The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) User Reviews

Go Forth To All the Nations

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 26 August 2006]

When first released George Stevens's version of the Gospel was dismissed as too long, too reverential, too soon after the sound version of The King of Kings was released, and too many stars in the cast taking one's attention from the story.

Too some degree that is true, but being a stargazer myself I'll never find fault with a film for that. And who knew in 1965 that we would get The Last Temptation of Christ and the Passion of the Christ in our future. George Stevens's film is looking pretty good now.

No doubt about the presence of a whole lot of movie names helped bring in the bucks. But with one glaring exception you do pay attention to the roles, not who's playing them. Some parts are pretty substantial. Charlton Heston as John the Baptist has the longest amount of screen time other than Von Sydow. Also given a large amount of time is Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas, Telly Savalas as Pontius Pilate, Dorothy McGuire as the Virgin Mary and Donald Pleasance as the Prince of Darkness.

The personification of the Devil is something Mel Gibson borrowed for his film. Personally I think Donald Pleasance is quite a bit better than what Gibson did.

Other stars had smaller roles. Sidney Poitier played a silent part as Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus with his cross on the way to Calvary. You could not have gotten away with an all white cast in a film like this by 1965. A whole group of players from previous Stevens films got some bit parts and more like Van Heflin, Shelley Winters, Sal Mineo, and Ed Wynn.

One star Joseph Schildkraut had the rare distinction of playing in both Cecil B. DeMille's silent King of Kings and this film. Schildkraut played Judas for DeMille and is seen as Nicodemus here. This was Schildkraut's last film. An interesting double distinction for a man who came from a prominent Jewish theatrical family.

One big glaring error though. Stevens should never have cast John Wayne as the Roman Centurion who supervising the crucifixion. Wayne is seen in passing through out the journey to Calvary, but with no dialog. At the moment of Jesus's death with the drama unfolding it was just wrong to have that recognizable a voice utter, "truly that man was the son of God." Instead of concentrating on the story the audience gets distracted and in the theaters the whispers went up with 'ooh, that's John Wayne.'

Arizona served as the location for ancient Judea. Unlike DeMille in The Ten Commandments, Stevens concentrated on the beauty of the location as opposed to filling the screen with people. It got filled enough with the story. You might recognize the Grand Canyon as the backdrop for the sermon on the mount scene. Of course Handel's Messiah is almost obligatory for these films and it's done well here.

One scene that you will not forget comes at the end of the first act, the raising of Lazarus who is played by Michael Tolan. His sisters, Mary and Martha, are played by Ina Balin and Janet Margolin. They had shown Jesus and the disciples hospitality earlier. When Lazarus is taken ill, Mary and Margaret, go after Jesus to bring him back. It is too late, Lazarus has died and he's in his tomb. Or so everyone thinks. The sparse dialog, the photography, and the background music are so well done at this point the most hard hearted nonbeliever will pause.

Of course most of the name players in The Greatest Story Ever Told are no longer with us so the cameos don't mean as much today. It is probably better in that an audience of today can concentrate on the story without even the most minimal interference of recognition. And they can concentrate on the story without either alternate realities as in The Last Temptation of Christ or all the gore and violence of Mel Gibson's epic. Definitely worth a look by today's contemporary audience.

A Letter from George Stevens, Jr.

[harry-76 · 8/10 · 18 September 2000]

On 9/18/00 I received a letter from George Stevens, Jr., replying to my earlier letter to him encouraging his support of his father's four-hour, "uncut," version of "The Greatest Story Ever Told" preparing for dvd. I had suggested in my letter that the original version was undoubtedly his father's artistic vision and thus was the one worthy of preservation for dvd.

Stevens, Jr. responded, in part, " . . . the dvd of 'The Greatest Story Even Told' is underway and MGM-UA has found the original negative of the four-hour version of the film.

There has been a good deal of confusion about the 'official' version of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told.' In recent years I became satisfied that the 3 hour and 20 minute version was the one that my father considered his picture. That came as a result of conversations with Toni Vellani, who worked with my father and has since passed on, and others.

My father, according to Toni, rushed the film for its first two premieres and immediately, at his own initiative, started trimming it to the 3:15 version. He was pleased with this cut. . . .

There was a later shorter version that my father authorized UA to make in an effort to recoup some money -- and that version which ran under 3 hours is of no value at all.

Frankly, I will be interested to see what the additional 40 minutes represents in the long version because, over the years, I've been familiar with the version that runs approximately 3:15. . . ."

This generous explanation from Mr. Stevens, Jr. certainly reveals the intracacies of the purely artistic process as balanced with the business aspect. It also makes one aware that the assumption that the "cut" version was not the preference or the adequate representation of the director, may be inaccurate. In any event at this point, the four-hour dvd version of "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is most eagerly awaited.

Somewhat flawed, but imposing nonetheless

[virek213 · 8/10 · 23 October 2003]

Without a doubt, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most difficult story to ever put on the screen. More blood and ink have been spilled over this one man than any other human being that ever walked this planet, so there really can't be a definitive film on his life that will satisfy everyone. But during the first half of the 1960s, director George Stevens (A PLACE IN THE SUN; SHANE; GIANT) toiled to at least come close in that regard. The result was THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD. At a cost of twenty million dollars, it was one of the most expensive films Hollywood had released in that era. At an original length of four hours and twenty minutes, it was one of the longest movies ever. It was also critically savaged and was only a modest commercial success, though not an expensive flop like CLEOPATRA had been.

