Tempel der Versuchung

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.

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,

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.

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!

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.