Michael, your review does not come across as a 9/10! lol.

In all seriousness, you were much more forgiving of WAR HORSE than I.

I felt the tone was all over the place and I really found portions of it unpleasant -- it's like he went from doing John Ford sentimentality on the farm sequences to SCHINDLER'S LIST with the German teens being executed (I totally agree, that portion was at odds with everything else in the film). Then he goes back to a '40s melodrama with Joey about to be shot to death? I just thought it was a thematic mess, with a tone that was just all over the place.

Had some good moments, but just didn't do it for me...and I wanted to like it so badly too.

Lol...I was between an 8 and a 9 and as I typed out my review I decided to go to a 9 as I was undecided. I just really liked it and was totally sucked in - can't help it! But it's not a 10/10 film, even in my wacky world (which includes much love for QUANTUM OF SOLACE and ALIEN 3 and AI)!

Eric Paddon wrote:Of course, the rather inconvenient fact that Stalin's Russia was invaded by the man he made a deal with in 1939 that rendered Poland asunder and subjected Eastern Europe to perpetual tyrrany while in return Stalin gaved his private assent to Hitler's war with England and France should be the thing that should not let our heart bleed too much for Russian feelings on this point!

Eric, have you seen Nial Ferguson's "War of the World"? It's a very interesting perspective on WW II and the decades since...

No, not familiar with it, but I will try to give it a look some time!

The Gospel Of John (2005) (9 of 10)
-This dramatization of the entire Gospel narrated by Christopher Plummer is well-done overall. Similar projects have been done for Matthew and the book of Acts.

The Greatest Story Ever Told (9 of 10)
-The last few times I've reviewed this, I've praised more the things that makes it better as the years go by and won't repeat those details. The things that I do believe are still flawed would amount to (1) Not enough close-ups for some key scenes especially the Lazarus raised sequence where there needed to be a close-up of him walking out of the tomb (2) I would not use the Handel for the Act I close, but for the end of the film it's fine. It is still a much better movie than KOK (61) because it at least has the aura of genuine Scriptural authenticity which the fomer lacks.

I think the bad rap that GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD has gotten over the years is very undeserving. For von Sydow's performance, the photography, Newman's towering score and the overall earnestness and sincerity of Stevens' production this film deserves much higher marks than it got when it was first released and it is overdue for rediscovery. Sadly, I think the cuts made after the L. A. opening no longer exist, so we will probably never see Stevens original intent.

The only complaint I have ever had about the film is the glacial pace, which is something that Stevens had developed both in his shooting style and rhythm ever since SHANE. On that film, the slower tempo works beautifully, emphasizing the sporadic violent events even more powerfully than if he had given a much faster pace to it. GIANT and THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK have even slower tempos, with the latter's famous scene with the burglar in the shop below giving an unbearable tension that even a 4th grade class I showed it to were gripping their desks tightly with white knuckles.

With GSET, Stevens REALLY slowed down, whether due to all the problems on location or just deciding that, at his age, he did not want to rush in telling his story-sort of like a grandfather reading from the Bible and savoring every word and phrase but occasionally pausing to ponder and having to be reminded by one of his listeners "what happens next?" Not that I have a problem with slow pacing one bit, 'but if DeMille and Wyler were able to move their stories along in both of their Biblical epics to where you aren't occasionally glancing at your watch-and their finished films are considerably longer than Stevens'-he should have been able to find a slightly faster pace with which to tell his tale. But then again, you review/comment on the film you are presented, not the one you wish you had watched.

Eric Paddon wrote:The Gospel Of John (2005) (9 of 10)
-This dramatization of the entire Gospel narrated by Christopher Plummer is well-done overall. Similar projects have been done for Matthew and the book of Acts.

I really like this film - the woman at the well scene is extremely powerful.

With GSET, Stevens REALLY slowed down, whether due to all the problems on location or just deciding that, at his age, he did not want to rush in telling his story-sort of like a grandfather reading from the Bible and savoring every word and phrase but occasionally pausing to ponder and having to be reminded by one of his listeners "what happens next?" Not that I have a problem with slow pacing one bit, 'but if DeMille and Wyler were able to move their stories along in both of their Biblical epics to where you aren't occasionally glancing at your watch-and their finished films are considerably longer than Stevens'-he should have been able to find a slightly faster pace with which to tell his tale. But then again, you review/comment on the film you are presented, not the one you wish you had watched.

I think the movie's pacing is a definite, legitimate gripe anyone can have (and most critics at the time panned it for that reason). I respect the picture, I think it looks gorgeous -- but it's like going to a museum and staring at paintings for 3 hours. The whole thing plays out on an emotional flatline too, and I found some of the star cameos to be a real mixed bag and distracting. Overall, it's not one of my favorites -- I don't think it's a bad movie, I appreciated it for one viewing, but it's not something I want to revisit.

