The Prodigal (1955) User Reviews

Putty in the hands of the priestess of Baal

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 16 May 2012]

Based on the parable that Jesus told in St. Luke, The Prodigal is one of those biblical tales that isn't a biblical tale. Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son to show how God rejoices over any of his people who stray from the fold and return. Since it was a story to make a point the writers had a free hand to make a plot with proper biblical quotations in the script.

Edmond Purdom plays the starring role as one of two sons of Walter Hampden, the other being John Dehner who are seemingly content with their life. Dehner certainly is, but Purdom has a taste for some excitement.

While in town shopping for supplies Purdom makes essentially a grandstand play, good act that it was when he frees a mute slave played by James Mitchell from Neville Brand who is an overseer for the Baal high priest Louis Calhern. Later on Purdom cavalierly humiliates Calhern who plots a bad revenge for this slight to him and his religion.

He finds Purdom's weakness fast enough. Lana Turner who is THE Baal high priestess is something special, a lot of that due to the fact that blonds are scarce in that region of the world. And that by the way is a fact duly noted in the story. One look at her and Purdom is putty in her hands.

She leads him on quite a path of degradation, but our Prodigal hero works his way back to his father and the religion of his people.

Not that this is a great story anyway, but The Prodigal suffers from the fact that Edmond Purdom is not an actor of any great warmth. Technically proficient, Purdom never made it to the top because he was not charismatic enough to be a hero. His career was a lot like Stephen Boyd's, except Boyd realized it and became a great portrayer of villains like Messala in Ben-Hur.

As for Lana Turner, sexy yes, but Turner always fought being cast in period pieces of any kind, she always felt her best roles were in modern day dress films. Blonds did not have more fun in this film in the end. MGM was getting rid of its high priced contract players at this time and Turner was not being showcased with any great care.

The Prodigal did follow the DeMille formula of high falutin' dialog about virtue sprinkled with sex. In this film with Turner, sex laid on with a steam shovel. But it wasn't as good as those fabulous DeMille Bible epics, Samson And Delilah and The Ten Commandments.

A disappointing spectacle

[arbarnes · 4/10 · 24 June 2008]

A sadly boring spectacle of a biblical film, even though almost all the production values are of a high quality (except that special effect vulture). The script and direction of are simply too bland for the story, but more importantly we simply do not care about the character, and most of them are rather unsympathetic. The one redeeming performance is that of Frances L. Sullivan - and this was his last film. He deliciously adds something to each of the scenes he is in, whereas Edmund Purdom gives little throughout the film. Lana Turner is beautiful, but not sensual and her character seems too undefined to be really intriguing -that is until her demise. It is interesting to see a film such as this, where no expense has been spared, with great MGM art direction and costume design, intriguing choreography and movement, the then novel CinemaScope cinematography, and realizing fairly quickly that is simply does not hold. The above mentioned factors prevent it from being utterly boring, but my overall reaction is one of disappointment.

Patches of brilliance

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 18 January 2002]

Though the script and direction was lackluster, Lana Turner was bewitching, Joseph Wiseman a scene stealer, and Edmund Purdom very impressive in diction and mannerisms. I wish Purdom had been picked up by good directors to bring out his latent potential. Bronislaw Kaper's music was commendable.

All in all the contributions by many in this movie were notable, but somehow they lacked cohesion. Turner, Wiseman, and Purdom were all good to watch but they seem to be performing in three Biblical films made for three directors demanding different styles. Turner was epitome of Hollywood, Wiseman seemed to be playing in a French director's film, and Purdom in a British one.

Observations on the Cast

[schweinhundt1967 · 27 October 2002]

There isn't a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said previously.The film does drag,the plot is labored,and,for all of the spectacle,most of the cast look as though they would rather be doing something else.I have to disagree,very slightly,with one observation made by the most recent reviewer.Purdom's Micah,is,of course,a fool,a dupe,an ingrate,and a chump of the first order.My thought is,why did they have someone of his age playing the character?He appears to be playing a character of his own chronological age.And,any 30-year old man who is taken to the cleaners the way Micah is,has left himself wide open for this kind of exploitation.It might have made more sense(and a more believable film)if Micah had been played by a late-adolescent,who had never been away from home before,rather than a mature traveler and merchant.Take this for whatever it happens to be worth.

