which I played over and over before I finally saw the movie on the big screen of a theater. Our family was not particularly religious, but this film was one of those that had a profound influence on me and made me interested in knowing more about the Bible.

Looking at it today, I see more depth. The opening footage from all over the world of the days of the Creation is still breathtaking. As a child I felt uncomfortable with the partially nude scenes of Adam and Eve, and even now I believe nudity needs to be implied. Otherwise my mind stops focusing on the story and thinks "I just saw a naked actor!". Also, a theory of some Bible commentators is that animals are clothed with feathers or fur, and Adam and Eve were clothed with a glow of light emanating from within them. When they sinned that glow disappeared and they were then totally naked before they hit on the idea of fig leaves. (This interpretation would not likely have been known to John Huston). Beyond that, the film rolls on quite nicely through the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis. The cinematography is rich and beautiful. I do think a few too many scenes were interpreted as desert settings, since many of the Bible lands were lush and only outskirted by desert as a result of the climatology of the region being somewhat different more than 4,000 years ago (though of course that's controversial). Either way the storyline still follows the episodes of salvation history. One reviewer said it looks like they just kept shooting until they ran out of film and decided to call it quits. To me it was essential they kept going until they climaxed the film with the sacrifice of Isaac, which pointed forward to the day when God would inaugurate a new creation. Thus there is a great arc of theme in the epic from "In the Beginning" to "The New Beginning".

Overall the movie looks like a live-action version of Sunday School art. By that I mean most of the scenes are like pictures I've seen in religious artworks. For example, Adam and Eve are portrayed by clean-shaven white people. Cain bashes Abel over the head instead of slitting his throat (like the sacrifices he'd watched - see I John 3:12 in the original Jerusalem Bible [1966], not the New Jerusalem Bible [1985]). This Tower of Babel somewhat rightly resembles a Sumerian ziggurat, yet more resembles Renaissance paintings of it. Modern researchers have discovered that Noah could have been a king, and the ark was actually a huge flat barge shaped like a giant shoebox to ride the tidal waves of the Flood. The movie pictures things like I've seen them all my life: a peasant Noah, and a rounded boat with a house on top (and that shape would capsize in no time). The only thing they didn't have was a giraffe sticking out of the window.

Nevertheless, you may enjoy these traditional depictions. I'm just preferring literal Biblical research combined with the look of what has been discovered in archaeology. Yet, for me the overall effect of this film is still profound and quite moving. It's been said that George C. Scott's portrayal of Abraham was the low point of the movie, but I thought his crusty performance was inspiring! (I was also thankful they didn't picture Abraham like Santa Claus). For the most part, watching this film was an enjoyable and uplifting experience. Any Biblical movie should give us a taste of what things were like, and then we should always go back and read the Book. There we will find the authentic atmosphere of the actual words. Still, one line the scriptwriters put in the mouth of Abraham is not found in the Bible, yet it does reflect what the Bible says of him. It has helped me with my faith. It is the line where Abraham asks, "Shall the Lord speak, and Abraham not believe?"

For me it was meh

[ericstevenson · 6/10 · 30 December 2017]

I remember reading the Leonard Maltin review and how he said that this was definitely a time where you should read the book over the movie. I personally found this movie to be just okay. Despite the name "The Bible" it doesn't describe that much of the Bible. It's only the book of Genesis. In fact, why not just name this movie Genesis? You could make sequels that cover all the other books in the Bible.

That being said, there isn't anything too bad about this film. It's mostly well acted, but it has a major flaw. It doesn't really have anything unique about it at all. When you take a story as famous as the Bible that's been adapted so many times, you need to have something extra. I guess it was faithful, but it came off as bland. It's still got some good acting, it's just nothing to remember. **1/2

The Book is Better Than the Movie

[NoDakTatum · 4/10 · 8 December 2023]

Having avoided this film for years, I finally took a deep breath and rented it. John Huston's version of the Bible is full of pretty pictures, Hollywood stars, and no heart. At almost three hours, the film is divided into four major sections or stories. The first concerns the Creation, as Adam (Michael Parks) and Eve (Ulla Bergryd) are introduced into the Garden of Eden, eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and are banished. Later, their first two sons are involved in the very first murder. The Creation opening does have a lot of scenery, as the narrator takes us, slowly, through all the days God took to create the world. Adam and Eve are all wide-eyed wonderment, and strategically naked. The Garden of Eden, however, looks like your backyard after a hot day. There is fake greenery here and there, but I kept waiting for Adam to invent the lawn sprinkler. The entire eating of the apple is glossed over as if Huston was in a hurry to get on with the film, or at least his turn as Noah. After Cain (Richard Harris) kills Abel (Franco Nero), Noah happens along and begins building the ark. But wait, this is not your Noah of the Bible or epics past, this Noah is "funny." Huston mugs for the camera as if he were in a Pink Panther film. As Noah and his three sons build, there is an awkward scene where Noah falls, gets his foot stuck in a bucket of pitch, and slides down half the deck of the ark, hitting his sleeping son in the head with the bucket. The light musical score tells us that Noah is just a clumsy regular guy, but if God told me to build an ark because of the watery end of mankind, I would be a little more careful. No, Noah's three sons are not played by Moe, Larry, and Curly. Other "funny" scenes involve Noah's wife trying to feed some of the exotic animals in the ark and not doing very well. Why didn't the cast just wink at the camera and grin? Poor special effects also kill this section, as Huston tries to fool us with bad footage of animals getting on the ark.

