WordWeaver777

If I was ignorant of the Scriptures, perhaps I would have enjoyed this show more. However, I am not. I have in fact studied the Bible for over forty-five years. As a result, it was through the lens of my knowledge of the Scriptures that I watched this show to the end.

Like so many other TV shows and films which center around the Bible, and which cater primarily to a Christian audience, this show takes a few key elements from the Book of Revelation, and then creates a storyline which is not only not Scriptural in the least, but which in fact is quite ridiculous.

While I have not delved into the history of this show, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that it was strongly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. There were enough hints to suggest this, in my view.

While the Hebrew word "malak" and the Greek word "aggelos" can indeed be translated as both "angel" and "messenger", nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that human beings can suddenly be transformed into Angels. Angels are spiritual beings who are created by God in the Spiritual Realm.

Neither does the Book of Revelation teach that God sends seven messengers/angels to try to stop the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. This plot device is a complete fabrication of the writers of the show.

Equally ludicrous is the idea that a little American boy is Michael the Archangel, and a little American girl is the Antichrist.

The show also promotes the Roman Catholic doctrine of ecumenism, which amounts to a One World Religion. This concept is portrayed through the fact that one of the seven messengers in the show is a Muslim, one is a Taoist, at least one is an atheist, one is a prosperity preacher, and I can't remember what the rest were.

I was also put off by the fact that these seven individuals are supposed to be on a holy mission for God, and yet they have no problem with having a few drinks at the bar, using cuss words occasionally, and doing other things which did not portray them as being very holy.

These are just a few of the things which made my jaw drop as I watched this show. I fully understand what artistic license is, but the way that this show seriously mangles what is written in the Book of Revelation should simply be unacceptable to any Bible-believing Christian.

In conclusion, if you choose to watch this show, bear in mind that while you may find it entertaining, it has no real basis in the Scriptures.

No matter how many times I watch this musical, it never ceases to inspire me, overwhelm me, fill me with emotion and make me laugh. From start to finish, it is a glorious, amazing, joyful celebration of one of the most well-known and beloved stories that is found in the Bible.

There is nothing about this musical that I don't like. Every song and performance is absolutely fantastic. Donny Osmond looks and sings really great. I particularly like his rendition of "Close Every Door". Maria Friedman is likewise at the top of her game, and I love her powerful voice, funny antics, facial expressions and charm. Robert Torti as Pharaoh singing "Song of the King" Elvis style is hilarious and unforgettable. Gerry McIntyre as Judah singing "Calypso Benjamin" is also a real treat. In fact, every other singer/actor puts in a very worthy performance as well without exception.

Then, of course, there are all of the happy, smiling children who both serve as audience members, actors and chorus. They add such a special, heartwarming touch to the entire production. You'll love them!

In addition, the choreography is wonderful with such a variety of dance styles, as is the wide selection of song styles. The colors and costumes are bright and cheerful, and add to the excitement of watching this show. The humor throughout this musical is very contagious.

I don't often give out a ten, but this video definitely deserves it. Do yourself a favor. Rent it or purchase it today!

If there is one piece of advice I can give to any Christian who chooses to watch Hollywood-made, Bible-based movies, it is this: Do not expect 100% scriptural accuracy, because you will rarely find it in such movies. If you embrace this attitude beforehand, you will enjoy Hollywood's version of Biblical history more.

This film is no different. While it covers the key points regarding the illicit relationship which occurred between King David and Bathsheba, a number of the events in David's life are out of chronological order.

For example, we see flashbacks of David as a young shepherd boy being anointed by the Prophet Samuel as the next king of Israel, and then David as a slightly older youth killing the Philistine giant Goliath, in the closing moments of the film.

To incorporate these moments of David's life into the movie, a bit of fiction is employed. These visions -- or whatever they were meant to be -- occur while King David has his hands placed upon the side of the Ark of the Covenant and is asking God for His mercy and forgiveness, after his sins are exposed by the Prophet Nathan. Scripturally-speaking, this would never occur; because as even the movie reveals, anyone who touched the Ark died.

