Rating: 
Summary: Christ In A Very Potent Form- (George Stevens is director)
Review:
I have watched George Steven's film numerous times- and will continue to. Considering the subject matter- that shouldn't come as a surprise.
This film flopped on initial release. Some said it was because of the waning interest in the biblical epics. Some claimed it was because of hollywood's finest stars in momentary parts- that it became too distracting. I personally think it was because it was a quiet film for its time. Stevens' tried to get inside what Christ must have 'felt'. I don't think anyone at the time could or would grasp or understand that approach.
Max Von Sydow is brilliant as Christ. You cannot come away from his initial meeting with John the Baptist (Heston), his dealing with the demon on the mountain ( Donald Plesance), his saving of Mary Magdelaine or his raising of Lazurus, without sensing how a 'Son of God' must have felt amongst the 'barbarians'. He is magnificant in relaying how lonely Christ ultimately must have felt. It's a credit to Sydow's acting, his delivery of the word- and the atmosphere generated by Stevens.
This is a flawed but still an immensley spiritual film. It touches on the life of Christ (based on the Fulton Oursler book), and it paints a poignant portrait primarily of his adult years and his time with the Apostles.
It personally affected me in that it really spoke of how, no matter what was demonstarated, it was never enough. It painted the ultimate example that if we don't cherish what we see, feel, hear and know rings with a real truth, we're doomed to a life of continual doubt and denial.
There are many familiar faces (even for the young that may only barely know them).Heston, Portier, Ferrer, Winters, Savalas, John Wayne as a Roman Soldier- David McCallum as Judas...
This is a feeler. If you watch, you may learn. If you open your eyes... you may sense and hear.
Most of all, you will come away thinking, wondering and feeling something spiritual. And that's always a good basis for personal growth, regardless of religious leanings.
Rating:
Summary: Utterly brilliant--a true classic!
Review: "The Greatest Story Ever Told," George Stevens' epic film version of the story of Jesus Christ, was the first Biblical film I remember watching as a child, and it remains one of my favorites today. Stevens began work on this movie because he wanted "simply to do the story of Jesus," and he along with his cast and crew have treated the story with great reverence and respect. Max von Sydow turns in a brilliant performance as Jesus. And von Sydow is backed by an all-star cast which includes Charlton Heston, Van Heflin, Jose Ferrer, Roddy McDowall, David McCallum, Sal Mineo, Dorothy McGuire, Telly Savalas and many others. The story of Jesus Christ is indeed the "greatest story ever told," and this film is a glorious rendering of that story.
Rating: 
Summary: Jesus Christ Never Existed.
Review: 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.
Rating: 
Summary: "Greatest Story Ever Told" Review
Review: Although I prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" over all the Biblical films depicting the life of Christ, this film comes in at a close second ("King of Kings" is enjoyable although loses most of it's luster when compared to "Greatest"). Max Von Sydow (with those piercing blue eyes) turns in a notewrothy portrayal as Jesus and should have at least gotten an Oscar nod for his performance. Charlton Heston with his booming, commanding voice and rugged, masculine physique is the idyllic John the Baptist and should have been an Oscar contender in the supporting actor catagory, Dorothy McGuire is radiant as the Virgin Mary ( even if she does have a small role--which should not have been so relegated) and Jose Ferrer gives a wry, yet somewhat gruff portrayal of Herod Antipas while Claude Raines is a terrifying Herod the Great. Telly Savales is rather mediocre as Pontius Pilate, Angela Lansbury as his wife Claudia, should have had more than one line and John Wayne should never have been offered a part in the film. Despite the few minor flaws this is an enjoyable film and does not lack the essence of the Gosples.
Rating:
Summary: ron
Review: Did anybody On this film actually read the bible or any of the gospel before doing this film. I understand taking leave of the truth with a lot of other subjects. But this is the life of our Lord and savior. Shame on the makers of this film.
Rating:
Summary: Just about the LONGEST story ever told!
Review: I find it amazing that this film was orginally 4 1/3 hours. Even at it's current 3 1/3 hours, it's still too long.I hate to rag on movies that protray our Lord in a good light, but... While the scenery and backdrops are excellent (the scene where the Magi are following the star is breathtaking) and worthy of an epic, the movie suffers from an abundance of blandness. With the exception of Charlton Heston's energetic performance as John the Baptist, and (believe it or not) Telly Savalas' very respectable and believeable protrayal of Pilate, the rest of the cast comes off flat and uninspired. Max von Sydow's way of playing the part of Jesus comes off somewhat sterile. The only time he seemed to display any emotion is when he was clearing out the money-changers at the Temple. There were a few liberties taken with the story and plot. Not enough to call it irreverent or anything, but definately annoying. The most egregious one was Judas killing himself by falling into the fire on the Temple's altar. Excuse me, but Judas died by hanging himself. Or were the writers absent from Sunday School that day? As mentioned, Charlton Heston put in the most memorable performance of the movie as John the Baptist, and, at least to me, is most in line with how I think the real John actually was. As far as the cameos go, the only ones I recognized were (I wasn't even born when this film was released) Pat Boone, Sidney Poitier, and of course, John Wayne, whose delivery of his single line was flatter than Kansas in the wintertime. Overall, this is a decent picture, but certainly not on the scale of "Ben-Hur" or even "King of Kings". However, I will catch it again the next time it's on AMC and see if it is any better the 2nd time around.