The shortest scene in the film revolves around King Nimrod (Stephen Boyd) and the building of the Tower of Babel. This section is all too brief as Nimrod climbs the Tower, shoots an arrow into heaven, God becomes angry, knocks a few things down, and no one can understand their coworker's language any longer. Without any connection to the three longer stories, you will wonder what Huston was thinking, maybe he had a bigger budget than he thought. The final, and longest, section involves George C. Scott as Abraham, and Ava Gardner, doing her best impression of Elizabeth Taylor in "Cleopatra," as Sarah. Abraham fathers a son with a slave after Sarah becomes barren. Angel(s) (Peter O'Toole) tells Abraham of Sarah's impending pregnancy, and then moves on to Sodom, ready to take the city down. This scene provides many creepy moments, as O'Toole is led by Lot (Gabriele Ferzetti) through the city of sin, which we see samples of in the dark. Lot and his family escape, Lot's wife (Eleonora Rossi Drago) becomes the world's largest salt lick, and Abraham is told to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac. As Abraham and Isaac wander in the desert to the sacrificial altar, they pass through Sodom's ruins. Here, Scott is given a bunch of scenes they probably expected to repeat when his Oscar nomination came through. Scott, always a fine actor, is awful, all groans and blank stares, as if he cannot get a handle on this character and director Huston will not help out. The film ends with Isaac's reprieve, and more pretty scenery.

I took three days to watch this movie, and I congratulate anyone who sat through it in one sitting. The cinematography is lush and gorgeous. Every scene is like a painting, pardon the cliche. The biggest problem here is the complete lack of spirit in the film. Everyone goes through the motions, and yet there is no magic or excitement in the characters' eyes. The actors say all their "thou"s and "wherefore"s with appropriate nobility, but I never believed that they were awed by the Spirit of God. I have seen more emotionally appropriate reactions to mistaken lunch orders at Burger King than Scott's over the top portrayal of Abraham. He groans, hisses, and acts his wig off, but that was all there was- an act. A young Peter O'Toole, with an angelic face, plays the three angels wonderfully. He was the only actor here who seemed to understand the importance of the work without resorting to theater tricks to make the audience happy. The script, by "Barabbas" screenwriter Christopher Fry, is all over the place. It is too bad he could not concentrate on one area or event. He spent too much energy cramming everything in, and overwhelming the film. I have seen better Sunday school pageants cover the same material more effectively.

Not one of Huston's best efforts but it has its moments.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 8/10 · 19 April 2007]

a beautiful music score, and some interesting segments but this film suffers from sluggishness and some serious miscasting. Even with it's all-star cast it tends to drag, from a script that hasn't achieved the best pacing. The Noah segment is by far the best, with Huston himself playing both Noah and the voice of God. Peter O' Toole is very otherworldly as the angels, but George C. Scott (an actor I admire very much) is really out of his element as Abraham. And the script has been cursed with one of the great failings of the Bible itself. Translated into English of early seventeenth century England, the language used by the people in the bible has remained in that stilted form. As our language has evolved and changed over the centuries the Bible hasn't and it becomes truly tedious in a motion picture of this length. Even Hollywood realized this with most of the great religious epics they dropped the "thees" and "thous" and "thys" and "thines" which are no longer in general practice since the days of the puritans. Still it is a fair and reverent look at the book of Genesis.

Some extraordinary moments in a frequently tedious film

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 27 February 2017]

"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.

Put simply: the worst film John Huston ever made.

[barnabyrudge · 2/10 · 9 September 2004]

Even great directors have their off days. Hitchcock hit a low point with Under Capricorn; Spielberg's 1941 was a mess; Peckinpah didn't get much acknowledgement for his final movie The Osterman Weekend. Like these other great film-makers, even John Huston occasionally gave us a stinker. His worst film was The Bible (yes, worse than the terrible "Phobia"). It was also his most commercially successful film. Go figure.

Originally planned as a phenomenally expensive adaptation of the entire Bible, producer Dino De Laurentiis eventually down-scaled his vision to allow for this version of the first 22 chapters in the Book of Genesis. We are taken through the Creation; Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel; Noah's Ark; the Tower of Babel; and Abraham's test. Big stars pop in for brief appearances, including Richard Harris (Cain), George C. Scott (Abraham), Ava Gardner (Sarah) and Huston himself (Noah).

At 174 minutes, the film is awfully long. Its over-bearing message is hard to tolerate, and quite often the pacing is so slow that the film grinds to a boring standstill. Films like Barabbas - made four years earlier - proved that lengthy biblical epics could be lively and literate, but this one one is anything but. The episodes come and go without giving the audience much to get excited about. The one segment which rises above badness is the Noah's Ark sequence, which has a pictorial splendor and quirky humour lacking from the rest of the film. This segment alone, however, is not enough to save the whole picture. Ultimately, The Bible is a pretty huge failure on a film-making level, and a film utterly unworthy of its talented cast and director.