Although it doesn't stick to ALL the facts of the Good Book, GREATEST STORY does an exquisite job at depicting Jesus life and persecution, his miracles, his death, and his eventual resurrection. Utilizing a massive tome of a script that he co-wrote with James Lee Barrett and Carl Sandburg, among others, Stevens filmed much of the film on location in the Glen Canyon region along the Arizona/Utah border, with the Colorado River as a stand-in for the River Jordan (a move for which Stevens was sharply criticized). Aided by veteran cameraman Loyal Griggs (THE TEN COMMANDMENTS), he also shot scenes in this movie that must rank as being among the most brilliantly filmed ever, including Lazarus' resurrection, and Jesus' being baptized in the River Jordan by John the Baptist.

One particular aspect about GREATEST STORY that continues to raise eyebrows and much ire to this day is the fact that Stevens cast much of Hollywood's acting elite in what were essentially walk-ons. This tactic had been done extensively before (THE LONGEST DAY; HOW THE WEST WAS WON), and would be done countless more times in the ensuing decades. To me, the flaw in this technique insofar as this movie goes is not the fact that Stevens succumbed to that temptation, but the fact that the roles he placed some of his actors in were ones they probably weren't cut out to play.

Given the whole weight of the world being placed on him, Max von Sydow did quite an impressive portrayal of Jesus in this film. I would have to rank this as one of the single greatest performances in cinematic history; his credibility (even with the Swedish accent) in the role is, to me, unimpeachable. Stevens also scored by giving Charlton Heston (no stranger to Biblical epics he) the role of John the Baptist, and it still ranks as one of Heston's best. Telly Savalas, years away from "Kojak", makes for a chilling Pontius Pilate. Claude Rains is a supremely nasty King Herod; and Donald Pleasance, with HALLOWEEN still a decade and a half in his future, makes for a deliciously unpleasant Satan.

In other areas, Stevens' all-star casting ranges from sublime (Dorothy McGuire; Roddy McDowall; Sidney Poitier; David McCallum; Jose Ferrer; Victor Buono) to strange (Russell Johnson; Jamie Farr; Sal Mineo; Shelley Winters). But it is in his casting of John Wayne as a Roman centurion at the Crucifixtion that Stevens went overboard (thus the reason for my giving GREATEST STORY an '8' rather than a '10'). To this day, it's hard not to notice the Duke looking out of place as a Roman, and harder still not to groan at the flat way he utters his line ("Truly, this man was the Son of God").

Still, despite the slightly questionable casting and the obvious extreme length of the film, Stevens has indeed fashioned as great a film as there has ever been on a story that has fascinated, frustrated, and even torn the world apart for over two thousand years. How others view it is up for themselves to decide. I myself think that, though slightly imperfect, THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD still lives up to its title.

Not Great, But Worth Seeing And Unfairly Criticized

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 15 June 2006]

As someone who had read the Bible and knows what goes where, I am easily critical of too-Liberal Biblical movies, which is usually the case....except for the last 40-some years when hardly any films were made on this subject at all.

My point is that this film gets toasted a lot, even by Christians, and I think unfairly. Yes, I became a bit annoyed the first few viewings when I would hear Jesus' speeches way out of order, or a few other things that really weren't 100 percent on the mark....or it just simply dragged.

However, after a long absence and my first look at this on the ultra widescreen (2.75:1) DVD, I was impressed. For instance, the scene with the Last Supper shows everyone at the table, which is impossible to do in a formatted-to-TV mode. There are other similar panoramic shots that are very impressive. gave me a new appreciate of the work director George Stevens did here. Of course, he was one of the best in his profession so it's no surprise this is nicely filmed.

Upon that recent viewing, I was please that none of Jesus' quotes are inaccurate and I have never had a problem with Max Von Sydow's portrayal of Christ. He had a penetrating eyes and spoke his lines with authority. Why he, too, gets bashed by a few people is unfair. He was just fine.

It's a sanitized message, nothing that "preachy" to turn off the unchurched, but I do think it was a bit too slow to go three hours and 20 minutes. In this case, lopping off 15-30 minutes might have helped. It's still worth viewing, no matter what your "religious" views.

Holds up rather well, actually

[laursene · 16 April 2001]

Saw the cut-down version of this recently on cable, letterboxed (the only way to go!). For all the bad press it evidently got in its day, I found the color cinematography dazzling, the compositions wonderful (as we'd expect from the director of Shane and Giant), and the performances ... not too bad at all, for the most part. Many if not most of celebs who did cameos are no longer household names (or faces), so they're less jarring than they must have been in the 60s (the groaning exception, of course, being John Wayne as the Centurion). Von Sydow is fine if a bit stiff, Heston as the Baptist is a bit too stiff, Jose Ferrer is wonderful (did his son Miguel study dad's performance as Herod Antipas for his role in Traffic?), and so are most of the other key parts.

If Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ comes off as less an art film and more as another corny Hollywood biblical epic, Stevens' film comes off less as the latter and more as the former, given that one's expectations are for corn, not art. (Is that clear?) I've said previously that Scorcese's film was basically a ripoff of Pasolini's wonderful Gospel According St Matthew, and I still think that's the case so far as the basic treatment goes, but I now think that visually, as a wide-screen color film, it rips off Stevens.

Greatest Story is the first Christ movie (and probably the first biblical epic) where the director obviously understood that the physical setting could be a very important part of the story - the sparse, barren landscape that people could disappear into and come back having seen visions, etc. Scorcese seems to have picked up on this too, but his visual sense isn't a jot on Stevens', for sure.

I do agree that the story drags, and the whole thing is probably overlong. I was also disappointed that Stevens does so little with the final temptation and betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. I've always felt this is the dramatic climax of the whole story - the final point of no return for Jesus - and oddly, the recent TV miniseries version, with Jeroen Krabbe as a fun modern-dress Satan, is the only one that's really grasped this, I think. Maybe some of this is among the stuff that didn't survive from the 260-minute version?