Rating: 
Summary: Not reliable/distracting for all but small children
Review: I watched this one with my five year old son, assuring him all the time that this was a movie, that the actor playing Jesus is not Jesus, and that yes, he talks funny. He still enjoyed it, and I did, too, in parts: the reaction of the crowd to the raising of Lazarus was brilliant. But, I'm sorry to say, a Jesus who looks like he's had massive Botox injections in his lower lip and who sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger is a long way from the Jesus we know from the Church's Holy Scripture and holy icons.
I don't buy the assessment of reviewers who speak of Max von Sydow's 'quiet dignity' as Jesus: speaking to the women of Jerusalem while carrying the cross, von Sydow looked and sounded absolutely maniacal. In much of the film, Scripture is uttered out of context, in the wrong place, or by the wrong person. Judas is given an excuse for his treachery by the presence of the Devil character, who also whips up the crowd before Pilate. In short, it's OK for young children, as long as you watch it with them, but don't count on it as Gospel or even a good interpretation of it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Most Miscast Stories Ever Filmed
Review: I'm honestly wondering if many of those folks who gave this 5-star rave reviews saw the same film as I have, several times...
First, you need to separate the subject matter from the film. Just becauise the film is about the life of Jesus doesn't automatically make it an untouchable masterpiece of cinema.
While I definitely give Stevens his props -- there are some truly magnificently-done scenes here, and the film as a whole remains watchable -- the attempt to, it seems, put most of Hollywood in the film willy-nilly almost sunk the whole thing. In addition, certain elements of Christ's life one would consider key are completely glossed over.
Von Sydow (who incidentally, may be the only actor to have played both Jesus and Satan, not to mention an exorcist) tries; he really does. He makes an interesting Christ, certainly far more believable than Jeffrey Hunter's blue-eyed, always immaculately-groomed version in King of Kings. His acting ranges from OK to incredible, and he's on-screen for almost the entire film. He brings a definite sincerity and warmth to the role, even if the scipt gets a bit too heavy-handed at times, but in the final analysis, his peformance alone isn't enough to sustain the whole movie.
The rest of the cast is split between just OK or just plain wrong/bad. Dorothy Macquire as Mary was... well, an unexpected choice, but she actually fared far better than many others. The actress who played Mary Magdeline was completely mediocre;in this film, maybe Claudia Cardinale would've been the best choice.
Claude Rains could've phoned in his part. Sidney Poiter,Roddy M, Martin Landau and even Sal MIneo were surprisingly effective.
But some of the other casting was just strange or ill-conceived.
Watch the film objectively and see if you don't agree with some of this:
Both Heston and Ferrer (and even Pleasance) were WAY over the top, and not in a good way at all. Telly Savalas looked like he was bored, and delivered his lines appropriately. The Barabbas scene was flatter than a surfboard. Victor Buono tried too hard to be slimy. Angela Lansbury is a great actress, but was completely wasted here. Van Heflin was trying too hard. Ed Wynn as Isiah and Shelly Winters as a healed person? Huh? And of course, the crown jewel; John Wayne as the Roman officer supervising the crucifixion. His one line brings the definition of "wooden" to dizzying new heights.
They're only some; there are scores more of miscasts. And yes, while many of them are indeed little more than cameos, they all add up to derail the film from what it could've been. As it stands, you actually find yourself laughing at some of the performances. A sincere effort, but too ambitious overall.
Rating: 
Summary: The Greatest Story is Retold
Review: Made in the 1950's, where many epic movies were made, "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is a retelling of the classic story of Jesus Christ. Filmed in Arizona and with a cast of thousands, this film is a homage to the life of Jesus, played here by Max Von Sydow. The director, cast, and crew spend much of their time recreating what happend in Palestine, 2,000 years ago. Though slow at some parts, the Christian family should watch it for Easter or Christmas. The landscape somewhat resembles ancient Israel, and the sets are suberbly done, giving us a desert-like feel. The music is soft and sweeping; a powerful scene in the film would be the resurrections of Lazarus and Christ, in which a Handle "Hallelujiah" chorus is sung. All those movie-making elements help create a retelling of the life of Jesus, ranging from his birth at Christmas Eve, and continueing from his adulthood, his ministry, and ending with climax at the Easter Resurrection. It includes a cast of thousands, including John Wayne. Recommended for those who love Biblical epics.
Rating:
Summary: It was just okay.
Review: The end of the film has modern commentary that the director wanted to make a film of Jesus without commentary or additions but that's exactly what he did. For example, with the "adulterous woman," Jesus never said "You've judged her correctly; she has sinned." He only writes on the ground and says whomever has not sinned to stone her first. Is this significant? Could be. Remember that they only brought the woman, where was the man with whom she was allegedly caught? God's Law requires that TWO witnesses be presented and that BOTH adulterers be stoned. Were there two witnesses? Where was the man? Something to think about.
Those kinds of "little things" happened througout the movie and bothered me as a believer. Why not just stick to the original text?! The modern film The Gospel of John, I'd recommend instead.
|