Big and banal

[dinky-4 · 4/10 · 12 April 1999]

Even when they weren't very good, those widescreen Biblical epics of the 1950's were usually "fun" in a campy sort of way. This leviathan from MGM piles on the lavish sets and costumes but manages to evoke little more than polite boredom mixed with the occasional snicker. There's no historical atmosphere here -- everything is "soundstage" -- and there's no chemistry between its leading man and leading lady. Some worthy players do pop up in the supporting cast -- Louis Calhern, Cecil Kellaway, Joseph Wiseman, etc. -- but they're usually stuck in silly headdresses which look like overturned wastebaskets. James Mitchell probably delivers the liveliest performance in the movie and he plays a mute! Poor Edmund Purdom. He starred in 20th's biggest production of 1954, "The Egyptian" -- after Marlon Brando turned down the part -- and then starred in this, MGM's biggest production of 1955, and yet this almost unprecedented, one-two whammy of multimillion dollar spectacles failed to ignite his acting career. This is puzzling inasmuch as he was a good-looking fellow with a fine voice and real acting talent but perhaps the cold, cynical nature of his two major roles kept audiences from warming to him. He soon wound up in Italian B-movies. The flogging he suffers while chained in a dungeon in "The Prodigal" did, however, win him a bit of unexpected honor. It ranks 66th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."

The best showcase ever equipped for Turner excellent figure...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 19 December 1999]

Lana Turner was pure magic, emotion and sensation in her long walk through the temple of love... And "The Prodigal" will remain the best showcase ever equipped for her excellent figure... The film is M.G.M.'s entry in the CinemaScope Bible race...

Lana was cast as Samarra, the lightly-clad temptress who incited history's first juvenile delinquent to leave home…

The film was based on the Biblical story of the prodigal son as told by St. Luke in Chapter XV of his gospels… There, in fewer than 300 words is the bare suggestion of a youth who "wasted his substance in riotous living," later to return, repentant to farm and father…

The screenplay portrayed the prodigal as Micah (Edmond Purdom), the model son of a Hebrew patriarch named Eli (Walter Hampden). As the film begins he has honored his father by becoming engaged to Ruth (Audrey Dalton), a gentle girl of his own faith…

While visiting Damascus, however, the youth enters the tent of Samarra, the high priestess of Astarte, goddess of the flesh, and he is dazzled by her beauty… To his father's bitter dismay, he demands his share of the family fortune, leaves his fiancée on the eve of their marriage, and goes off to the city in pursuit of the pagan woman, whose duties include presiding over human sacrificial rites…

Among the fleshpots of Damascus, Micah's uncontrollable infatuation for the priestess plunges him into a variety of mishaps… He is victimized by Nahreeb (Louis Calhern), the sinister high priest of Baal, who conspires to destroy him for his irreverent interest in Samarra; by Bosra (Francis L. Sullivan), an unscrupulous moneylender; and even by Samarra herself, who withholds her love until he produces a certain valuable pearl as a gift for her goddess

Epic and laviish Biblical movie with great scenarios and spectacularly made

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 2 April 2021]

Luke's New Testament Bible story of the son : Edmund Purdom of a wealthy old man : Walter Hampden . The young Hebrew called Micah is insatisfied with his dad's rural life and tries his luck in the town. There he is seduced by greed, squandering his money , and by a gorgeous woman : Lana Turner , High Priestess of Gods Baal and Astarte , being regularly transfered to the silver screen by Richard Thorpe . Two years in the making , a fortune to produce ! . The story of woman's beauty and man's temptation ! . MGM's magnificent Cinemascope and Color Spectacular !