Overall, I'd heartily urge George Stevens Jr., who's done such a good job of preserving his father's legacy, to consider restoring this one and letting us see it on the big screen again. It's a feast.

Valiant and worthy attempt

[jeben · 7/10 · 26 June 2000]

Clearly this film comes off as an epoch. Magnitude, grandeur and dignity drip from every scene. Being personally familiar with the biblical account of the life of Jesus, I was at times quite impressed with the almost-inspired interpretation of many hard-to-picture moments in the gospel narratives brought to the screen. Yet on the other hand, I had painful difficulty agreeing with other scenes.

For example, Jesus heals a hopelessly bitter cripple in a dark synagogue: of course the biblical story is very brief, leaving a lot of room for the imagination to color in details- however, the scene seems to cheapen christ's awesome power and divinity. As Jesus leaves the synagogue, the camera zooms in on a facial expression so quizzical the viewer is left feeling that perhaps even Jesus himself didn't believe the healing was possible either...

Although "personifying" the devil was a very workable technique throughout the entire film, dropping available details about tempting a starving savior to eat bread and omitting christ's excellent response left me disappointed.

Another valiant and worthy attempt, but again the novel was better 8)

For What It Is, It *Is* The Greatest

[Danusha_Goska · 10/10 · 21 April 2003]

I love this movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for an idiosyncratic, reverent, art film treatment of the life of Christ.

Is it fast moving? No, it is not. If you want "Robocop," this isn't your movie.

The slowness of this movie provides thoughtful people ample time to think about the history-shaping words being said, to soak up the beauty of the film itself.

Does Stevens attempt to recreate the sense one gets from looking at beautiful religious paintings? Yes. If you are one of those people who freeze frames beautiful shots, this is your movie.

Do big name stars appear in small roles? Yes. If that bothers you, you will have to *get over* your adolescent annoyance really to see what's happening.

The big name stars make a meta statement. Stevens was moved to make this film by his experience of being among the first to document what happened at Dachau.

Big name stars, like John Wayne, wanted to appear in even the tiniest of roles, because they sensed that Stevens was doing something special. If you can appreciate the big name cameos for what they are -- a community coming together to tell a story that matters to them -- they will enhance the movie for you, rather than lessen it.

Max von Sydow gives the best performance of Jesus ever committed to film. If he never did anything else, he could die proud because of the truth he embodied in this part.

Just the look on von Sydow's face in his first scene -- when he is being baptized by John -- a look that is caring, human, loving, confused, pained, as he begins to realize what his life holds in store for him -- is in itself marvelous, jewel-like in its purity, and unlike anything else I've ever seen an actor be able to do.

David McCallum is a complex, agonized Judas. He makes you feel for him. His death, as a sacrifice, is brilliant.

Charlton Heston captured the "take no prisoners" approach of the Biblical John the Baptist.

Donald Pleasance is the best Satan ever put on film. He's just an average, sort of nice guy who wants you to eat some food when you are hungry ... that's all. Harmless, really.

There are many scenes I would never want to have missed: the "lilies of the field" scene, John baptizing Jesus, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus calling Matthew.

There are many effects that work perfectly for me: the handling of sound when Jesus is carrying his cross on the via dolorosa, for example.

So, no, *don't* see this movie if you require the speed of an MTV video in your movies.

Do see this movie if you want to see how one man, moved by Dachau, put years of his life into the service of a story he thought worth telling in a risky, idiosyncratic way.

Well done.

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 15 October 2002]

The new testament has so much about Jesus what does one include, and exclude? How long can you make such a film? My wife was taking her Catechism, and I rented a few film's about the Lord in order for her too understand the Bible better. She likes this film, but not as much as the 77 version. This film is inspiring for any Christian, and gives a message of hope for all of mankind. I love the casting, especially John Wayne as the centurion. Charalton Heston plays his best role, as John the Bapatist. Repent! He plays the crazy with passion John better than anyone else. Worth renting around Christmas to remember what the season truly is about. 7/10

Beautiful and Dignified Telling of Christ's Mission

[louiepatti · 10/10 · 30 July 2005]

There are no real spoilers in this review, for the story is familiar to Christians of all stripe: the birth, life and mission of Jesus Christ. This epic-length film moves at a stately pace; some may find it boring, but I personally like it very much. Stevens does a superb job with this sensitive material. He cast dozens of famous people, some in cameos and bit parts, but all lending their talents to this film. The costumes have an authentic look, and the landscapes are breathtaking---they are far superior to mere background paintings or sets, and convey a sense of being right there in Palestine two thousand years ago. The music is lovely, well-scored and not jarring. Every role is well-cast, from Charlton Heston as John the Baptist to Telly Sevalas as Pontius Pilate. Best of all were Donald Pleasance as the devil and the tall, lanky Max von Sydow as Christ.

The story unfolds like pages turning in a book. Jesus is born, then appears at age thirty to begin his mission. He goes to his cousin John for baptism, then calls men to follow him. Miracles are performed almost in an indirect way: Jesus speaks in Sydow's commanding voice and, instead of focusing on Christ, the camera is fixed on the person receiving the miracle. A notable exception is the raising of Lazarus. Christ pleads in anguish for the revival of his friend, not because the prayer is really necessary, but to cry out his sorrow for losing Lazarus. As God made man, Jesus hurt like we did, and this scene demonstrates this. His teachings are given gently but firmly throughout the movie. Some viewers may be put off by Sydow's almost detached mannerisms, but the quiet dignity actually suits the concept of Christ as teacher on his salvific mission. The gentle mien of Jesus also stands in stark contrast to the times when he does strongly react, whether to the death of Lazarus, to finding moneychangers in the Temple of Jerusalem, or during his passion and crucifixion. The moment when Christ's life ends is stunning; the light goes out in Sydow's clear blue eyes just before he drops his head.

