I remember reading the Leonard Maltin review and how he said that this was definitely a time where you should read the book over the movie. I personally found this movie to be just okay. Despite the name "The Bible" it doesn't describe that much of the Bible. It's only the book of Genesis. In fact, why not just name this movie Genesis? You could make sequels that cover all the other books in the Bible.That being said, there isn't anything too bad about this film. It's mostly well acted, but it has a major flaw. It doesn't really have anything unique about it at all. When you take a story as famous as the Bible that's been adapted so many times, you need to have something extra. I guess it was faithful, but it came off as bland. It's still got some good acting, it's just nothing to remember. **1/2

The 'Sodomites' are deliciously pervy as only a benighted 1960s subjective straight perspective could get it gloriously wrong -- and, of course, the filmmakers, surrounded as they were by mundane film industry gays, knew better -- they were pandering to an audience they felt superior to. This scene (and the entire film) prove the absurd fallacy of taking 'Genesis' literally . . . imho. :D (That said, the 'Sodomites' scene is hilariously campy -- they don't appear to want to rape Peter O'Toole as much as they want to do his hair and make-up . . .)Also extra points for the first time America saw an adult naked butt in a post-production code movie: Michael Parks as 'Adam' shot as posh art nude, in the hold-still, *tableau vivant* style, acceptable since the 19th century.Many great talents involved, but the result is ponderous overall. Huston can be faulted for leading actors into dated, etched-in-stone characterizations a la DeMille, but is not totally to blame: word has it the project was originally intended as an episodic series for Italian television; left unfinished, producer De Laurentiis chopped what they had into this badly-cut, slug-paced behemoth, then promoted it as an event equal to the second coming. (I still recall the TV commercial barrage, with their teasing emphasis on 'Adam' and 'Eve' *naked* and *hot*).Reminds one of Joe Mankiewicz's 'Cleopatra' -- meant as two films, but sheared into one by Zanuck to cash in on the Liz-Dick-Eddie-Debbie tabloid frenzy. In both cases one is presented with a numbing marathon of expensive production values, comprising endless heavily-music-cued climaxes without benefit of sufficient context or run-up, like a cartoon without a sense of humor.(This is the first time I've given a rating less than 10, because apart from isolated goofy bits, like the 'Sodomites', this is not a bad movie one can watch for camp laughs.)

I have been watching this for over an hour and it is boring me to tears. The only worthy thing about it so far is the handling of the animals and the ark - given there was no CGI in those days Huston makes a great job of it. All this film manages to do is convince me (not that I was not already convinced) that the bible stories are just that - vividly imaginative stories which explain the inexplicable. That all this guff is the basis of humans' faith in gods is just astonishing. Huston makes a very good Noah - he looks like he may have looked in my opinion. Other casting is not so great Richard Harris is wasted and acts as though he were in an early silent movie - Adam and Eve are coyly displayed in their nakedness (a product of the times) but make little or no real impact. Cain leaves Adam and Eve after killing Abel and he goes to the land of Nod where he marries - who, exactly as there are only supposed to be Adam, Eve, Cain and the dead Abel on the earth?

"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".