A big budgeted but empty Hollywood rendition based on a famous Parable of the Sacred Scriptures and full of interesting Biblical issues . The main attraction results a be a colorful cast with a large number of prestigious secondaries . Stars Edmund Purdom in his second movie venture into the realms of ancient story , and it has similar virtues , drawbacks and misfortunes to the the first , Sinuhe the Egyptian directed by Michael Cutiz . While Lana Turner is really wonderful as the ambitious priestess of the Goddess Astarte . Outstanding the huge production design , settings and gowns , all of them are magnificent . The large support cast include the most notable among them , the nasty priest Louis Calhern, as well as a bald Neville Brand , the beautiful young Audrey Dalton , Joseph Wiseman , the villain fat man Francis L SullIvan, John Dehner as envious brother , Walter Hampden as the redempter father , Cecil Kallaway , Paul Cavanagh , Henry Daniell, and Taina Elg in his first Hollywood film .

It displays a brilliant and glamorous cinematography in CinemaScope and Technicolor by Joseph Ruttenberg , though a perfect remastering is extremely necessary . As well as a rousing musical score by Bronislau Kaper , including religious sounds and musical choirs . The picture was middlingly directed by Richard Thorpe, packing some flaws , shortcomings , and gaps . Richard was a prolific director who made slickly a lot of films of all kinds of genres . As he directed the following ones : "Thin Man goes home" , "Three little words" , "Knights of the Round Table" , "The Black Hand" , "Great Caruso" , "Prisoner of Zenda" , "King of the Kongo" , "Fun in Acapulco" , "Jailhouse Rock" , "Vengeance Valley" , among others . Rating : 5.5/10 . Average , though passable and acceptable . The picture will appeal to Lana Turner fans .

The Sweater Girl - without sweater

[enw · 6/10 · 21 March 2006]

When I was a child, so-called epics were extremely popular. Since they combined the movie with the pageant, this is hardly surprising.

Their subject matter was often biblical (or pseudo-biblical, like QUO VADIS and BEN-HUR) making it possible to make family pictures with sex and violence. The recipe was fairly transparent, being all about the eternal struggle between good (the Lutherans of the first or any century) and evil (everybody else).

Whereas the former wore long beards and a troubled expression, the idolaters generally gave the appearance of having a jolly good time, which may perhaps be explained by the fact that they seemed to have cornered the market on alcohol, dancing, and copulation. In fact, they were so merry that we just knew it couldn't last.

Since obviously no one connected with these enterprises had any idea how people talked or behaved in ancient times, the result was almost invariably hilarious. This was not least due to the incredible BIBLESPEAK, obviously inspired by King James, which might have been alright, if the story had been set at the time of King James.

Everybody spoke in metaphors, as you do in books, but hardly in the street, while flailing about as if they were on a stage (we've got close-ups now, remember?). And so everything was invariably LIKE something else.

It just wouldn't do to say you were hungry. You had to bellow that you had the appetite of a thousand Nubian lions, presumably so that the audience might go: "How historic!" Just to be sure, everybody wore elaborate costumes in the privacy of their own homes (must have been kind of hot to be a Roman) just as you could find famous museum pieces from the period (give or take a few centuries) on any street-corner – it seems every Babylonian had a replica of the ISHTAR GATE for his front door. Everything would be dripping with fresh paint – I'm sorry to disappoint you folks, but your typical Roman INSULA was about as pealing, dirty and all-round dreary as any modern tenement block! The religion of those times, it seems, was all about making long-winded speeches to graven idols, but I suppose it's hard for us to grasp a cult that was an integral part of everyday life – bring on the sacrificial virgins (hey, who's complaining?)! As opposed to this, the nice – and only – god of the Christians (and Old Testament Jews, who were really Christians, they just didn't know it) is purely philosophical, everywhere and especially nowhere, as he tests the faith of the martyrs (nothing like a nice Christian barbecue to pass the time in heaven) – in other words the retired God of the Age of Enlightenment.

The people, of course, are mainly OPPRESSED, but being wicked, they seem to like it. The temple prostitutes are enticing, and the slave girls are servile, there is music and laughter, or, in the immortal words of GROUCHO, dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the park.