There are other little gems strewn throughout The Greatest Story Ever Told, moments that shine with unexpected clarity. The calling of Matthew, the betrayal and suicide of Judas, the healing of the crippled young man are just a few examples. The Last Supper is very surprising in its similarity to the way a priest consecrates the bread and wine in a modern-day Mass. The famous actors embrace their roles and seem honored to be part of this great project. The dialogue is beautiful for a reason; American poet Carl Sandburg was in charge of rendering the ancient Bible story into modern wording without sacrificing the meaning or power of the original. Dynamics shift like the ebb and flow of tides, floating on the words as well as the events.

Others have done this story, yet this remains my favorite. Unlike the remake of King of Kings(the silent version was way better), it seems authentic in its details---what genius decided to shave Jeffrey Hunter's underarms? And Jesus of Nazareth never quite escapes the shackles of prime-time miniseries/soap opera; its melodramatic and the scene where Mary freaks out is disturbing rather than evoking sympathy from the audience. As for The Passion, it's an awesome attempt to convey just what Jesus endured for our sins, but unsuitable for children or people who are sensitive to excessive violence and gore. So, in conclusion, for Easter viewing, The Greatest Story Ever Told remains my family's favorite version of the life and work of Jesus Christ.

*Repent!*

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 4 December 2015]

Sue me, but I like it plenty, all 3 hours plus of ass numbing is not a problem to me. It has been called a cumbersome bore, amongst other things, but some of the technical craft is amazing. The story itself is enthralling, building to the shattering Crucifixion parts of the tale, while for every pointless star cameo shoehorned into the production, there's also a Savalas, a Baker and a Heston. Then of course there's Sydow, giving a beautifully intense turn as Jesus, a magnetic portrayal that holds the attention throughout.

Ironically director George Stevens struggled with his own ills during production, a cross to bear as it were, but just as Jesus had Sidney Poitier to share the burden, so to did Stevens, who had David Lean to help carry the load. Now that's a deity if ever there was one. It's a gorgeous film, grand and epic, sensitive and astute. Flaws? Plenty for sure, yet it harks back to a time of blunderbuss epic film making, when story telling meant something, when a musical score rattled the ears and the heart, and when cinematography soothed the eyes as if cool lemon slices had been placed upon the optical nerves.

Yeah, I'm a fan. If you are not then I forgive you, for you know not what you do. 7/10

It Wasn't

[ozthegreatat42330 · 5/10 · 22 February 2007]

While there were a few worthwhile performances in this film, it simply does not come close to living up to the title. The musical score was draggy or unoriginal, and the loading down of the film with every Hollywood star they could cram into the film just detracted greatly from the film. Von Sydow's Jesus was wooden and one dimensional. In the earlier released "King of Kings" Jeff Hunter gave you a Christ that was filled with the emotions and compassion of the son of God, while in this version it just wasn't there. Charlton Heston's John the Baptist was one of the few good things about the film, while, as much as I respect John Wayne as a star, his one line cameo was laughable and so unbelievable as to make one cringe. Claude Rains did shine out as Herod the great, while Telly Savalis might as well have been reading lines from Kojack.

It is not the worst film of all time. But the attempt to recapture the grandeur of the Bible Epic days was way lost here.

Visually Stunning!

[johnm_001 · 8/10 · 9 April 2001]

Perhaps, the most visually beautiful motion picture, ever made. While often ponderous in narrative, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", is a most reverent telling of the Christ tale. The current DVD release suffers from edits to the original running time (Angela Lansbury ends up being an extra, seen in longshot); but clearly represents the amazing visuals, and boasts an impressive stereo soundtrack. Director George Stevens structures each scene as a visual masterpiece. For this reason alone the film, on DVD, is highly recommended.

An excellent film even with this all-star cast

[Vigilante-407 · 7/10 · 19 June 2001]

Of all the adaptations of the story of Jesus, I've always felt that The Greatest Story Ever Told is one of the best and one of the most truest to the story itself. I would like to moderate that statement that I also believe the same of Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ, though naturally for vastly different reasons.

Max Von Sydow brings something to the role of Jesus that no other actor ever has...a sort of undefinable picture of majesty and humility at the same time. I think it must be his eyes. Charlton Heston's John the Baptist is one of the best performances of his career, and Jose Ferrer is wonderfully subdued as King Herod. David McCallum is good as Judas, but his performance is a tad wooden at times.

The big selling point of this film, outside of the Story, is the all-star cast that accompanies it. Actually, if you can manage to forget about the many "cameos", you will enjoy this movie much more. The miscasting is not quite as bad as The Story of Mankind, but John Wayne as a Roman Soldier just doesn't sit well.

This and The Ten Commandments should be required viewing for everyone, and not just Christians. This is a wonderful movie and really does relate one of the greatest stories ever told.

von Sydow Struggles Under Greatest Role Ever Played

[artemis_5 · 2 August 2004]

The story of Jesus Christ may be the greatest story ever told, but George Stevens movie does not provide the most convincing telling of that story. In spite of beautiful cinematography and music, there is something missing of the power of other tellings. With the exception of a couple of scenes, Max von Sydow does not seem quite up to the role, despite clearly being a good actor. This is not necessarily von Sydow's fault, as it takes more than great acting to convince the audience that you are the character. Imagine Ingrid Bergman as Scarlett O'Hara instead of Vivian Leigh or Gregory Peck as Rhett Butler. Max von Sydow has moments of passion and succeeds in occasionally moving you, but somehow seems too much like the actors who play his apostles to distinguish himself from them, a necessary feat for an actor who hopefully is surrounded by twelve other good actors at all times.

