The chief problem in filming the Bible for large-scale commercial release, is resolving the conflict between Christianity and commerce. On the one hand, there has to be more than an inkling of spectacle and sensationalism to draw in the paying customers. On the other, there has to be an acceptable level of traditional reverence to forestall the censor. This has resulted in your standard religious epic — of which The Bible is a representative example — in which scenes of movement and destruction, teeming with thousands of costumed extras, jostle with episodes of interminable boredom in which the bad characters are berated and "good" morals are indefatigably promoted. This traditional, reverential approach to the Bible by the churches — both Christian and Jewish — imposed upon Hollywood's traditional preoccupation with sex and scandal, results in films that are unsatisfying, both as Biblical interpretations and as entertainments.Underlying this problem is the failure by both Hollywood and the churches to understand what the Bible really is. If we look below its surface layer of viciousness, cruelty and intrigue — the aspects always so well played-up by Hollywood — we find the Bible is not primarily a blueprint for well-ordered moral and ethical behavior, but it is principally a record of God's dealings with Man in the past (and a dismal record of Man's failures to respond to God's repeated invitations at that!) and an indication of how God intends to deal with Man now and in the future. Admittedly, most churchmen are ever ready to point to the Bible's dire warnings of future punishments, but they see the present only in terms of the Bible's moral and ethical teachings — Thou shalt not do this and thou shalt not do that!The relationship between God and man, expressed in the Bible is actually one of intimacy and vitality. This is the experience and the ideal relationship we should all be seeking to-day. This in fact is what the bible is all about. Yet this film sees its characters as quaint and even ludicrous, its relationships outmoded and its events as dusty and dead as antiquity. As far as fidelity to the text is concerned, both in letter and especially in spirit, this film fails utterly.In fact, this movie could justly be described as ridiculously blasphemous and sacrilegious. It's clothed in unintentionally risible dialogue — with Huston himself sanctimoniously quoting Genesis. In fact, thanks to its laughable off-screen commentary, in addition to its pretentious photography and special effects, it becomes hard to say a good word about "The Bible: In the Beginning". True, Richard Harris does half-nobly by the thankless part of Cain. Unfortunately, his efforts to make Cain a sympathetic character (Cain tills hard at the unyielding soil, whilst Abel lazes around, blowing his pipes of Pan. It's no sweat for Abel to offer God the first of his flocks, he did no work at all to produce them), are rather at odds with your traditional Sunday School interpretations. In any event, the part is not all that large. Cain has only a few lines of dialogue — including the famous "Am I my brother's keeper?" which Harris delivers in a striking fashion. A couple of other times, however, Huston has him acting in outrageous pantomime: uplifting his fist to heaven, rolling his eyes...In fact, rolling my eyes, is precisely my over all reaction to this disappointing monstrosity of a movie!

"The Bible: In the Beginning..." is an Academy-Award (for its score) nominated, American movie from 50 years ago. It was written by Christopher Fry and directed by John Huston, already a 2-time Academy Award winner at this point. The title basically says already what this is exactly about. It is a collection of contents from the bible that do not have anything to do with each other. So it is basically several movies in one. This is maybe a good thing from the perspective that this is a truly long film and you do not have to watch it all at once without anything getting lost. IMDb lists several runtimes, but I did not see the version of 3.5 house (luckily), but the one with 174 minutes.I personally somewhat enjoyed the first two sequences with Adam & Eve and Noah, played by Huston himself. He sure has the looks for the part and it's no rarity that he acts in his films too. He is also an Oscar nominee for performing. Unfortunately, everything afterward (Abraham, Isaac) was not of particular interest to me, maybe because I wasn't even vaguely familiar with the story in contrast to the first under 90 minutes. Had the film ended around 1.5 hours, I probably would have been more generous with my rating, but this way it was really dragging at times and occasionally a tedious watch. Also the acting could not really convince me, even if the script wasn't bad and had quite a few fairly smart moments.If you have a religious background or are just interested in religiously themed films, this one is worth checking out. Unfortunately, neither of the two applies to me and still I liked half of the film at least to some extent. However, as a whole, I felt this was too long (wouldn't even want to imagine a version that is still almost another hour longer) and I lost interest in the character at some point I have to admit. That's why I would not recommend it to general audiences. Admittedly, it's not worse than "The Passion of the Christ".