Furthermore, as I have seen in other movies of this genre, sometimes words are placed in the mouth of one character, when they were actually said by someone else in the Bible.

Regarding this particular movie, a case in point concerns King David's decision to place Uriah the Hittite in the hottest part of the battle against the Ammonites so that he will die. This movie would have us to believe that it was actually Uriah's idea to do this, because he desired to show David his loyalty and bravery. The truth, however, is that it was David's idea, because he wanted Uriah to die, so that he -- meaning David -- could conceal his sin of adultery, and getting Bathsheba pregnant. In short, David committed outright murder.

Another departure from the actual Scriptures occurs when following the death of Bathsheba's firstborn -- who was fathered by David -- the Prophet Nathan and the people demand that Bathsheba be stoned to death, according to the mandates of the Mosaic Law. While this was indeed the punishment for committing adultery, the Bible makes no mention of this concerning Bathsheba. What we are told in the Scriptures is that their punishment was losing their child, as well as the fact that war and treason would never depart from David's house, being as he had an innocent man killed.

This film also paints a very hostile relationship between David and Michal, who was King Saul's daughter who became David's first wife. While the Bible does inform us that Michal was a jealous woman, and that God struck her barren because of it, it makes no mention of her -- or Absalom -- standing up as witnesses so that David's lie could be exposed, and so that Bathsheba would be stoned. These were simply fictitious plot devices.

While I have enjoyed some of Gregory Peck's work -- such as "Moby Dick", "To Kill a Mockingbird", etc -- I didn't care for the way he portrayed King David. Peck plays a very dark, scheming, sarcastic, manipulative David. In particular, I didn't like his disrespectful attitude towards Nathan the Prophet, and the way that he doubted God's Word being spoken through Nathan. David came across as being quite snobbish.

Of course, I recognize that perhaps Peck played David this way in order to emphasize how far he had strayed from the Lord once he had achieved fame, riches and power. This was in contrast to the more humble David we see praying to the Lord before the Ark of the Covenant near the end of the film.

All in all, "David and Bathsheba" was an okay movie; but I can't say that I was really connected to any of the characters, and it didn't really excite me. In fact, I think I enjoyed the 1997 "David" TV movie with Nathaniel Parker, Jonathan Pryce, Leonard Nimoy, Franco Nero and Sheryl Lee, more than this one. To each his own.

A sequel to 1953's "The Robe" starring Richard Burton, Jean Simmons and Victor Mature, this film picks up following the martyrdom of Marcellus Gallio -- Burton -- and Diana -- Simmons -- due to their unwavering faith in Jesus Christ.

In this movie, Victor Mature reprises his role as Demetrius, as does Jay Robinson as Emperor Caligula, and Michael Rennie as the Apostle Peter. There are a number of other well-known actors as well. Please refer to the cast listing.

While this movie has some Biblical themes and deals with faith, it is not strictly a Bible-based movie per se. In other words, it does not follow the lives of Jesus Christ, the Apostles or any of the Old Testament prophets or patriarchs. Rather, it concerns what happens to the former slave Demetrius after the events which are portrayed in "The Robe". It has more gladiator scenes than religious scenes.

Briefly, due to an altercation with Roman soldiers while trying to protect the Robe, Demetrius is taken prisoner, and is then forced to enter a Roman gladiator school. Initially, Demetrius refuses to fight, or to kill another man because of his Christian convictions. However, following a series of events in which it appears that his love interest Lucia -- played by Debra Paget who was also Joshua's love interest Lilia in "The Ten Commandments" -- has died, Demetrius does an about face, turns against God and his faith, because very worldly, and begins to kill his opponents. Furthermore, Demetrius gets a taste of power and popularity when Caligula makes him a tribune following his victory over multiple opponents in the arena.

The storyline includes a variety of plots and subplots, including Emperor Caligula's endeavors to acquire the Robe, Claudius' wife Messalina's romantic escapades with the backslidden Demetrius, and Claudius' patience in waiting to become the next emperor.

