Recensioni degli utenti

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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 .

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.

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

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,

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.

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!

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

During the 1950s, Biblical epics were the rage and could generally be counted on to bring the studios money. However, in addition to some very good ones (such as "Ben Hur" and "Quo Vadis") were at least as many bad ones ("Solomon and Sheba")...but even most of these bad films made money. "The Prodigal" has the distinction of being both bad AND a big money-loser for MGM. Add to this that the studio head, Dore Schary, hated the film and his comments on the IMDB page for this movie makes it sound as if he was ashamed of it being made. But is it really THAT bad?

The story is taken from a few verses in Luke, as it was a proverb told by Jesus to his followers. But the story takes up only about a dozen verses and the movie is nearly two hours in length! How did they do that? Well, most of what you see in the movie has nothing to do with the story...including the son chasing after a scantily clad priestess of some heathen god, a slave being bought out of bondage as the story begins and much, much more. These tend to make the film a bit long-winded and dull. In hindsight, I think making a movie consisting of several proverbs might have worked...and keeping them to the point and without all the 'extras' would be a great idea as well.

Overall, I found this to be a very good looking but incredibly stilted movie. The music (with lots of choruses of folks singing "ooooo") didn't help! Not terrible...but slow and dull...and enough to make the viewer strongly consider atheism!

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!

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.

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.

Richard Thorpe was the medieval films expert in Metro Goldwyn Mayer or in Hollywood too: QUENTIN DURWARD, IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE...So, it was not a surprise that he gave us this movie, a biblical like sword and sandal; but more biblical than sword and sandal. It is closer to THE ROBE or DAVID AND BATHSHEEBA, THE EGYPTIAN ( also starring Edmond Purdom) than BEN HUR, KING SOLOMON AND SHEEBA or TEN COMMANDMENTS. However, the 2.55 frame helps a lot to bring an atmosphere that movie goers in love for such Hollywood "biblical" will appreciate. Lana Turner justifies the watch for the rest of the audiences. She has never been more gorgeous, no matter the quality of this Richard Thorpe's movie.

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

This extravaganza will remind you of your Sunday school of yore ,although only the beginning and the ending of the movie are inspired by Christ's parable ,and the prologue has something of the good Samaritan .

While Father is fattening up the calf , sonny is dallying with Samarra , the high priestess of Baal and Astarte , the nasty Gods who demand such horrors as human sacrifices ; but Jehovah is petulant and is not prepared to accept such lies (and unfair competition) .Lana Turner plays the temptress , a puppet in the hands of wicked priests who starve the poor people (although one has never the feeling they are starving). Edmund Purdom was one of the regular performers of these peplums (see also "the Egyptian ", which is much better ,for it is based on an absorbing book).