Max von Sydow's highlights are the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the sequence of his entry into Jerusalem and speech at the temple. In fact, I would say that for those two scenes, he outdoes many of his fellow actors that have donned the robe of Jesus. But two scenes are not enough to carry the movie. In fact, with all my respect to the impressive cast which participated in this movie, Stephens seems to have completely missed the mark when it came to casting a few of the roles: Ed Wynn of "Mary Poppins" fame as the blind man, John Wayne as a Roman centurion, and Shelley Winters as "Woman of no name." On the other hand, few actors can portray the almost fanatic mania of John the Baptist, "a voice crying in the wilderness," like Charlton Heston. Jose Ferrer also puts in a good performance as Herod Antipas, and Roddy McDowall convincing plays both a smart aleck and a reverent follower. His exchange with Jesus over collecting taxes offers one of the few somewhat humorous moments.

It is not a surprise to learn that George Stevens put so much effort into his movie. Like Mel Gibson with "The Passion of the Christ," "Greatest Story" is like a painting, with each stroke carefully put onto the canvas. However, unlike Gibson, whose characters seem right out of 1st Century Judah, there is modern quality to Stephens film. There are, however, more positive aspects to this film than negative. Besides the cinematography and the wise choice of Hendel's beautiful "Messiah", other positives are showing Mary Madgelene as traveling with the apostles (there is even a wonderful little scene where Mary annoints Jesus with oil which shows a kind of intimacy between them lacking from other versions of the story).

While some commentators have criticized the screenplay, I think it is one of the best. As much as it pains me to say this, I think casting alone made this movie less powerful. Still I recommend that everyone see it at least once.

This highly regarded epic deals with a dramatic recreation of the life of Christ with big- name cast

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 April 2020]

¨The greatest story ever told¨ is a colorful version of Jesus Christ's life with a true international all-star-epic treatment and being spectacularly shot in 1965 and profesionally directed by George Stevens with excellent cast giving larger-than-life interpretation , such as : Max Von Sidow , Charlton Heston , José Ferrer , Sidney Poitier , Claude Rains , and many others . It chronicles the life and ministry of Jesus Christ from the Annunciation , Crucifixion , Resurrection , and the Ascention . Interesting retelling at the life and teachings of Christ (Max Von Sidow) from a historical and religious view point , though overlong . The film includes all of the major events referred to in the New Testament with descriptive Biblical passages ; his birth in Bethlehem and visit by three Magician Kings who , subsequently , go to the Palace of Herodes the Great (Claude Rains). His existence in desert tempted by Satan (Donad Pleasence) , there he knows he has a destiny to fulfill ; his baptism by John the Baptist (Charlton Heston) ; the miracles , such as : cripples walking , blind men seeing ; the fishes and the loaves ; Lazarus' (Michael Tolan) resurrection , Simon of Cyrene's (Sidney Poitier) appearance ; his relationship to 12 apostles and so on . Jesus Christ's journey from Galilee to Golgotha is portrayed here in thought-provoking as well as enjoyable treatment . And usual scenes between John the Baptist , Herod (José Ferrer) , Herodias , and Salome and , of course , John the Baptist's beheading as Salome's price for dancing for Herod . In addition , Biblic roles as apostles Peter (Gary Raymond) , Judas Iscariote (David MacCallum) , Matthew (Roddy McDowall) , and Virgin Mary (Dorothy McGuire) , the political savvy Pontius Pilate (Telly Savalas) , Martha of Bethan (Ina Balin) , Mary of Bethan (Janet Margolin) , Lazarus (Michael Tolan) , Caiaphas (Martin Landau) , Claudia (Angela Lansbury), Thaddeus (Jamie Farr) , Simon the Zealot (Robert Blake) , John (Considine) , Philip (David Hedison) and Barrabbas (Richard Conte) . However , not completely reverential at some Biblical characters . And including holy sentences as "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?"

This is lavish and impressive -though slow-moving- story of the life of Jesus Christ from his birth in Bethlehem to his Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection . It is a religious and anguishing epic where the eternal questions of faith and doubt become resolved. An all-star, breathtaking Biblical movie filmed on a grand scale , being efficiently produced by the great George Stevens himself , along with his son George Stevens Jr . Life of Christ is intelligently told by prestigious screenwriter James Lee Barrett , based on the book Fulton Oursler and source writings by Henry Denker . Stars a serious and agreeable Max Von Sidow in exactly the right role , he gives a dedicated effort at the character , his acting has power , nobility and subtlety . This was the American movie debut of Max von Sydow, prior to this film , Max von Sydow was highly popular Swedish actor who appeared in Ingmar Bergman pictures , being perticularly known for his acting as The Grim Reaper in The Seventh Seal (1957) . Being a big budgeted production , there appears several top-notch actors in brief performances . As it displaysa very fine support cast , such as : David MacCallum as a furtive as well as shifty Judas , Charlton Heston plays a splendid John the Baptiste , José Ferrer as Herod Antipas , Dorothy McGuire as Mary , Telly Savalas as Pontius Pilate , Martin Landau as Caiaphas , Gary Raymond as Peter , Joseph Schildkraut as Nicodemus, Paul Stewart as Questor and even John Wayne as a Centurion at Crucifixion , among others . Including glowing and evocative cinematography with an attractive visual style by Loyal Griggs and and William C Meyor who unfortunately suffered a heart attack, collapsed, and died on the set. Filmed on several locations in Lake Powell, Utah, Green River Overlook , Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Kanab, Utah , Ken's Lake, Utah, and Pyramid Lake Nevada . As well as enormous and majestic art design by Richard Day and David Hall . Sensitive and memorable soundtrack by the classical Alfred Newman . The motion picture was compellingly directed by George Stevens and it started in 1962 and was completed in 1963, but the film went unreleased until 1965. This is a Richly Rewarding Entertainment Experience for the Entire Family

Jesus life has been adapted several times , such as : ¨King of Kings¨ (released in 1927) , it is the yardstick by which all Jesus movies are to be measure , being first silent version by Cecil B. DeMille with H.B. Wagner . Other pictures dealing with his divine presence are the following ones :¨King of Kings¨(1961) by Nicholas Ray with Jeffrey Hunter , Robert Ryan , Ron Randel , Hurd Hatfield , Rip Torn , Frank Thring , Carmen Sevilla ; ¨Gospel according to Matthew¨ by Pier Paolo Pasolini with Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus ; ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨(1977) by Norman Jewison with Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson ; ¨Jesus de Nazareth¨(1977) by Franco Zeffirelli with Robert Powell , Olivia Hussey , James Mason , Laurence Olivier , Anne Brancfort , Fernando Rey ; ¨Last temptation of Christ¨ by Martin Scorsese with Willem Dafoe , David Bowie , Harvey Keitel , Ian Holm , Harry Dean Staton ; and ¨The Passion of the Christ¨ (2004) by Mel Gibson with James Cazievel , Maia Morgenstern and Monica Belucci .

Did you Know...?

[patrick.hunter · 10/10 · 12 October 2000]

The reasons for the sacrificial well in the city's temple have to do with the archaeological research of the time the movie was made. Not much, then or now, is really known about the Temple, except that Herod the Great (played by Claude Rains) built it to largely to appease the Roman conquerors. The Temple had Grecian (not Hebraic) architecture and supposedly had a well for animal sacrifices. The Hebrews were a very sophisticated ancient people who mostly, by that time, considered themselves above animal sacrifices--however much had been written about such practices in their earlier times, like the days of Genesis, Exodus, etc. While it may have appeased Romans, it probably did not please Herod's own subjects.

This is a carefully made motion picture. If one finds it too subdued, at least it doesn't suffer from the highflown melodramatics that other Christ movies have. Speaking as someone who is not a Christian, I find it deeply moving.

The Saddest Story Ever Told?

[Brian-184 · 7/10 · 13 August 1999]

History has not been kind to this film. It suffered through an extended and sometimes turbulent gestation. It's birth was, at best, painful.

George Stevens, its director, producer, co-writer, and guiding force, spent the better part of a decade bringing this project to the screen. Even with all his considerable experience, it seems he was unable to translate his vision into the cinematic experience it deserved. At times we see flashes of what he must have had in mind. More often we see a film, for all its' moments of brilliance, stumble into exactly the sort of C.B. DeMille pomposity Stevens was surely trying to avoid. Much has been made of his "who's who of Hollywood" approach to the casting of smaller roles, which led to a "who's that" reaction in the theater. However, that approach to casting has been used before and since to positive effect. So the fault doesn't lie there. The fault lies, it seems, in an embarrassment of riches. Mr. Stevens simply had too much. Too much money. Too much talent. Too much time. Too much control. And too little willingness, it would seem, to accept input from others. Is the film a total failure? Of course not. There is much greatness in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". The cinematography is breathtaking. The Alfred Newman score, at least the portions Stevens left unadulterated in the film, is magnificent. Some of the individual performances are compelling. Could it have been better? Should it have been better? Absolutely.

It has always been my belief that there was a successful movie made, called "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Sadly no one ever saw it. Worst of all is the absolutely dreadful version of this movie currently on videocassette. It is nearly an hour shorter than the original road-show presentation, and, while letterboxed, is in the incorrect 2.35x1 "scope" aspect ratio rather than the correct 2.75x1 ratio the Ultra Panavision-70 cameras filmed in. In addition, regardless of what the box says, the soundtrack is in Hi-Fi Mono! Ken Darby, composer Alfred Newman's long time associate, wrote a book, entitled "Hollywood Holyland", which chronicles his first hand experiences working on this film. It is a "must-read" for anyone interested in the cinematic art.

Visual Masterpiece.

[vespatian75 · 9/10 · 22 April 2019]

I know this film is not to everyone's taste but I regard it as a masterpiece. Nevertheless I understand why many critics panned the movie. Some found the cameo appearances of major stars in small roles as disturbing. John Wayne's part as the Centurion at the crucifixion was particularly criticized. The pace was regarded as too slow. The casting of Scandinavian star Max von Sydow as the Semetic Jesus was also criticized, as was the use of spectacular locations from the American West instead of the more drab authentic Middle East. I am more taken by the visual nature of the film. George Stephens was clearly trying to emulate the great tradition of Western Art surrounding the Gospels, and I believe he succeeded. The framing, the color, and lighting were among the most beautiful in movie history. Many scenes left an unmatched impression as if we were walking through a moving fine arts museum. As the film grows older the star cameos will be less disturbing. (They never bothered me). Younger movie goers won't recognize many of the stars of my era anyway. I thought von Sydow was excellent even though he wasn't wasn't the right ethnic type. I found the overall treatment appropriate to the sacred theme. I prefer it Nicholas Ray's more popular King of Kings with equally blue eyed Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus. But I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea. So while I loved it I would recommend it particularly to someone prepared to enjoy a slower film of great artistic beauty.

