Reviews

Incoherent.Meaningless. Don't waste your time. I got nothing out of this film.

Saw the original release in 1962 and thought Stephen Boyd should have been in a better film since his was post Ben Hur. Fast forward to 2020 and I loved Stephen in this film. Beyond tragic that he died at age 45. He was a very compelling screen presence. This one is for Stephen's fans to remember him. Always.

I don't think the film is clear in any way about why Nicholson's character, Bobby, turned out the way he did. The movie would have been better for it. The real masterpiece of the film is seeing Nicholson's portrayal.

As a young teen, I loved this movie when it came out in the early 60s. One thing I noticed at that time and with which I still agree was "off" was Doris Day's age. Lovely but too old for this part. They tried to make her more youthful with the hairstyle but she was still Doris in her early 40s and her leading man, Stephen Boyd, was at least ten years her junior. I guess there was no younger actress with her talents to fill the role. A younger actress with Stephen Boyd would have been far more compelling, IMHO. There were too many circus acts and everyone dressed as a clown was a bit over the top for me, especially Stephen Boyd, who was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Actor in a musical or comedy. All in all it is still worth seeing. Nostalgia factor is a ten.

I watched this because I am a Stephen Boyd fan.. I had no idea what I would see in a B/W 1957 film. The answer: high drama and excellent performances by all under scored by philosophical challenges with which we humans must cope. I have been watching old movies for several months now bc of the 2019 pandemic. My conclusion is we need to start making movies as we did in "ye olden days" before CGI and superheroes. Good drama is about humanity.. We need to get these types of films back.

Just watched this for the first time, mainly to see Stephen Boyd. The first thing I noticed overall was the beautiful scenery and the outstanding cinematography. Beyond that I found the story very confusing. It all started to come together towards the end of the film. I think perhaps that watching the story a second time will help the details fall in line. It's not a bad movie, just confusing. For Stephen Boyd fans, you will barely recognize the man. His later film choices met his needs and brought him the satisfaction that he could not find in Hollywood. as a character actor. That being said, for those of us who remember him as Messala in BenHur and some of the other films he made in Great Britain before BenHur) and other of his films from the sixties, this is a painful film to watch. Don't get me wrong, he did a fine job in this film but I wanted to see the man who knocked my socks off in 1959.

With apologies to both William Wyler, a great director, and Stephen Boyd, the best Messala ever, this original film is head and shoulders better than the 1959 version. I can probably assume it is also better than the 2016 version that I have not seen. Overall, this is a much more lively film that actually touches the heart. Ramon Novarro brings Judah to life as a multi-dimensional human being.. He is far superior to Heston, who won the Oscar for best actor.There is a sweetness to Novarro's portrayal of Judah that meshes nicely with his anger and need for vengence.. Francis X Bushman is also excellent as Messala but lacked showing both the charming and vicious sides of Messala. Boyd was beyond amazing in this role and his on screen presence totally eclipsed the wooden Heston (probably why Boyd wasn't even nominated for an Oscar; it wasn't his turn). Technically, for its time this film hits a grand slam. You can see that many of the scenes from the '59 film came from the original! A little added spice was the inclusion of Iras, the Egyptian mistress of Messala. It is a small part that definitely added some energy. If you liked the 1959 film, you will love, love, love the original.