In other words, everything is right with the world, except of course we know it's wrong. We can understand why Micah, the Prodigal Son – THE PRODIGAL for short – might feel tempted (but why the heck would he ever want to go home)? It's a bit harder to fathom the attraction of SAMARA, the priestess of ASTARTE, a cheap, bitchy blonde. I think I might have preferred one of those modest, eager-to-please slave girls going for ten pieces of silver – let me see now, the second one from the right – anyway: Demanding the pearl, Solomon gave Sheba (now for sale at Sears) in return for his favors, she causes him to be sold into slavery, when his check bounces, together with his servant (who is of course like all servants in these movies mute – unfortunately this doesn't hold for the mealy-mouthed hero) resulting in a lot of male bondage and whipping (now where's the fun in that?) Finally, he and about twenty other citizens rise up and overthrow the tyrants, at the same time cheerfully and acrobatically killing off a lot of spear-carrying extras.

What did these family men do to deserve being so irreverently dispatched of? We don't really know, but we suspect it's something with a sheep.

LANA TURNER as Samara goes to the pit, possibly to join her performance, but then again, what could she possibly do with this material? She might even have made it as an actress, if only the producers had been able to get their eyes off her tits.

EDMUND PURDOM looks throughout the picture like he's just come from a Bible Class – not much passion there. Of course, there is the usual assortment of atrociously overacting bit players, worthy elders, slimy procurers, whining beggars, and crazy old men – but those slave girls! I must admit that I have a soft spot for this particular kind of idiocy. After all, where else can you see so many belly buttons and laugh so hard at the same time?

Christian Hunk Meets Pagan Babe

[rpvanderlinden · 1/10 · 26 April 2014]

I'd never seen "The Prodigal" and had barely even heard of it so, hoping for a little smut and pageantry, I watched it all the way through, a true, dedicated fan of Biblical spectacles.

It's an oft-told tale: boy ditches girl-next-door to date a more worldly doll. In this case the boy, Micah, finds himself inside a sort of pagan revival tent presided over, not by Aimee Semple McPherson, but by Lana Turner, clad in...well, shall we say barely clad. It's instant puppy love. Lana walks solemnly around inside the tent clutching two torches, hoping, no doubt, like a kid in a high-school pageant, that she doesn't blow her Big Moment. Anyway, Lana, a high priestess (and man-eater) heads to Damascus, and Micah high-tails it after her. Geography and distance in this movie feel like, that to get to Damascus you turn left at the next intersection, first sound-stage on your right.

Once in the city, Micah, an astute hero for the ages, is conned out of all his wealth by pimps and assorted riff-raff. He buys Lana a legendary pearl in exchange for a promise to get everything his heart desires, which, I think, means he'll get laid. Sure enough, they end up in the sack, but the tempestuousness is as mushy as a soggy falafel, and you'd need a flame-thrower to ignite any sparks between Edmund Purdom and Lana Turner. Bad things happen, and pretty soon there's a revolt of the underdogs of society, led by Mr. Puppy Love himself. The big battle scene consists of a bunch of men in skirts running around hither and yonder thwacking each other. There's the obligatory storming of the temple. The mob trashes the place, and who can blame them? The interior decoration is hideous. They throw chunks of painted Styrofoam at Lana, the better not to smudge her make-up. Micah heads home with his tail between his legs and makes nice with dad and the girl next door. And that's the end of the movie and my review. I think I'll go watch "Quo Vadis" again.

Full of errors in script, editing and direction, but I found this mess vastly entertaining!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 5 July 2017]

Sumptuous costumes designed by Herschel McCoy*, hordes of extras scurrying around spectacular sets, a must-hear choral music score by Bronislau Kaper, plus a few lessons in acting by Francis L. Sullivan ("I'm too old for many things, Samarra, but I'm too young to die!") and a gleeful performance by Neville Brand as the most hideous of heavies, all help to offset a ridiculously "improved" and Hollywood "improving" expansion of Jesus Christ's clever condensation of "The Adventures of Toby", as recorded in the New Testament.

