MovieChat Forums > The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Discussion > Soooooo Boooorrrinnngggg

Soooooo Boooorrrinnngggg

posted 9 years ago by mista005
1 reply | jump to latest

Jesus!
I have never sat through a more turgid, languid, ponderous, disengaging bore of a film.

I gave it roughly an hour-and-a-half, but when it repeatedly (and hilariously) referred to the miracles of Jesus through exposition instead of showing them...seriously, characters kept saying things like "He fed thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread" or "He walked on water!"...I gave up.

It's a FILM. A VISUAL MEDIUM. How could a great director like George Stevens make such an asinine decision as not to depict any of the main character's most notorious feats?

Instead we are subjected repeatedly to the visual marvel of 13 men sitting around TALKING and PHILOSOPHIZING.

Ugh. I couldn't even wait for the cameos by some of my favorite stars. Do yourself a favor and watch ANY other film on the life of Jesus. For one, your butt will thank you for the shorter runtimes.

[–] angmc43 9 years ago

Well, Stevens did have him cure a cripple (Sal Mineo), a stricken woman (Shelley Winters), a blind man (Ed Wynn), and (big moment) raising Lazarus from the dead (That's one miracle more than KING OF KINGS' three- the blind, the paralyzed, and the possessed man). The exposition on the miracles is to show how big Jesus is becoming, that even the higher-ups like Pilate and Herod are hearing of him.
Now, I am not arguing the film has its slow and boring parts, with everyone waiting a minute to say a line. But it has its visual highlights.