Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 9:55 AM   
 By:   Montana Dave   (Member)

I enjoy Alfred Newman's score to this film, on the Ryko 3 disc set. I was thinking about renting it from Netflix even though it's not available on Blu-ray, just DVD. Wondering just how awful the film (may) be, as I've heard stories. And then there's George Steven's Blonde, Blue-eyed Jesus portrayed by Max von Sydow, who I'm sure must look ridiculous? Is the film a total slog-fest?

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 10:11 AM   
 By:   WagnerAlmighty   (Member)

If you're okay with schlocky (too long) films with staggeringly great scores, you should definitely check it out.

I actually liked it better than the Passion (the violence gets too cartoony after awhile imo), King of Kings (though the latter has some excellent highlights).

Not as good as Jesus of Nazareth.

Also, if you would like to see a Bible movie where they spend extra time getting the actual quotes in, this is for you.

I have to warn you: I'm a Christian so please take this with the standard grain of salt +

GSET 6.5 out of 10
KoK 5.5
JoN 9
Passion 6

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 10:42 AM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Actually, there is a staggeringly brilliant sequence in the film where the camera is ploughing through the Jerusalem market. It goes almost silent and all you see is the squalor amidst the selling - I mean, everything is happening right there in front of you. It just makes this gigantic poetic statement as it goes along. You couldn't top that scene if you tried.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:01 AM   
 By:   WagnerAlmighty   (Member)

Actually, there is a staggeringly brilliant sequence in the film where the camera is ploughing through the Jerusalem market. It goes almost silent and all you see is the squalor amidst the selling - I mean, everything is happening right there in front of you. It just makes this gigantic poetic statement as it goes along. You couldn't top that scene if you tried.

I agree.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:12 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

I think it's a great film.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:19 AM   
 By:   Rozsaphile   (Member)

Talk about a loaded question! The film is slow-moving and often lacking in dramatic urgency, especially toward the end, when U.A. pulled the plug. It is also, thoughtful, reverent, and a frequent delight to eye and ear.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:39 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Well, clearly, one has to take into account the year the movie was made, and adjust their "viewing mindset" accordingly.
Good movie.

I love Max Von Sydow in anything.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:47 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

Talk about a loaded question! The film is slow-moving and often lacking in dramatic urgency, especially toward the end, when U.A. pulled the plug. It is also, thoughtful, reverent, and a frequent delight to eye and ear.

You make it sound even better than it actually is, Rozsaphile! All the ingredients I want, with the exception - perhaps - of "lacking in dramatic urgency"... although, come to think of it, I do get a bit fed up with a surfeit of dramatic urgency.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 11:49 AM   
 By:   WagnerAlmighty   (Member)

The Hallelullah at the end was a big bummer for me and dragged the whole movie down a star. I think Alfred was right to freak out over it; he'd already written something for that that fit the rest of the score and film, and the Handel totally sabotaged the overall feel of the film. All my opinion.

To be completely honest, I'd rather hear Alfred's score rather than ANYthing by Handel.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 1:20 PM   
 By:   msmith   (Member)

This movie was mandatory viewing in my house every Easter while I was growing up.
There many things about the film that I like, there are some aspects I don't. I think John Wayne's bit part is very funny, although it's not supposed to be.
Ultimately Alfred Newman's score makes it all worth while.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 2:04 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

It's a pretty good film, although a bit heavyhanded.

The score, however, is one of Newman's best -- and one of my favourites from this particular period of Hollywood film history (I only ever listen to the OST, though, even if I have the 2CD set).

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 2:09 PM   
 By:   TacktheCobbler   (Member)

Definitely not as bad as some people make it out to be, though the sluggish pace does cause some issues, and the butchering of Newman's score did not help. Granted I've never seen the premiere version, though it's certainly a good movie.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 4:14 PM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

The Hallelullah at the end was a big bummer for me and dragged the whole movie down a star. I think Alfred was right to freak out over it; he'd already written something for that that fit the rest of the score and film, and the Handel totally sabotaged the overall feel of the film. All my opinion.