Ultimately, Demetrius repents of his backslidden state and returns to the Christian fold when it is revealed that Lucia is not really dead, and her health is restored. Caligula is assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard while sitting in the arena; and Claudius is proclaimed the new emperor, with his wife Messalina by his side. Claudius promises to not bother the Christians, just as long as they obey Roman laws.

Overall, the acting is good, although I personally didn't really become attached to any of the characters.

If you are willing to overlook the Biblical inaccuracies, as well as the errors concerning actual Roman history, and just accept this as a fictional work regarding early First Century Rome and gladiatorial fights, you may enjoy this film.

I just completed watching the original 154-minute version of this film.

Aside from the fact that it features a character named Lot, along with his wife who is ultimately transformed into a pillar of salt, Lot's two daughters, the brief appearance of what we assume to be two Angels, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is very little in the storyline which adheres to or resembles the account which we find in Genesis 18:16-19:38 in the Bible. In short, 99.9% of this movie is pure fiction.

Let me give you a few examples.

In the Scriptures, it is the Patriarch Abraham who has a conversation with the Lord and two of His Angels, and who begs the Lord to spare the two wicked cities if even ten righteous men can be found in them. However, in this movie, it is Lot who has this conversation. Furthermore, while Abraham is briefly mentioned once or twice, he is nowhere to be seen whatsoever.

In the Bible, Lot's two daughters are both already married when it comes time to flee from Sodom. Furthermore, when Lot warns their husbands to leave Sodom, they both mock him. As a result, only Lot, his wife and his two daughters flee from Sodom, escorted by the two Angels. In contrast, in this movie, Lot leads a whole band of obedient Hebrews out of Sodom just prior to the city's destruction, and the two Angels are nowhere in sight.

While the Bible makes clear that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality -- for example, see Genesis 19:4-8 where the word "know" implies engaging in sex -- this is not made evident in the movie. There is some evidence in the film which suggests sexual immorality. For example, in the opening frames we see people -- male and female -- laying all over the place, suggesting that they have just engaged in an orgy. Later on, it is also implied that the queen of Sodom has engaged in a lesbian relationship with one of her dancers. Finally, we are given to understand that the queen's brother has sexually abused both of Lot's daughters. Nevertheless, there is no outright hint that the people of Sodom engaged in homosexuality.

There are other problems with the plot in regards to the Scriptures, but I will leave it at that.

Aside from the fact that most of the movie is pure fiction -- including the long-drawn-out battle seen -- another problem I had is that I simply did not connect with any of the characters. I felt no empathy for any of them. As a result, because I had no emotional investment in any of them, even when Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, it really didn't affect me in the least.

Regarding the actors' performances, I didn't find any of it outstanding; not even Stewart Granger's or Pier Angeli's.

In conclusion, if you view this film with a low expectation that it will adhere closely to the Bible, you may possibly enjoy it. However, if you are like me and Biblical accuracy is important to you, you may watch it once out of curiosity, but then never watch it again.

When I first saw this film as a young man in a movie theater back in 1973, I absolutely loved it. This evening, some forty years later, I had an opportunity to view this wonderful Christian musical once again. Now, as back then, I found it to be just as inspiring and uplifting.

In fact, there were points where "Godspell" almost brought me to tears due to the sincerity which can be felt in some of the songs. I particularly like "Day By Day", being as it represents my own heart's cry to better love and serve the Lord.

Of course, this kind of Christian-themed movie is not for everyone. I suppose that there are probably even some more conservative Christians who will criticize the fact that "Godspell" takes place in a modern setting -- in New York City of all places -- and that it employs an array of modern music and dance styles. Add to that the fact that Jesus is portrayed as a clown -- as are some of the Apostles who are both male and female -- and that comedy is likewise used throughout the film, and this may possibly explain why this film doesn't have a higher rating here on IMDb.

However, for me personally, because of the talented actors, the heartfelt songs, the wonderful lyrics, and the fact that much of its content is derived straight from the Scriptures of the KJV Bible, "Godspell" represents a joyous celebration of the Life and Message of Jesus Christ. One can really feel the joy of the Lord in this movie. At least I did.