Truthfully, I find THE BIBLE to be much more compelling on repeat viewing because of its cinematography and art direction, plus a strange tone that's more modern, less old-fashioned than Stevens' film. While not always successful, there are some striking moments in it and I've grown to appreciate it over time. That it also has a much superior HD transfer on Blu-Ray (one of the best catalog discs I've seen) also helps matters.

I think as time goes by, the "star cameo" thing fades more from significance. The bonus documentary has Michael Anderson recalling how he asked Stevens about that and Stevens replied that his granddaughters wouldn't remember Carroll Baker and Pat Boone etc. and for the most part he's proved right about that. The real irony is I don't think Stevens could have anticipated some of his lesser players in the cast becoming bigger names in television in the years to come. You're getting as many future stars of 60s TV in this film as you are cinema stars of the past!

Barabbas (1962) 8 of 10
-Very underrated overall and its use of the actual eclipse for the Crucifixion is quite effective. Kennedy is one of the best Pilate's I've seen on-screen. The second half with Barabbas in Rome is I admit less interesting than the first half.

I can clearly tell there was a spot for an intermission at one point so I have to wonder if there was originally a longer cut at some point as the final length is not long enough for a road-show style film.

The House At The End Of The Street (2012): 1/10

Wow...what a dreary, dull slog of a "thriller" this is. You know a movie's bad when even the multi-generational eye-candy appeal of Elisabeth Shue and Jennifer Lawrence can't keep your interest. Zero suspense, zero scares, zero atmosphere...a complete dud.

Passion Of The Christ (2004) 10 of 10
-The second greatest movie I have ever seen behind "Ben Hur". When Hollywood snubbed it of the Oscar nominations and awards it deserved, that was when I ceased to have any regard or respect for the institution of the Motion Picture Academy for all time as it revealed once and for all what the industry's attitude is toward Christianity in this day and age. That "Titanic" could have gotten 11 Oscars and this none is the ultimate joke. I have seen only one great film that was made after this one, "United 93" and probably collectively no more than six movies made after this one. Cavaziel especially was robbed because never has anyone had to play Christ the way he had to as the suffering martyr who had to make it all believable and to not let you ever think "it's only a movie". The sense of suffering conveyed is movingly real every time I see this on every Good Friday.

-There is really only one more Biblical movie yet to be made that I would love to see made someday and that is a film version of Dr. Paul Maier's wonderful "Pontius Pilate" that locks down all the factual details of Roman and Jewish history of this era to provide a full scholarly context for the events of the Gospels and who lets the fictional mortar guide the broader factual details along that one has to learn from outside Biblical sources.

QUO VADIS 8/10

Had not seen this film all the way through in years-watched the Blu-Ray from WHV last evening. While Robert Taylor is as stiff as a board for the first 1/3 of the film, he finally starts easing into the role of a Roman commander who falls in lust then in love with a Christian girl (Deborah Kerr) during the reign of Nero (Peter Ustinov) as Christianity begins its rise and Rome slowly begins her fall. I have always considered Mervyn LeRoy one of Hollywood's great craftsmen (LITTLE CAESAR, I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG, RANDOM HARVEST, 30 SECONDS OVER TOKYO, THE FBI STORY) along with Victor Fleming, Clarence Brown and Michael Curtiz-good, solid work, impressive visuals, good performances and entertainment that you never feel cheated out of. Not "auteurs" but directors whom the studios could turn to when they needed a difficult job done and done well.

Watching the film last night I was duly impressed with Ustinov, whose Nero I compare to Heath Ledger's Joker, in that we see an actor inhabit the role of a madman without making him just a freak or nutjob, but a truly evil force of nature who sees themselves as a force of good while destroying all around them. I know his performance has been criticized for being over-the-top, but he also has his moments of poignancy along with childlike wonder (his posture and the look on his face as he gazes at the model of the new Rome reminds one of a little kid looking in a department store window at Christmas) that lift his work out of mere villainy to a truly dark place, as opposed to Jay Robinson in THE ROBE, whom I felt never rose above just plain looniness as Caligula. On the other side of the moral spectrum you have Leo Genn as Nero's most beloved and trusted advisor, who finally sees the evil his cynicism has enabled and knowing that he is no longer in favor with the monster whose music and poetry he can no longer abide (his final scene is both sad and droll). Genn plays the droll cynic so well here that you wish there could be more of him and his tussling with Ustinov than the love story, which is similar to the one in DeMille's THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (an obvious re-write of QUO VADIS) except this one has a happy ending and Taylor is definitely less of a scenery gobbler than Fredric March was in that film. Also, you have Finlay Currie (one of my favorite character actors, who always brought a twinkle to every role) as Peter, and Max Baer as the gentle giant who is repulsed by killing but reluctantly will do so to protect Kerr.

