Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

paulsp2-1 This movie has appeared from time to time on YouTube. It certainly hasn't stood the test of time as MGM's "Ben Hur" (1959) and Bronston's "El Cid" both have. Watching it again after many years I found it a total bore with its crowning glory being one of the corniest endings ever. No wonder Richard Burton preferred to forget he ever took part. The only good thing about this film is Fox's CinemaScope image and some of the interior sets. Even the studio's "The Story of Ruth",now virtually forgotten and which is a long way from perfect, is far superior as it at least keeps the viewer engaged and has a wonderful score by Franz Waxman.

Leofwine_draca A stern (some might say wooden) Richard Burton takes the lead in this Roman epic centred around the story of Jesus and the birth of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The film is very well made, colourful and entertaining throughout, although as with many of these types of films, it often descends into melodrama with overblown acting. The melodrama in this case comes from Jay Robinson's camp Caligula, an extremely irritating performance that almost forced me to throw stuff at the screen every time he appeared.Nevertheless the wide-ranging story takes in plenty of sub-plots and different, engaging characters. There are revelatory scenes, a conversation with Judas, some guy getting stretched on the rack and a couple of decent sword fights to enjoy (one fight is a skit on THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, as hero and villain battle up and down a staircase – great fun). I love how the red robe worn by Jesus to his crucifixion runs throughout the story, converting people to Christianity left, right and centre. Unlike a lot of Biblical adaptations, this film's tone is never pious and it works as entertainment first throughout. As the slave Demetrius, Victor Mature steals all of his scenes, and he proved to be so popular that he returned as the lead in the following year's sequel, DEMETRIOUS AND THE GLADIATORS. What I also liked about this film was the wealth of familiar faces in minor roles. Michael Rennie is, for instance, a noble Peter, and in comparison Torin Thatcher overacts for all his worth. Best of all is a hissy cameo from Ernest Thesiger as arch-villain Tiberius, who stamps his feet and bellows at Burton for all his worth! THE ROBE is a decent historical epic with plenty to interest Christians and non-Christians alike.

rooak This poorly directed, woodenly acted, cliché-scripted, musically over-scored film was worth at least four stars simply for the over the top performance of Jay Robinson as Caligula. He minced, posed and sneered magnificently! Clearly an inspiration for Dr Evil, and for the Romans in The Life of Brian (I was waiting for him to say, "Welease Woger!") The colour was often pretty great too, and had the feel of religious paintings.It's a pity that this overly sentimental movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be: love story, religious inspiration, historical epic, or camp comedy! Poor directing and poor scripting really didn't give the actors much opportunity.I did finish with a sense of gladness that the mini-toga has not resurfaced as a fashion item. Victor Mature looked decidedly uncomfortable in his.

vincentlynch-moonoi Somehow I had never gotten around to watching this "classic". It's always great in life when you learn something. And the preeminent thing I learned from this film was that Victor Mature was a lousy actor. Really lousy. And in later years, he himself often alluded to that. In the scene where he was being tortured, I couldn't help wondering if it was because he was a Christian, or because he was such a lousy actor.Let's see. What else did I learn? That a lot must have changed between 1953 when this film was made, and 1959 when "Ben-Hur" was made. The latter is one of the most perfect Hollywood films ever made. In this film some of the mattes used for backgrounds are so fake looking as to be laughable. Not to mention that the print being shown on TCM is none to good...although I guess it's the best available.And then we come to Richard Burton's acting. Burton was never one of my favorites, although that was more because I didn't care for the films he selected to appear in. But I always felt he was a very fine actor. Not so here. About the only time I have ever seen poorer acting was when silent screen stars tried to transition to talkies. This is probably the poorest acting I have seen in a leading role in my life.But, Burton's overacting here paled in comparison to that of Jay Robinson as Caligula. I guess audiences were different back in the 1950s. Today I imagine people would burst out laughing at this performance.Cast-wise, all is not lost, however. Jean Simmons as the female lead tends to rise above the rest of this disaster...sort of. Michael Rennie's brief appearances as Peter are quite nice. Dean Jagger is here, and he's always a welcome addition to any cast. And, Torin Thatcher as Burton's father -- and a senator -- is quite good.In terms of the story, it's very fifty-ish. I'd have to rate it inferior to many of the other religious pics of the era. In fact, it was an opportunity lost. The concept -- what would happen to a Roman tribune who gambled over Jesus' robe after the crucifixion? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be that he would appear in a exceedingly poor film.I give an average film a "7". This one earns a "6". There's just too much wrong with it.