Yes, beyond a few ridiculous exchanges of King James English between a determined-to-be-dull Hampden and an equally unmoved and unmoving John Dehner right at the finish, the screenplay bears virtually no relationship whatever to even the New Testament parable, "The Prodigal Son", let alone to the story's Old Testament genesis in the Book of Tobit (or Toby or Tobias).

However, cinematographer Ruttenberg's expert lighting and those dazzling sets compensate for a lot. And there are other bizarrely appealing features too, though these do not include Walter Hampden's tedious, old platitude-mouthing patriarch, and the oddly incongruous phrases of original King James dialogue which sits most uneasily into this tale's meretricious, semi-Biblical frame.

M-G-M have spent money like manure on everything except the script and direction, both of which are hopeless. Without the obvious input of Ruttenberg, Thorpe had obviously no ideas how to use CinemaScope to advantage, especially given the enormous sets he has to play around with here. The action is often spectacularly staged, but with only four or five exceptions, all the dialogue scenes are loosely framed in the center of the screen. And even the action cries out for improvement here and there. For instance, the climactic toppling of Baal looks most compelling in the trailer, but unfortunately Thorpe neglected to shoot the crowd's approach from the corresponding left angle, so this really effective shot could not be edited into the film at all. The movie itself has to rely on a tame, right-hand topple instead!

Thorpe's careless, print-it-anyhow approach is also evidenced by the extraordinarily large amount (at least for a studio-shot movie) of post-syncing. All Joseph Wiseman's and Taina Elg's dialogue has been re-voiced, and even Miss Turner mouths a now silent line (fortunately, back to camera).

Odd dissolves and juxtapositions betray the desperate devices of a film editor vainly trying to patch together odds and ends of impossibly ill-matched footage.

As for our stars, Edmund Purdom, reprising his role in "The Egyptian" (1954), seems even more woodenly out of place, while Miss Turner, unwittingly portraying her one-dimensional floozy as the stuff of burlesque, certainly rates as being equally amusing (though decidedly far more agreeable to look upon).

* I suspect this is Herschel's final film. He designed many costumes for 20th Century-Fox from 1936 to 1942, free-lanced briefly in 1948, then worked for M-G-M from 1951 to 1954. His best-known films (on some of which he worked with other designers) are "Joan of Arc", "Quo Vadis", "Dream Wife", :Julius Caesar", "Latin Lovers", and "Give a Girl a Break".

poor attempt at a Bible Story

[rendert-91246 · 4/10 · 28 June 2016]

Since this is my very first post here and I don't understand all the rules. I don't know if I give away the plot can be considered a spoiler review when the film was made in 1955. If that is possible, then this is a spoiler review.

At first I was very pleased with everything about the movie. The acting was good. Every thing looked quite authentic, or at least how in my mind I thought they should look. But if the viewer is familiar with the Christian Bible, the longer you view the movie the worse it gets. The plot is no where near scripture. I know this movie lost money, and in my opinion this is the reason. If the film industry would like a biblical movie to make money, they should at least make an attempt to keep it somewhat near accurate. I could not under any an any way tell another Christian that this was a good movie for family viewing. The first 15 minutes or so is accurate, there is a little bit of accuracy in the middle but not much and the last 5 minutes or so is worth watching. The rest is a bust.

Pretty much a laugh-fest from middle to end

[edwardholub · 10/10 · 5 January 2008]

I'm voting 10 for all the wrong reasons. The Prodigal was completely enjoyable as a comedy. What's the point of lighting the metal point of a spear before you stab someone? They do it here. Do vultures really attack living human beings? They do here. I agree with all the reviewers who say that Lana was too old to play this role. And poor Purdom, always wincing whether the sun was out or not. His bad posture and dull line readings. The funniest part is when the big battle is going on at night in the streets and Louis Calhern is casually driving his chariot home from the saloon totally oblivious to whats going on around him. The mute slave climbs up Louie's horses, does an about face and throws a knife straight into Louie's neck. Priceless! The Medved/Dreyfus book The Worst Movies of All Time featured Solomon and Sheba starring Yul Brynner and Gina Lollobrigita. I guess they missed The Prodigal.