Rozsa's monumental score is enthralling, and since his work on this film and BEN-HUR nicely bookend the 50's, it is interesting to see just how much this score laid the groundwork for the later, more breathtaking work. The Overture and Exit Music reminds us of how those were always present for roadshow epics like this one and how much they are missed these days. The film has never sounded or looked this good, with the scenes of thousands letting us know that those are REAL extras, not CGI ones, and Arnold Gillespie's matte paintings are still a marvel.

Still quite an achievement, and the accompanying documentary about the film is quite interesting (it seemed that MGM's solution to every time they were about to go under was make a massive epic-both versions of BEN-HUR and this film had that as a main impetus) although it is limited to films controlled by Turner-epics like those of DeMille, THE ROBE and others are either not mentioned or in passing. In short, one of LeRoy's best efforts.

Jesus Of Nazareth (1977) 9 of 10

-Revisiting this for the first time in a couple years during which in the interval I have seen some of the other Biblical epics more, I have to say for the first time the flaws of this work are becoming more evident to me than they used to in the past and that's why I can no longer give it a rating of 9.5 as I might have before.

-I'll first highlight the things this version has done better than any other filmed version about the life of Christ.

1-John The Baptist's relationship to Jesus as the son of Mary's cousin Elizabeth.
2-The "born again" conversation with Nicodemus.
3-I like how in the Sanhedrin debates we hear Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea make a forceful case for Jesus. This is one thing I wish we'd seen more of in "Passion Of The Christ".
4-Christopher Plummer is the best Herod Antipas and I so wish we'd gotten to see the event in Luke of Pilate trying to palm off jurisdiction on Antipas. The irony is this would have *fit* with the bored bureaucrat intepretation of Pilate that Zeffirelli serves up.
5-Ustinov's Herod The Great on some levels is a mature version of his take as Nero in "Quo Vadis" and is again the most intelligent take on the character of any film version.
6-Powell does a great job showing exceptional range of emotions as Jesus especially in his angry judgments of the Pharisees. I have to rate his performance as the best overall of Christ.

Now what doesn't work? I think I'd like to boil the biggest flaw of the film down to this. Zeffirelli was simply way too reluctant to trust the text and show us the things in the Gospels that suggest the greater *visible* presence of the Supernatural. This is why he made the decision to cut the important scene of Jesus being tempted in the Wilderness by Satan. It's absence is keenly felt because this is an important moment in tracing Jesus' path. First the baptism by John, then surviving the test in the Wilderness and *then* beginning the ministry. He could surely have done this as a tempting voice in Jesus' head the way he also depicted the Angel speaking to Joseph (which is the only time we ever really see Zeffirelli acknowledge overtly the Supernatural) I think.

This reluctance is what nearly hurts the entire end of the film with the Resurrection sequence. It's just not a good idea to have Mary Magdalene's last scene be one of her leaving in anger. I am well aware that you have the skepticism for a woman's story but this is not the tone the film should be going for as it leads to a triumphal climax. And the speech Peter gives to the other disciples after she leaves with the wildly implausible hug of a sorrowful Thomas (Zeffirelli I am told FILMED the scene of Jesus showing the wounds to Thomas but he again was squeamish about using it and instead served up what I presume is this metaphorical alternative for showing "doubting Thomas" in this inferior scene) really IMO falls flat. Not to mention that Peter's strange exoneration of the Sanhedrin and the Romans doesn't fit at all with the Peter who just months later in the early chapters of Acts will be preaching against the Sanhedrin in full vigor for their role in the Crucifixion! The worse thing about it is that the audience like me is starting to get uncomfortable about whether or not Zeffirelli is going to be too squeamish to show us on camera a risen Christ. Finally, at the last minute, Zeffirelli saves the ending with that beautiful last scene of Powell and the disciples reunited. Its power so great it makes up for the absence of other Scriptural moments of post-Resurrection appearances. I really can't though credit Zeffirelli with doing some kind of brilliant understatement work because the record is clear that he was very reluctant to trust using the text for these kinds of scenes and he only lucked out when he found at the last minute of the editing stages this one scene that solved the dilemma of how to show the risen Christ effectively.

There's also an edit job done on the scene where Mary Magdalene receives Jesus' forgiveness at the house of Simon The Pharisee that robs it of its deeper meaning. After Simon reproached Jesus about what kind of woman Mary is, Jesus is supposed to tell him the parable of the two men, one who had a debt of 500 the other a thousand and how when both debts were cancelled the one who had the greater debt cancelled will love more the one who forgave them both. That parable is the whole *point* for why Jesus comments on how Simon didn't wash his feet, annoint his head as Mary has done because Mary with greater sins to be forgiven is showing greater love for the one who can forgive her. Without it, the scene suddenly loses its integrity and it shouldn't have been edited (I'm presuming Zeffirelli thought a parable in the middle of this emotional scene of Mary before Jesus didn't work but if he did, he's again showing a weakness in not trusting the text).