Some viewers have wondered about the significance of the end of the film where we see the Apostles carrying Jesus' lifeless body through the streets of New York City, while singing a medley of the songs which were heard throughout the movie. As they round a street corner, they disappear from our view, and we are suddenly met by the noisy streets filled with pedestrians again.

Allow me to offer a few possible interpretations of this particular scene.

First, this scene could signify the Apostles' obedience to Jesus' command to "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." -- Mark 16:15.

Second, this scene could be saying that the Gospel message has been lost amongst the masses and the hustle and bustle of everyday modern life. Thus, this joyful film is an earnest endeavor to bring the message alive again.

Third, while the Apostles are carrying a dead Jesus, notice that the very first song that they sing in the medley is "Long Live God", and that it occurs at sunrise. Could this possibly signify the morning of the third day when Christ arose from the dead?

While they are all somber as they start singing the medley, soon we see them dancing and clapping their hands before disappearing into the crowd of people. Putting all of these points together, could this final closing scene represent their hope and belief that Jesus would arise again?

There are only two reasons why I won't give this film a ten.

First, I feel that the song "Beautiful City" is out of place and doesn't quite fit in with all of the other songs in the film, which highlight Jesus' teachings, as well as love for, and devotion to, Jesus.

According to the lyrics, "Beautiful City" concerns building a city; "not a city of angels", but "finally a city of man". I am wondering if this particular song is purposely meant to be a nod to New York City itself.

In fact, in my view, "Beautiful City" sounds more like secular humanism than the Christian Gospel, because the words "not a city of angels" seem to suggest no Divine Intervention in the building of this city. As I listened to it, I was reminded of how after slaying his brother Abel, Cain fled from the presence of the Lord and went and built a city.

In short, I feel that it would have been better to write a song which glorifies the City of God -- that is, New Jerusalem -- which the closing chapters of the Book of Revelation inform us descends from Heaven. This would have been more in agreement with the other songs, in my view.

My second reason for not giving "Godspell" a ten is because while the message of sin and salvation is included in the movie, I feel that it was not quite complete, because it does not overtly show the Lord's Resurrection from the dead, which is the blessed hope -- and glorious future -- of all Christians everywhere.

As I noted earlier, Christ's Resurrection could be what the closing scene was supposed to represent with the "Long Live God" song. However, if that is the case, it could have been made a lot clearer to the audience, in my opinion.

Because of these two points, I will give the film an eight, which is still substantially higher than its average score.

By the way, if you likewise have enjoyed "Godspell", I also recommend that you watch the 1999 version of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" with Donnie Osmond, Maria Friedman and cast.

Similar to many other Biblically-themed movies of the 1950's and 1960's, this film is more fiction than actual Biblical fact. It takes a few Biblical characters, including Jesus, the Apostles, Joseph of Arimathaea and Simon the Sorcerer -- who is mentioned in Acts 8:9-24 -- and then creates a ridiculous story around them, including collusion with the Sicarii -- who were Jewish zealots -- and Simon's endeavors to prove that he is the new messiah, who can even outdo Jesus, insofar as miracles are concerned.

Regarding the actors, I was most impressed by the heartfelt performance that was given by Italian Actress Pier Angeli as Deborra. She conveyed well the innocence and dreams of a young woman in love. It is truly sad that Ms. Angeli became so disillusioned by her failure to reach Hollywood stardom, and died of a barbiturate overdose at the young age of only thirty-nine.

In contrast, I found the transition of the young Helena -- played by Natalie Wood -- to her older self -- played by Virginia Mayo -- quite unsatisfactory. Mayo appeared and acted more like a worldly madam at a bordello than anything else. As such, I honestly couldn't see Basil's -- Paul Newman in his first film role -- initial attraction to her.

Jack Palance's role as Simon the Magician was too over the top for my taste, and in a way unconvincing. Maybe it was because he was so full of himself. I think he did much better later in his career playing dark characters.

I was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of Alexander Scourby as the Apostle Luke. As many Christians will know, Mr. Scourby is well-known for his wonderful recording of the entire King James Version of the Bible, first on cassette tapes, and later on CD's as well.

