It is completely erroneous (and useless) to try grouping together films totally unrelated like the bigbudget Antiquity themed Hollywoodian movies, the Italian muscle-men flicks of the '50'60s, the various epics, the swashbucklers, the exotic movies about nonEuropean civilizations, history, fantasy, myth, literature and adventure, legends and plays, the religious or religionthemed films, Gibson's movies, the Italian TV Biblical biopics, Ivanhoe, adaptations, historical films, fantasy and mythological productions, Middle Ages outingsin a word, every movie set before the last century, under the pretext that they have something in common. Nothing links them; they are unrelatedGibson's films, SPARTACUS, BENHUR, IVANHOE, the many Maciste/ Hercules/ Samson etc. Italian flicks, BLACK ROBE, MONTE CRISTO, etc.. This is not even eclecticismit is chaos.
This Lancaster epic is a transitional moviebetween the bigbudgeted blockbusters of the '50s'60s,and the small decent honest TV Biblical stories of the '90s. The film is not very inspired, nor very appealing; its main merit is the cast. Lancaster performs in a conventional Hollywoodian way the disconcerting and enigmatic Old Testament prophet. Another epic from the same transitional period is MASSADA, which boasts O'Toole's high voltage, decadent, picturesque role. MOSES looks and feels more like the '60s epics. One quality is the feel of the tepid tiring crossing of the desert, the tough experience of dwelling for decades in the wilderness. Quayle also reminds the '60s epic blockbusters. Mrs. Papas is reliable as ever. The atmosphere is not the lesser accomplishment of MOSES. The probably ugly experience of the desert's crossing, after the initial exultation of the glorious escape, is well captured and rendered. In this respect, it's a resolute depart from the previous epics' habits. It's not triumphal in what it depicts; it shares the feel of its subject. The Hollywoodian conception behind all such epics (this one is a TV production, nevertheless ) is objectionable; yet the movies remain interesting and worth--wile.
In sum,this is the exodus as seen from below, from the common people involved in the exodus POW.
Recommended.
This Lancaster epic is a transitional moviebetween the bigbudgeted blockbusters of the '50s'60s,and the small decent honest TV Biblical stories of the '90s. The film is not very inspired, nor very appealing; its main merit is the cast. Lancaster performs in a conventional Hollywoodian way the disconcerting and enigmatic Old Testament prophet. Another epic from the same transitional period is MASSADA, which boasts O'Toole's high voltage, decadent, picturesque role. MOSES looks and feels more like the '60s epics. One quality is the feel of the tepid tiring crossing of the desert, the tough experience of dwelling for decades in the wilderness. Quayle also reminds the '60s epic blockbusters. Mrs. Papas is reliable as ever. The atmosphere is not the lesser accomplishment of MOSES. The probably ugly experience of the desert's crossing, after the initial exultation of the glorious escape, is well captured and rendered. In this respect, it's a resolute depart from the previous epics' habits. It's not triumphal in what it depicts; it shares the feel of its subject. The Hollywoodian conception behind all such epics (this one is a TV production, nevertheless ) is objectionable; yet the movies remain interesting and worth--wile.
In sum,this is the exodus as seen from below, from the common people involved in the exodus POW.
Recommended.