MGM reveals "the rest of the story"-type details . . .

[oscaralbert · 7/10 · 7 January 2018]

. . . that Emmanuel chose to leave out (since the Holy Bible is a family-friendly medium) from the Parable of THE PRODIGAL. It turns out that this wayward dude has a name, and it's "Micah." More startling yet, the Ancient Israelites beat the Amish to the concept of Wilding by a couple millennia. Micah decides to start at the top when the season rolls around for him to sow his wild oats, so he embeds himself with Baal's right-hand gal, High Priestess Samarra. Not one to love them and leave them, Micah then instigates Samarra's stoning over a fiery pit (because instant cremation is a lot more thorough than leaving Nature to take Her course within a bony vulture pit). If a modern-day Hollywood mogul gave a few Tinseltown starlets Micah's Samarra Treatment, he'd never hear the end of it from the ACLU. However, in the 1950s Hollywood respected BOTH Testaments, so this flick ends with a big party to celebrate Samarra's downfall, among other things. Though Micah left "Ruth" at the altar to make his all-out assault upon Samarra, news of Micah's stone-cold lady-killing apparently beats him home, prompting Ruth to welcome back her PRODIGAL with open arms.

How Much for Lana Turner?

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 1 June 2013]

In 70 BC, the middle eastern seaport city of Joppa is bustling with business. A major disruption occurs when handsome Edmund Purdom (as Micah) saves runaway slave James Mitchell (as Asham) from nasty Neville Brand (as Rhakim). A mute, Mr. Mitchell is wounded and taken home to live with Mr. Purdom's family. They worship one God (Jehovah), according to the opening narration; they are Hebrew. Going against his religion, Purdom is smitten with high priestess Lana Turner (as Samarra). An uncommon blonde, she worships the pagan Baal, male God of the flesh...

Our protagonist and star decides to leave home and "have" (sex with) Ms. Turner. Purdom takes Mitchell and relocates to Damascus. Turner's likewise aroused, but requires a payment of pearls, as is customary for Baal. Meanwhile, high priest Louis Calhern (as Nahreeb), the previous owner of Mitchell, desires revenge. Turner does little to justify her star billing. This is an adaptation of "The Prodigal Son" story from The New Testament, Luke 15: 11-32, which is mentioned in the introduction. It's only an average story, but competently produced and expensive looking.

***** The Prodigal (2/27/55) Richard Thorpe ~ Edmund Purdom, Lana Turner, James Mitchell, Louis Calhern

lackluster mini-epic

[tday-1 · 19 November 2004]

Lana Turner always shown in strong contemporary dramas but for some reason was cast in this silly bible epic. She hated the whole thing and snipped pieces of her costumes off to be more revealing. Posters and publicity pictures had to paint on veils. After his brief shot at stardom in The Eqyptian,replacing Marlon Brando,Edmund Purdom was given another chance to see if he had star quality. He didn't, A competent enough player but obviously no Brando. It's OK if u watch epics for the sets and costumes but beware the overripe dialogue and tedious but efficient direction of Richard Thorpe. Thorpe's main claim to fame was he was replaced as director on the Wizard of Oz for lack of originality. He also helmed a lot of Esther Williams' swim pics. She dismissed him as a studio hack and tried unsuccessfully to have him replaced. Still,Lana looks great,manages to infuse what life she could into the proceedings,

Synopsis

[joebergeron · 5/10 · 14 September 2008]

Some horny Jewish guy sees the visiting high priestess of a competing (evil) religion. He's so hot for her that he ditches the sweet deal he has with his family at home and stalks her to Damascus. He buys a big house and acts like the priestess is the only blonde money can buy in that town. His arrogance gets under the skin of the local bigwigs, who eventually get fed up and decide to take him down a few pegs. He takes out his frustration over being taken advantage of and generally acting like a chump by leading a revolt which destroys the society of Damascus and results in anarchy. He goes along as his pals stone the priestess to death, even though she wasn't really a bad person and didn't do anything really wrong except to faithfully practice her (evil) religion. Then he goes home with his tail between is legs, where much is made of him.

THE PRODIGAL (Richard Thorpe, 1955) **

[Bunuel1976 · 5/10 · 17 January 2009]

When I attended religious doctrine classes as a kid, the parable of The Prodigal Son was always my favorite; however, I never visualized it quite like it is depicted in this film – but that's Hollywood for you! Actually, I hadn't intended to watch it just now (being ideal Good Friday fare) but it was the only handy vehicle I owned featuring star Edmund Purdom, who passed away on New Year's Day. Anyway, considering the maligned reputation of THE SILVER CHALICE (1954) – which I caught recently, coincidentally in tribute to its own leading man, Paul Newman – I must admit that I found this an even lesser (and duller) Biblical outing! True, Christ's parable does not provide much detail of the hero's experiences after he leaves his Hebrew hometown for another (Pagan) city…but what we have here is among the lamest and most stodgily presented trips along the wayward path this side of Cecil B. De Mille (being closest in theme to his SAMSON AND DELILAH [1949])! Though the supporting cast looks mighty impressive on paper (including two from THE SILVER CHALICE itself, namely Joseph Wiseman and Walter Hampden) – Neville Brand, Louis Calhern, Paul Cavanaugh, Henry Daniell, John Dehner, Cecil Kellaway and Francis L. Sullivan – the participants are either given little to do or embarrassed by their unwieldy costumes and unflattering make-up (especially Brand's, making him look like a 20th century wrestler!). Of course, while the film purports to tell Purdom's tale, MGM saw fit to give top billing to their resident alluring star Lana Turner but, needless to say, this type of role did nothing to her career and she was probably happy to throw herself into "women's pictures" thereafter. However, perhaps the film's biggest fault is the fact that the film-makers thought it imperative to include such incongruous scenes as Purdom hilariously grappling with a fake voracious buzzard and the spectacular action-packed finale which totally subverts Christ's message, in that the hero is seen returning home humbled (so as to conform with the original text) when truly he should have flaunted the victory of his God over the rampant Paganism in Damascus!

tiresome biblical story

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 8 February 2024]

It's 70 BC Joppa. The Hebrews are monotheists in a sea of multitheist pagans. Micah (Edmund Purdom) pays to free a mute slave from abuse. He is a Hebrew set to marry a nice girl. All seems settled until he encounters seductive high priestess of Astarte, Samarra (Lana Turner). He gives up his family and religion to follow her to Damascus.

This is based on the Prodigal Son from Luke, Chapter 15. Everybody is speaking in stiff dialogue like a biblical play. Edmund Purdom is not pulling focus as the leading man and he's probably too old to play a naive young man. It doesn't help that he's throwing his money around like there's no tomorrow. It would be more compelling if the money is tighter. Turning down the money for his slave would mean more. While Lana Turner is a beautiful woman, he's not selling his seduction all that well. It's all rather stiff and unwieldy. Its pacing is grindingly slow. This is almost two hours long. Despite the fancy production, it's a long tiresome watch.

Thou Shalt Get Very Very Sleepy

[KingCoody · 3/10 · 26 January 2005]

Edmund Purdom was cursed to star in two films that were as wooden as the Trojan Horse. The Egyptian and this, The Prodigal,were designed to get the movie theaters seats filled with a public who could and are still,see the the same plot lines in the comfort of their living room/bedrooms. Sex,slaughter,and sanctity in competent hands has delivered both real and imaginary thrills to audiences since Joshua stomped Jericho flat. Unfortunately this film doesn't have enough of either. The Egyptian had the excuse of actually attempting to add more depth to the characters but other than Victor Mature's one on one with a lion and a massacre of Aton worshippers at the end there are no mass action scenes. The Prodigal has a semi sequel feel to it Purdom plays the rube in the city instead of the cynical doctor, Audrey Dalton is the good girl in Jean Simmons' place and Lana Turner gets to play all three bad girls in the Egyptian. And Joseph Wiseman does a turn as a Ustinov type character. If Jerry Doesn't have fat midget Lesbian wrestlers from Mars on then this a substitute

M-G-M rued the day!

[gregcouture · 22 April 2003]

I recall that Senator Estes Kefauver made a great deal of political hay out of his holding up to (self-)righteous scorn the publicity campaign for this lavish five million dollar spectacle. Lana, featured in one of her more strategically beaded creations, was front and center in several of the advertisements used to promote this next-to-last of her M-G-M contract obligations. The Senator did his best to bring the studio to its knees over this blatant exploitation of (gasp!) sex in what was, after all, thinly veiled titillation, designed to unglue the American hoi polloi from its presumably chaste TV screens. (How he must have gloated when several theater owners had the lobby posters retouched to show somewhat less of the Luscious Lana!) Other comments about this one are pretty much "right on" but the Senator's fulminations were far more revealing of his hypocrisy than anything Lana was required to enact as the High Priestess Samarra. How little has changed in Washington, D.C. to this very day. Sometimes I think that politicians distract us more successfully than the most skilled artists of the cinema!

MGM's lavish,expensive potboiler bombs

[hans101067 · 28 October 2000]

From a technical point of view,this was a well-done picture.Sets,props,some of the costumes,camera work,etc.,are all quite impressive.That,however,is where the good stuff ends.The plot contains every cliche known to historical,biblical,and costume dramas,and the dialouge is stilted and banal.A fine cast of supporting actors provide characterizations that are stereotypic,at best.The leads don't even provide characterizations that don't even make it to one-dimensional;Purdom,a fine classically trained actor,is wooden,and Turner looks as though she would rather be somewhere else.(Her biographers state that they didn't get along at all,and this shows up onscreen.But isn't part of acting being able to provide the illusion of reality?).Calhern acts more like his crooked lawyer in "Asphalt Jungle"than a power-hungry relgious tyrant,and with his hat he looks like the Grand Wizard.The plot focuses on lust,cruelty,brutality,terrifying horrors of the ancient world,savagery,and bloodthirstiness.The most atrocious sequence focuses on the performance of a ritual human sacrifice that will outrage anyone with the moral fastidiousness of a Gila Monster.The best way to watch this piece of tripe is to get roaring drunk,and then make wisecracks,like on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Lana Turner, please report to wardrobe

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 26 February 2014]

Fade in: A Hollywood sound stage at MGM studios. Close-up on a glamorous actress.

Lana Turner appears in a spectacular outfit. Louis Calhern appears as a corrupt official. Lana Turner appears in another spectacular outfit. Louis Calhern acts his guts out. Lana Turner appears in yet another spectacular outfit. Louis Calhern, in one of his last roles, makes the most of his screen time. Lana Turner is trying her best, but she is thinking about getting back to the wardrobe department to be fitted for the next outfit that will be used in her next scene.

Yes, indeed, costume design is front and center in MGM's extravagant production of a biblical-based story that quite frankly hasn't a prayer unless Lana Turner looks fabulous.

An Epic in Bad Taste

[mcarrara · 13 July 2007]

One of the biblical epics of the CinemaScope era. You can find some campy elements in "The Robe", "The Egyptian", "The silver Chalice" and all others. but this is the epitome of Kitch and bad taste. The decor of palaces and temples are in strong colors, mainly red, violet and gold, that makes your eyes blur. Also the costume in general (Carmen Miranda would love it), Worst of all is the script.In Samara, Lana runs a Las Vegas-like Casino, with poker tables, round cards, golden dices, and a phony roulette table. Also, a long line of "International hostess" (One of them a ¡Gheisa!) When Purdom goes to the dungeon, is saved for a fellow prisoner how is a barber-medicine man (like in medieval times). In the end, when Lana is forced to jump to a fire pool of the funny Moloch or Baal she worship, we, the audiences at the theatre, believe that the complete production should burn in flames for ever after.

Comcast has this rated TV-M for mature audiences.

[russellraap · 11 October 2018]

I haven't watched this movie. I only wanted to know why Comcast has the this rating. Was there nudity?