Eric Stevenson 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

Desertman84 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.

david-sarkies This was actually a pretty good movie which is based upon the first 22 chapters of Genesis. It begins with the creation of the world and leads to a climax where Abraham goes to sacrifice his son Isaac at God's command, however God intervenes and provides a ram for the sacrifice instead. The narration of the movie comes from the King James Bible which, I suspect, was the main bible that was used at the time, and is quite faithful to the narrative (however there are a couple of additions, such as Nimrod being the king of the world and building the tower of babel, and the removal of the scenes where Abraham passes his wife Sarah off as his sister, twice).The theme of this movie is faith verses unfaithfulness and obedience verses disobedience. It begins in the garden of Eden where God commands Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the garden of good and evil, and ends with God faithfully offering his only son, Isaac, the son that he waited until he was over 100 years old to conceive, as a sacrifice. However, Abraham (and a majority of the movie focuses of Abraham, and on Noah, two of the great heroes of faith in the bible) is not perfect, as can be seen when he listens to his wife and lays with his maid servant Hagar because he does not trust God with his promises. However, he does learn as he grows and when Hagar demands Abraham's blessing for Ishmael, Abraham refuses.The movie is a little liberal with some of the character, namely with Noah's wife (who, in the bible, is unnamed) being a contrast with Sarah, in that she is faithful and provides Noah as a helper and a supporter during the time of the flood, when no doubt Noah would have at times questioned God and wondered if there would ever be a time when he would escape from the ark.Wind plays a dominant role in the movie, at least in parts, and represents God's power. We see the wind at the beginning of the movie when the world is created, but we also see the wind come about with the flooding of the earth, and also with the destruction of the Tower of Babel. However, it is also interesting that as the film leads to the climax of the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham is leading Isaac through the ruins of Sodom (another addition to the movie) and both are questioning God's decision to destroy everybody, including the children. This questioning though is what is going through Abraham's mind as he takes his only son, the son he waited over 100 years to conceive, up to the altar to offer up as a sacrifice. However, Abraham demonstrates his faith by laying Isaac onto the altar, and lights the fire, and as he is about to slit Isaac's throat, God steps in and rescues Isaac, providing him with a substitute, a ram, to offer up instead.I guess Isaac's question as to why the children were also destroyed is answered with the question of sin, for as is revealed, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all are deserving of death. Even though Isaac is a child, or a young adult, Isaac has sinned and brought God's wrath upon him, but is saved through a substitute. Further, it is also the question of the first fruits. Isaac is Abraham's first born, and it is the first born that is given up to God. We see this with Cain and Abel. Abel offers God the best of his flock, while Cain goes to make his sacrifice, but instead of offering his best, he keeps it for himself, which in turn angers God, and thus his sacrifice is rejected.

MONA0825 I'm a great admirer of Mr. Huston's body of work. From Treasure of Sierra Madre to The Prizzi's Honor, without mentioning my personal favorite, Moby Dick, this great eccentric was capable to produce authentic gems or at least very decent films. But this? Oh boy, where to start on the wrongs: first, the pacing is so slow that you would think God took 6 centuries and not 6 days for the Creation. It's slow, slower and slowest. In a word: boring. Independently of the script (whatever your religious beliefs are, you would agree with me that the Bible is not the most cinematic book you could take to the big screen, but there are plenty of elements that could give a good story). Then, about the production values, the washed out color that worked so well in Moby Dick gives this movie a look much older than its 1966 release, and it feels cheap for an epic of such proportions. The cinematography is nothing to write home about. The makeup is terrible (just watch "old Abraham" makeup for a reference), the customs are anachronistic with its impeccable cleanliness. Talking about the casting, the great George C. Scotts ruins what could have been the best part of the movie with his annoying overacting. The music is just corny and bombastic. Huston is an indifferent narrator and the voice of an even more indifferent God. I gave it 4 stars in memory of the great director John Huston was despite this abomination. And because it's fun to see him as Noah. It's very clear that Huston was an atheist. Otherwise I can't understand the total lack of enthusiasm reflected in this movie.