7/10
Yet another proof that sequels are rarely as good as the original movie
15 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
NOTES: A sequel to "The Robe", this movie was nowhere near as successful at the box-office with a domestic rentals gross of just over $4 million compared to the previous picture's $17½ million. In Australia, the movie came in 18th at the ticket-windows, which is probably its position in the U.K. and North America as well. Certainly it took good money, but considerably less than its predecessor.

REVIEW: Competition is the key word here. The movie is competing with "The Robe". It fails of course. And the players are competing with each other as to who can give the most over-the-top performance. Robinson wins easily, though he has the advantage of all the best lines. Mature's hamminess in fact seems often embarrassing, but at least he's a trier. Michael Rennie is a dead loss. So is Barry Jones. And naturally, Richard Egan. I don't even remember Anne Bancroft. But good to see Ernest Borgnine in a villainous role.

The budget is not as full-blown as "The Robe", though good use is made of standing sets. Daves' direction appears stolidly routine. And photographically the film shows up early CinemaScope's defects (fuzziness, distortion, blurring) even more than "The Robe" Obviously, less care was taken as the movie was hurried into release.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed