IMDb > The Prodigal (1955) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
The Prodigal (1955) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 18 comments in total 

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
The best showcase ever equipped for Turner excellent figure..., 19 December 1999
7/10
Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

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…

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Get ready to sleep, 13 July 2007
2/10
Author: Bryce David

THE PRODIGAL is one of the dullest films I've ever seen. There's almost no need to watch this pseudo-Biblical film because there's nothing worthwhile about it. The pacing is glacially slow. The acting is wooden. The dialogue, risible. And the much vaunted sets are more on the side of tacky than spectacular. And a miscast Lana Turner has basically a secondary character. No wonder it's forgotten. But the film's biggest liability is the main character, Micah, who's a complete jerk. Micah is about to get married to a beautiful but ordinary girl but when he sees Turner, he drops the girl and tries to woo Turner. When it doesn't work, he goes back to his family and all is forgotten. How Christian of him!

Seriously, this film sucks. It's the weakest film in the Historical Classic package, which also contains COLOSSUS OF RHODES and LAND OF THE PHARAOHS, which are much better and more entertaining than this static, tacky disaster.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Patches of brilliance, 18 January 2002
6/10
Author: Jugu Abraham (jugu_abraham@yahoo.co.uk) from Trivandrum, Kerala, India

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
lackluster mini-epic, 19 November 2004
Author: tday-1 (tday11@cox.net) from Tucson, Az

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,

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Big and banal, 12 April 1999
4/10
Author: dinky-4 from Minneapolis

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."

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Observations on the Cast, 27 October 2002
Author: Hans C. Frederick (schweinhundt1967@postmaster.co.uk) from Parma Heights, Ohio, U.S.A.

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
All the juicy bits the Bible left out!, 5 August 2007
7/10
Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

The Prodigal fills in all those bits in the parable of the Prodigal Son that Jesus omitted, and very entertainingly too. It seems junior (Edmund Purdom) got the hots for the high priestess of Astati (Lana Turner) while incurring the wrath of the high priest of Baal and tyrant of Damascus (Louis Calhern) and frittered away his fortune before coming to his senses and leading the people in rebellion against their pagan oppressors. As you might guess from that synopsis, there are more than a few similarities to The Egyptian, not least Edmund Purdom selling his birthright for a second time for bit of nookie with a pagan temptress (he'd do anything for a bit of skirt, that Purdom: did he learn nothing from his experience with Bella Darvi?), although this is a lot less thoughtful and a lot more fun. A rare 50s epic shot in Hollywood rather than Cinecitta, it falls somewhere between De Mille – the apprentice child priestess in her miniature chariot drawn by a goat could be straight out of the opening of the silent King of Kings – and MGM at its most opulent. There's not much for the mind or the spirit here, but there's plenty to entertain, from Joseph Wiseman hamming away like nobody's business, even doing an imitation of a teapot in one bizarre shot, to the most imaginative Breen Office-approved sadism this side of Sodom and Gomorrah – not only do we get willing sacrificial victims swan diving into fiery pits and a fight with a stuffed vulture but when people get the knife, they get it literally in the neck, which is a pretty neat trick. Calhern offers some splendid villainy, Francis L. Sullivan's moneylender plays both ends against the middle with sly wit, Hurd Hatfield lookalike James Mitchell fulfils the mute but acrobatic sidekick duties and director Richard Thorpe ensures it all looks great in CinemaScope.

It ain't art but it is great fun.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
THE PRODIGAL (Richard Thorpe, 1955) **, 17 January 2009
5/10
Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta

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!

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
MGM's lavish,expensive potboiler bombs, 28 October 2000
Author: (hans101067@altavista.com) from Cleveland, Ohio

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Slower than a Sunday Morning Sermon., 9 May 2002
Author: JoeytheBrit from www.moviemoviesite.com

Undoubtedly the richest source for movie material, the Bible has spawned more than its fair share of turkeys, many of them from the spate of epics made in Hollywood during the mid- to late-fifties. THE PRODIGAL has no problem taking its rightful place in the Religious Movie Hall of Shame alongside other flops such as SALOME (1953), THE ROBE (1953), and THE SILVER CHALICE (1954).

The pace of this dreary movie is slower than a Sunday morning sermon. While Micah's obsession with the High Priestess (Lana Turner) is quickly established, as soon as he embarks on the road to Damascus in pursuit of the object of his affections we are subjected to endless talk, most of it delivered in that pious tone reserved exclusively for tacky biblical epics, that leaves us bored with the story and uncaring about the fate of the protagonists.

Well, that's not quite true. I cared deeply about what happened to Micah (Edmund Purdom). He was such a self-centred, arrogant bonehead that I couldn't wait to see him destroyed – not a good thing when he's supposed to be the movie's hero. Purdom was no leading man; he was too bland, he was incapable of expressing emotion, and for this role his voice was too cultured and mild; no wonder he never became the big star MGM were grooming him to become when they made this movie. Lana Turner sleepwalks through her part. By the mid-fifties she was getting a little long in the tooth to be playing this kind of siren role, but she does still look good.

The movie does pick up the pace for the last 45 minutes, but by then you'll be past caring.

Avoid.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history