The Bible: In the Beginning is a religious epic film recounting the first 22 chapters of the Book of Genesis from Creation through Noah's Ark through Abraham's near-sacrifice of son Isaac.The ensemble cast includes Stephen Boyd,Ava Gardner,Richard Harris,John Huston,Peter O'Toole,Michael Parks and George C. Scott.The 174-minute movie has consists of four main sections: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, and the story of Abraham. There are also a pair of shorter sections, one recounting the building of the Tower of Babel, and the other the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sections vary greatly in tone.The story of Abraham is somber and reverential, while that of Noah repeatedly focuses on his love of all animals. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tower of Babel could be called precursors to special effects spectaculars, although there are no real effects in the Tower of Babel sequence, and the special effects in the Sodom and Gomorrah sequence do not appear until the cities are actually destroyed.The major triumph of this film is that despite the insanity of the attempt and the grandiosity of the project, the technology doesn't dominate the material.Also,the greatest stories of the Old Testament are brought to the screen with astounding scope and power that will provide the viewer with genuine awe.

This film was released in September of 1966, which placed it at the close of a long tradition of Hollywood Biblical epics. I was around ten years old and had a vinyl LP of its great musical score which I played over and over before I finally saw the movie on the big screen of a theater. Our family was not particularly religious, but this film was one of those that had a profound influence on me and made me interested in knowing more about the Bible.Looking at it today, I see more depth. The opening footage from all over the world of the days of the Creation is still breathtaking. As a child I felt uncomfortable with the partially nude scenes of Adam and Eve, and even now I believe nudity needs to be implied. Otherwise my mind stops focusing on the story and thinks "I just saw a naked actor!". Also, a theory of some Bible commentators is that animals are clothed with feathers or fur, and Adam and Eve were clothed with a glow of light emanating from within them. When they sinned that glow disappeared and they were then totally naked before they hit on the idea of fig leaves. (This interpretation would not likely have been known to John Huston). Beyond that, the film rolls on quite nicely through the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis. The cinematography is rich and beautiful. I do think a few too many scenes were interpreted as desert settings, since many of the Bible lands were lush and only outskirted by desert as a result of the climatology of the region being somewhat different more than 4,000 years ago (though of course that's controversial). Either way the storyline still follows the episodes of salvation history. One reviewer said it looks like they just kept shooting until they ran out of film and decided to call it quits. To me it was essential they kept going until they climaxed the film with the sacrifice of Isaac, which pointed forward to the day when God would inaugurate a new creation. Thus there is a great arc of theme in the epic from "In the Beginning" to "The New Beginning".Overall the movie looks like a live-action version of Sunday School art. By that I mean most of the scenes are like pictures I've seen in religious artworks. For example, Adam and Eve are portrayed by clean-shaven white people. Cain bashes Abel over the head instead of slitting his throat (like the sacrifices he'd watched - see I John 3:12 in the original Jerusalem Bible [1966], not the New Jerusalem Bible [1985]). This Tower of Babel somewhat rightly resembles a Sumerian ziggurat, yet more resembles Renaissance paintings of it. Modern researchers have discovered that Noah could have been a king, and the ark was actually a huge flat barge shaped like a giant shoebox to ride the tidal waves of the Flood. The movie pictures things like I've seen them all my life: a peasant Noah, and a rounded boat with a house on top (and that shape would capsize in no time). The only thing they didn't have was a giraffe sticking out of the window.Nevertheless, you may enjoy these traditional depictions. I'm just preferring literal Biblical research combined with the look of what has been discovered in archaeology. Yet, for me the overall effect of this film is still profound and quite moving. It's been said that George C. Scott's portrayal of Abraham was the low point of the movie, but I thought his crusty performance was inspiring! (I was also thankful they didn't picture Abraham like Santa Claus). For the most part, watching this film was an enjoyable and uplifting experience. Any Biblical movie should give us a taste of what things were like, and then we should always go back and read the Book. There we will find the authentic atmosphere of the actual words. Still, one line the scriptwriters put in the mouth of Abraham is not found in the Bible, yet it does reflect what the Bible says of him. It has helped me with my faith. It is the line where Abraham asks, "Shall the Lord speak, and Abraham not believe?"