Gets a bad rap - The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Discussion

[–] wallacesawyer 16 years ago

I did notice a lot of familiar faces.

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bastasch8647 14 years ago

The cameos, at the time of the film's release and later, were extremely intrusive and reminded viewers that they were watching a movie. However, as time distances generations from the "Old Studio" actors, this will become much less of a problem, since most new viewers won't recognize or care very much who the actors are. Sure, some will always be recognized for their roles in perennially popular films, but still the cameos in general will be much less obtrusive.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 14 years ago

Agreed. Even though over time I have ironically come to recognize *more* of the lesser-known actors who had bit parts (Russell Johnson, the Professor in "Gilligan's Island" for instance as the Scribe reading the angry judgmental Scripture which Jesus interrupts with "No!") than I did when I first saw the film, the strengths of it are increasing with each subsequent viewing for me. It is a much better film than "King Of Kings" in almost all respects for me (though KOK has the superior musical score from Miklos Rozsa, even though Newman's is fine too for GSET), though still not as good as "Jesus Of Nazareth" or "Passion Of The Christ."

reply

[–] LPurch6636 12 years ago

>>though still not as good as "Jesus Of Nazareth" or "Passion Of The Christ."<<

I totally agree!

Flanagan

reply

[–] GrigoryGirl 14 years ago

Stevens actually said something similar when the film was released. He said that years from now (years from 1965), most people wouldn't recognise the stars and could just watch the film. he's right. Even though I recognise most of the stars, they don't intrude on the sheer beauty, poetry, and majesty of this film.

Having said that, John Wayne's cameo is pretty awful, and made me laugh at the worst time (the crucifixion).

reply

[–] stareyes24 12 years ago

That scene was pretty bad.

reply

[–] BoomerMovieFan 14 years ago

I know what you're saying.

I don't mind the use of cameo appearances, though. It reminded me that some of these actors had worked with George Stevens twenty years earlier.

In fact, it was interesting to see actors who were then at the end of their careers, some who were just getting started and others at the height of their careers. Then there were some who were never seen again, at least by me.

I also agree that the film is visually beautiful. I sometimes view movies just for their art direction and this may be one of them.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TCMer 13 years ago

I agree. It's hard to imagine that a more beautiful & visually powerful movie could ever be made on this subject.

"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)

reply

[–] chamohlamb 8 years ago

What beauty? This movie is as dated and boring as a movie could possibly be.

reply

[–] cfwente 8 years ago

I guess it's true then that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

And, of course, it's also been said that "there's a beauty beyond the senses" which is, I venture, a central theme of this picture.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

And, of course, it's also been said that "there's a beauty beyond the senses", which is, I venture, a central theme of this picture.

Nice catch. There's a kind of etherealness (sp?) to the filming that, oddly enough, manages to point beyond itself, while simultaneously leading the viewer into his/her own depths...