Lorne Greene -- Bonanza, original Battlestar Galactica -- also makes his first film appearance as the Apostle Peter. While Greene was obviously trying to sound authoritative, personally, I felt that the tone of his voice was a little too harsh when he told the young girl to stand up and walk. But maybe that is just me.

As I said in the title, the production sets for this movie were unbelievably poor; particularly when one compares this film to "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur" and related Bible-based films which were made during that same time period. It does not appear that much effort was put into the sets for "The Silver Chalice". They don't look much better than cardboard cutouts. Seriously, they were that bad.

If you are willing to overlook these various weak points, you may possibly enjoy this old film, even if it does have very little resemblance to the actual story that is contained in the Scriptures.

Like many thousands of other people who viewed this movie, my initial reaction upon reaching its conclusion was "What in the world was that?" So many other negative reviews have been written regarding this disastrous film, that I will try to spare you the burden of reading all of the same criticisms once again . . . well, except for a few.

The minute that the so-called "rock giants" appeared in the early moments of the film, I realized that this movie was in serious trouble; and from that point forward, it was simply downhill to the very end.

From rock giants, to mysterious glowing stones, to a magical seed which sprouts an entire forest in seconds, to a storm which goes from rain drops to gigantic ocean waves encompassing the Ark in mere seconds, to Noah himself being depicted as a maniacal psychopath who is bent on making sure that the entire human race perishes, everything about this film is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I haven't even addressed the Biblical inaccuracies yet.

For example, any Bible-knowledgeable person knows that all three of Noah's sons had wives prior to entering into the Ark. Thus, the Scriptures teach us that eight people were saved from the flood waters.

While both the Book of Enoch and the KJV Bible mention the Watchers -- see Daniel 4:17 -- the Fallen Angels who are mentioned in Genesis, and the Watchers who are mentioned in Daniel, are not the same beings. According to the writers Enoch, Peter and Jude, the Fallen Angels were in fact imprisoned in the bowels of the Earth in order to await judgment from God. Like so many other things in this film, the rock giants were a fabrication of Aronofsky's warped imagination.

Neither is Darwinian macroevolution supported in the Bible.

There are other Biblical inaccuracies in this movie, but I will leave it at that.

Regarding the actors, I have long admired the work of the main cast of characters; i.e., Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins and Ray Winstone, and to some degree, Emma Watson as well. However, I can't for the life of me figure out what inspired any of them to lend their collective talents to this horrible film. I believe that they all gave good performances; and I do not blame them directly for the dismal failure of this film. The fault lies with the story itself, and with its writers Aronofsky and Handel, in my view.

After much contemplation, I have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion regarding why this movie failed so miserably.

Please excuse my sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek.

Quite simply, "Noah" was really not meant for us. Somehow, Darren Aronofsky apparently became confused. Thus, he thought that he was writing an episode for the popular TV show "Fringe". In other words, this movie was really meant for the people who inhabit that Alternate Universe. Perhaps in THEIR universe, Aronofsky's film is how the story of Noah and the Flood unfolded, but it certainly didn't occur that way in OUR universe.

In conclusion, once again Hollywood has demonstrated its arrogance, and its lack of respect for the Holy Scriptures. After having watched so many Biblically-themed movies over the decades, I can only conclude that it is not that Hollywood is incapable of making Biblically-accurate movies. After all, they definitely have the money and the resources to conduct in-depth research. It is simply that they don't want to. They like to chop up and distort the truth, and twist the actual facts, if it results in attracting the masses and earning a greater profit.

In Aronofsky's case, it is a double tragedy. While some reviewers here have pointed out that Aronofsky is an atheist, upon conducting my own limited research, I discovered that he comes from a Jewish background, and that both his parents are Conservative Jews. While Aronofsky notes that "there was very little spiritual attendance in temple", being Conservative Jews, one would think that his parents would have at least imparted to him an accurate, Scripture-based story of Noah and the Ark.

If so, it certainly doesn't show in this movie. This film should really be called "Noah, According to Darren Aronofsky".