To be completely honest, I'd rather hear Alfred's score rather than ANYthing by Handel.


It is a good film, one which I think is easily underrated because it was enormously expensive (so there were high, high expectations) and filled with lots and lots of cameos and big name actors, which is less distracting today as many modern audience members would not know who many of these people were.

It is also the movie with the most spot on John the Baptist (Charlton Heston).

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 4:35 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Newman's version of the Hallelujah chorus is atrocious (extremely skimpy-sounding), but I don't mind it as a way to cap off the OST.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 5:06 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

I first saw the film in the theater during a 1972 35mm re-release. What I can't remember is how long the film was. During its 1965 roll-out, for each subsequent city's premiere, George Stevens kept editing the film down from its initial length of 225 minutes. A 28 April 1965 Variety brief calculated the final roadshow length at 193 minutes and thirty-two seconds. Two years later, an even shorter, 141-minute reissue opened in general release in New York City beginning 31 May 1967.

All video versions since the laserdisc release have run 199 minutes. But I don't know if what I saw that night in 1972 was closer to 141 minutes or 199 minutes. What I do know is that the film seemed like a long slog, because when the intermission point was reached (it's easy to tell where it is), we plowed right through.

I like TGSET, but I prefer KING OF KINGS, both film and score.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 6:05 PM   
 By:   Rozsaphile   (Member)

I only ever listen to the OST, though, even if I have the 2CD set).

Actually the 2-disc album is the OST. That is, it derives from the original sound tracks as used (or in this case abused) in the film. The 1965 U.A. album is a separate recording made exclusively for commercial disc release. I'm pretty sure that Newman had nothing to do with the Handel arrangement. Ken Darby likely conducted.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 6:12 PM   
 By:   Rozsaphile   (Member)


GSET 6.5 out of 10
KoK 5.5
JoN 9
Passion 6


Just for fun, if you're into comparisons, you should try to find Dwight MacDonald's nasty review, collected in his On Movies. Sample: "God is unlucky in TGSET. His only begotten Son turns out to be a bore." He rated the film as "middlebrow kitsch," as opposed to KING OF KINGS ("lowbrow kitsch") and THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW "highbrow kitsch."

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 6:51 PM   
 By:   gsteven   (Member)

While often visually stunning (see it on the largest screen you can), the use of literal scripture quotes in the script becomes tiresome. Other moments--Shelley Winter's "I'm cured!" and all the cameos, the doltish character of James of Younger, the aged Virgin Mary, the crude studio set for the end of The Slaughter of the Innocents (what's with the close up of the doorway at the end of the scene, leading to...nothing?), the "sound montages" that don't jive with the visual imagery (yes, the market scene), even the dreary and oppressive Roman architecture set design (I think Romans a little had more style that this, but perhaps this is an aesthetic point), the agile young Uriah and the infirm Old Aram reaching the gates of the temple complex AT THE SAME TIME--disappoint. Newman's music alone (compromised as it is) is the film's greatest attribute.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2018 - 8:33 PM   
 By:   Ray Faiola   (Member)

I think it is a mostly excellent film until John Wayne utters his line. George Stevens sacrificed 25 reels of credibility in 10 seconds. Don't get me wrong, I'm an admirer of Wayne who often did some truly fine acting. But, well, it was just wrong and, frankly, stupid for Stevens to cast him. Oh well.

 
 Posted:   May 12, 2018 - 12:08 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)


I actually liked it better than the Passion (the violence gets too cartoony after awhile imo), King of Kings (though the latter has some excellent highlights).

Not as good as Jesus of Nazareth.


For years, I avoided Mel Gibson's THE PASSION because I'm not nuts about seeing somebody tortured to death, so I just saw it this year. I found it to be deeply engrossing and a powerful movie. But not an easy watch, it is quite violent.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.