In the useless triva department, Robert Brown, the second "M" of the 007 films has an uncredited part as one of the Sanhedrin members during the trial of Jesus. This makes him incidentally one of only two people to have been in both "Jesus Of Nazareth" and "Ben Hur" and both "Ben Hur" veterans were uncredited in the former! Brown played the captain of the galley slaves, while Marina Berti (Elizabeth) was Charlton Heston's Roman love interest whose role was cut from the picture and reduced only to a brief appearance at Arrius's party (she had of course before that played the slave girl Eunice in "Quo Vadis")

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (Definitive Version) 7/10

Was thinking about seeing this when it originally came out, but the main reason I did not was my now ex- and her mother, who both very strong Syrian Orthodox followers, refused to see it because of how violent they heard the second half was. I procured a copy of the "definitive" version on DVD but by that time the hubbub over the film had died down and I honestly lost track of it in my archive. I had occasion to do some "thinning out" of my discs and came across it again so I decided to watch the film the night before Easter. Now that the initial controversy has cleared away I felt I could watch it a bit more objectively...

Overall, I was impressed with all the performances Gibson was able to evoke from his performers, with Jim Caviezel just superb as The Christ and Hristo Shopov showing both world weariness and heavy guilt as Pontius Pilate. The only other cast member I recognized was Monica Bellucci as the Magdalen, although some of the other minor characters looked familiar. Caviezel has been one of those actors who seems to perform a lot of his roles with a combination of calm yet with what appears to be some simmering anger just under the surface yet occasionally popping up with either a glance or a gesture (see his work in THE THIN RED LINE or on the series "Person of Interest" for good example of these). For me, the scenes that totally got to me were the scenes before the betrayal and the events afterward. The scene where Jesus is building a table and Mary feels that it is too tall for it to be used normally-he shows how someone could sit comfortably and laughs when she attempts the same posture. The humor and warmth of this scene is so true and genuine that I am sitting here writing this and that good feeling is just permeating me-wonderful. Compared to most of the film, this is such a human scene that I wish there would have been more like these. Also, in the scene where Jesus stops the stoning of the adulteress it is depicted that the Magdalen was the transgressor-is this the way the Bible presents it? I always thought it was just a woman whose name we never learn...

I also give the film high marks for the visual look-the sets, costumes and overall feel of the film I think rank it with the best of the epics of the 50's and 60's. John Debney's score is also a winner while not trying to ape Newman, Rozsa or Bernstein, which is not easy to do when scoring a film of this type. I also have to admit that I did not notice any blatant anti-Semitism in the approach to the film, but then again, whatever people were accusing Gibson of might have been so subtle that I might have missed it. I also liked the last shot recreating the Piata-slow and subtle.

My main quibble: the violence. I understand that the Christ underwent perhaps the most brutal punishment that a human being could withstand when he was "chastised" by Pilate, but I really...did....not...have...to...see...EVERY...BLOW, especially those that tore flesh from his body. I have no quibbles with violence but there are times I really miss the Production Code. Some may say that the only way to truly depict what happened and really feel what he went through is how Gibson did it-not necessarily. One or two blows with the truly brutal weapons would have been fine with me, with just hearing the blows and watching people's reactions would have been just fine with me, with the aftermath and the sight of his body and the extent of the blood working with my own imagination filling in the blanks. I am becoming convinced of two things with many filmmakers-directors not feeling that audience is intelligent enough to use their own imaginations and specifically with Gibson-this guy really likes to see people get punished-REALLY punished. I am so grateful that he did not go into too much detail with the finale of BRAVEHEART and the (IMHO) orgiastic feeling of the killings in APOCALYPTO make me wonder about him and his stylistic choices.

Now, the version I saw was one called "definitive," so the film shown in theaters might have been less graphic than what I viewed, and I would be curious to hear from someone as to any major or minor differences between the theatrical and this version. Having seen both versions of THE KING OF KINGS, GREATEST STORY, THE ROBE, both versions of BEN-HUR, JESUS OF NAZARETH, GODSPELL, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR, for films about the Christ either as the central character or the main plot impetus that truly moved me and also satisfied me dramatically, I would rank them this way:

-JESUS OF NAZARETH
-THE KING OF KINGS (1927)
-THE ROBE
-BEN-HUR (1925)
-THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
-BEN-HUR (1959)
-THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW
-THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
-THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD
-JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR
-GODSPELL
-THE KING OF KINGS (1961)