Aww, Truly This Man Was the Son of God

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 31 December 2018]

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" was one of two Hollywood epics from the sixties about the life of Christ, the other being "King of Kings" from 1961. The story is, of course, one of the most familiar ever told, although there are one or two curious discrepancies from the Biblical account. The identification of Mary Magdalene with the anonymous "woman taken in adultery" may be based upon Christian tradition, if not upon the Gospels, but there is no such tradition which makes James the Just the brother of St Matthew, and none which identifies Lazarus with the "rich young man" who was unwilling to sell all he had and give the money to the poor. In this version there is no mention of Herod executing John the Baptist to fulfil a promise made to Salome; Herod makes that decision on his own account.

Work began on the script as early as 1958, but the shooting was not completed until 1963 and the finished film was not released until 1965. In the interim the original studio, 20th Century Fox, had withdrawn from the project after discovering that director George Stevens had managed to spend over $2 million without shooting any footage being shot; the film was then taken up by United Artists. Those seven years had seen a remarkable rise and fall of the epic genre. In 1958, the year in which "Ben-Hur" had proved such a huge financial and critical success, the future of the Biblical-Classical epic seemed assured. By 1965, following the failures of "Cleopatra" and "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the genre seemed moribund. The times they were a-changing, and a massive Christian epic no longer seemed in keeping with those times. When "The Greatest Story..." was released, its critical reception was mixed and commercially it was a failure. It was frequently criticised for being overlong and slow-moving.

Similar criticisms were made about other epics from the period, including "King of Kings" which was mocked as "I Was a Teenage Jesus". Today, however, we can see the strengths of something like "King of Kings". Yes, it departs from the Biblical account of Christ's life, perhaps even more than "The Greatest Story..." does, but it does so in order to produce a coherent narrative and to place the Gospel story in its political and historical context. With "The Greatest Story...", I'm afraid, many of the criticisms made of it still seem justified. Stevens's original cut weighed in at a massive 4 hours 20 minutes and might have been titled "The Longest Story Ever Told". I have never seen this version, and would have little wish to do so; the 3 hour 17 minute version shown in British cinemas is quite long enough for me. (The version finally released in America had been cut down to a more manageable 2 hours 17 minutes). It is not only long, it is also long-winded, telling its story at excessive length and at a glacial pace.

Another criticism sometimes made is that the film is excessively reverential. At first sight, this criticism seems difficult to understand; surely a film about the life of Christ, a story which Christians regard as lying at the heart of their faith, needs to be reverent. There is, however, a difference between reverence and solemnity, a difference which Stevens and his scriptwriters do not appear to have appreciated. It certainly was not appreciated by Max von Sydow in the role of Jesus. Stevens apparently took the decision to cast von Sydow, a Swedish actor who had not previously appeared in any English-language movies, because he did not want audiences to be distracted by the secular associations which any established Hollywood star would bring with him.

This, however, proved a mistake. Christian doctrine tells us that Christ was wholly God and wholly man. Von Sydow gives us a Christ who barely seems human at all. He is not someone one could ever imaging weeping, or laughing, a feeling any human emotion. Even when he drives the money-changers out of the temple his demeanour does not show the anger implied by his actions. His main function appears to be to deliver portentous, oracular statements in a sonorous but emotionless voice, while all the time keeping a stony face. Wholly God and wholly megaphone. As one hostile critic wrote: "God is unlucky in The Greatest Story Ever Told. His only begotten son turns out to be a bore". Jeffrey Hunter was far better in "King of Kings".

The excessive solemnity is also shown by the loud and intrusive musical score. At such profound moments as the Raising of Lazarus or the Resurrection the very nature of what is happening should be enough in itself to create a sense of awe. We do not need the choirs supernal belting out Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" at full volume to tell us "Look! Something special is happening!"

There are better things about the film. The photography is often good, although there was some criticism at the time of the decision to film on location in the American West rather than Israel. There are some decent performances, from Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, José Ferrer as Herod Antipas and even Telly Savalas as a thuggish Pontius Pilate. Overall, however, I think that "The Greatest Story Ever Told" must rank as a failure.

According to one legend, Stevens was dissatisfied with the way in which John Wayne, playing the centurion, was delivering his only line, "Truly this man was the Son of God". "No, no, Mr Wayne! Say it with awe!"

"Aww, truly this man was the Son of God".

The story is doubtless apocryphal, but for me it sums up what is wrong with the film. Not enough genuine awe. Too much "aww". 5/10

One of the great movie experiences!

[scratch1419 · 10/10 · 23 March 2005]

Some of the most powerful and overwhelming scenes ever filmed are in this George Stevens' production. I saw this film in its original roadshow engagement at the Music Hall Cinerama in Detroit Michigan in 1965. It was a truly memorable experience for me, as well as my friends who attended with me. The Lazarus sequence, prior to the Intermission, stills pacts a powerful punch. Several years later I 'witnessed' the 'shortened' version of this epic - and am still stunned as to why this was allowed to happen. The flow of the film was destroyed - e.g. the Wisemen appeared 'quickly' and then disappeared for some unexplained reason (even though we know why). How shameful for United Artists to do this. GSET is a magnificent telling of the story of Christ. Stevens created a true masterpiece. Having seen it numerous times over the ensuing years, it stills holds a special place in my heart - and helped to launch my 'love of the movies' as a teenager. Bravo George Stevens!

Far from perfect but I appreciate the effort.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 13 October 2021]

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is a lavish production on the life of Jesus that was directed by George Stevens. In some ways, it's pretty good...in other ways it's left wanting. Plus, with ANY life of Christ on film, I guarantee some will love it and some will hate it!

So what didn't I like? Well, one big problem is that the film is a star-studded affair and really shouldn't have been. Tons and tons of well known actors are in the film to the point where at times it seems more about them than about telling the story of Jesus. The best example, clearly, is John Wayne in a tiny scene where he seems more to be playing himself than a Roman Centurion. The other problem is that the film was filled with folks who looked totally out of place in the story. In other words, everyone is so white. Now I am not a super politically correct sort of guy...but having a Swede play Jesus? And, the likes of fair-skinned and blue-eyed disciples?! Huh?! My final quibble is that the film is way too stilted and lacks humanity. In other words, Jesus and pretty much everyone in the film are humorless and stiff....and don't feel especially real because of this.

On the other hand, while the film pretty clearly looks like the American Southwest, it wasn't a bad substitute for Israel. Also, the sets were lavish and obviously cost a lot of money.

Overall, this is a film many will enjoy, though I think some other similar films about Jesus are better, such as "Jesus of Nazareth".

Visual beauty but a very mediocre film

[ghent1 · 5/10 · 21 October 2013]

The Oscar nominations received by this film in 1965 are telling. All five nominations are about costume, coloration and cinematography. These are indeed stunning. But the rest of the film is mediocre at best. Max von Sydow is not at all a convincing Christ (his hairstyle is a disaster to begin with). The difference with Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth" is enormous. Only in the Lazarus resurrection scene did I feel some of the heart, the devotion and the passion that must have marked out Jesus Christ. To that I can maybe add the scene where Jesus is clearing the temple at Passover. For the rest I could not get beyond the odd hairstyle. Von Sydow is very aristocratic and regal -was Christ an aristocratic character?- but not very divine. The rest of the cast does not work well either, to say the least. On top of that, many a scene feels unnatural and rigid. The film feels anecdotal and lacks true depth. Mr Stevens seemed to have been more preoccupied with the visuals than with screenplay, editing, character depth, casting and directing. At times the film looks like a Renaissance painting or a painting from the Romantic era. That delivers stunning visual joy but it comes at such a huge cost. Ultimately the film does not convince, especially compared to Zefirelli's Jesus of Nazareth which gets about everything right. If you want to enjoy the beautiful cinematography, the colors, the scenery, do watch this film but I suggest you watch Zefirelli's depiction of Christ to get a deeper feeling for the Master, and Gibson's film if you want to grue at all the gore Christ must have gone through at the end of his mission.

Breathtakingly gorgeous, sensitive, powerful film.

[SS-9 · 13 May 1999]

I first saw this film when it was first released -- in the cinema and on a large screen with brilliant color and rich deep stereo sound. It was breathtaking! George Stevens Jr. did an absolutely magnificent job in crafting this outstandingly beautiful, sensitive, and powerful motion picture. This was not just a deeply moving re-telling of the story of Jesus (albeit with a touch of a pro-legend approach). More than that, in its visual sweep, insightful acting of the lead characters (especially of Max Von Sydow as Jesus), and resplendent musical track, this film conveyed a true sense of majesty -- a marked rarity in most film these days.

I must concur with one of the other online reviewers here, on a related point: I too believe that it was a shame, and an error on the part of Stevens, that various key characters were portrayed all-too-noticeably by some major film/entertainment stars who just seemed to be bizarrely out-of-place in their roles -- such as John Wayne as the Roman Centurion who, never before seen in the film until this moment, looks up at Jesus on the Cross and says "Truly, this man was the son of God!" (I almost expected Wayne to tag his line with the word "Pilgrim"); or such as singer Pat Boone, who jarringly appears in the role of a cloaked man who, sitting in Jesus' vacated tomb, says to a searching Roman, "Why seek Ye the living among the dead?" (Here too, I think that I was not the only one who half-expected Boone to leap to his feet and break out into singing one of his big hits such as "Bernardine" or "Love Letters In The Sand").

But those discontinuities aside, I would still say that "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is an outstanding film that merits very high marks. If you can see it, see it -- especially on a big screen, if possible, and with a good sound-system.

Steve S. (NYC)

"A failure"-Max Von Sydow

[coy_dog0 · 6/10 · 14 July 2005]

"A failure"-Max Von Sydow

Yes, it was. I found this film ponderous and pretentious, like most of the 'spectacles' of that period. Besides the poor casting of Sydow as Jesus (a fine actor, in any case), this film spends too much time trying to show how grand and wonderous the events are, rather than simply letting them unfold. The music and cinematography date it to the period of Bible and 'Sword & Sandal' epics of the widescreen explosion of the 50s. I recommend 'Jesus Of Nazereth' as a far superior telling of the story. That film has far more interesting characters (especially Peter and Judas), and arranges the events in the most dramatic way I've ever seen them shown.

6/10

Almost the greatest version ever made

[gerry-russell-139 · 7/10 · 2 February 2002]

Although I prefer Jesus OF NAZARETH over all the Biblical films depicting the life of Christ, this film follows at a close second (KING OF KINGS is enjoyable although loses most of its luster when compared to GREATEST). Max Von Sydow (with those piercing blue eyes) turns in a noteworthy portrayal as Jesus and should have at least gotten an Oscar nod for his performance. Charlton Heston with his booming, commanding voice and rugged, muscular physique is the idyllic John the Baptist and should have been an Oscar contender in the supporting actor category; Dorothy McGuire is radiant as the Virgin Mary (even if she does have a small role--which should not have been so relegated). Jose Ferrer gives a somewhat gruff portrayal of Herod Antipas while Claude Rains is a terrifying Herod the Great. Telly Savales is rather mediocre as Pontius Pilate, Angela Lansbury as his wife Claudia should have had more than one line and John Wayne should never have been offered a part in the film. It does drag in some places but despite the few minor flaws this is an enjoyable film and does not lack the essence of the Gospels.