Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

WordWeaver777 I just completed watching the original 154-minute version of this film.Aside from the fact that it features a character named Lot, along with his wife who is ultimately transformed into a pillar of salt, Lot's two daughters, the brief appearance of what we assume to be two Angels, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is very little in the storyline which adheres to or resembles the account which we find in Genesis 18:16-19:38 in the Bible. In short, 99.9% of this movie is pure fiction.Let me give you a few examples.In the Scriptures, it is the Patriarch Abraham who has a conversation with the Lord and two of His Angels, and who begs the Lord to spare the two wicked cities if even ten righteous men can be found in them. However, in this movie, it is Lot who has this conversation. Furthermore, while Abraham is briefly mentioned once or twice, he is nowhere to be seen whatsoever.In the Bible, Lot's two daughters are both already married when it comes time to flee from Sodom. Furthermore, when Lot warns their husbands to leave Sodom, they both mock him. As a result, only Lot, his wife and his two daughters flee from Sodom, escorted by the two Angels. In contrast, in this movie, Lot leads a whole band of obedient Hebrews out of Sodom just prior to the city's destruction, and the two Angels are nowhere in sight.While the Bible makes clear that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality -- for example, see Genesis 19:4-8 where the word "know" implies engaging in sex -- this is not made evident in the movie. There is some evidence in the film which suggests sexual immorality. For example, in the opening frames we see people -- male and female -- laying all over the place, suggesting that they have just engaged in an orgy. Later on, it is also implied that the queen of Sodom has engaged in a lesbian relationship with one of her dancers. Finally, we are given to understand that the queen's brother has sexually abused both of Lot's daughters. Nevertheless, there is no outright hint that the people of Sodom engaged in homosexuality.There are other problems with the plot in regards to the Scriptures, but I will leave it at that.Aside from the fact that most of the movie is pure fiction -- including the long-drawn-out battle seen -- another problem I had is that I simply did not connect with any of the characters. I felt no empathy for any of them. As a result, because I had no emotional investment in any of them, even when Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, it really didn't affect me in the least.Regarding the actors' performances, I didn't find any of it outstanding; not even Stewart Granger's or Pier Angeli's.In conclusion, if you view this film with a low expectation that it will adhere closely to the Bible, you may possibly enjoy it. However, if you are like me and Biblical accuracy is important to you, you may watch it once out of curiosity, but then never watch it again.

Maciste_Brother Robert Aldrich directed some classic films, like WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE, but he also directed not so great classics, like the stunningly bad but entertaining LEGEND OF LYLAH CLARE. SODOM AND GOMORRAH is neither a good nor entertainingly bad film. It's just plain bad. The production values, though sorta grand, are awful. Everything looks grubby. The actors are totally miscast. The characters are not memorable or even interesting at any level whatsoever. The acting is awful. The action scenes are overdone and do not seem to gel with the rest of the leaden drama. The movie is all around sloppy and it's filled with many technical goofs, like visible tire tracks in the desert. No one, and I mean no one's heart was into this project. And it shows on screen.The mesmerizing Anouk Aimée is totally miscast as the evil Queen. Playing a lesbian, she wasn't believable on any level, as a Queen or someone evil or as a lesbian. Stewart Granger was blah (certainly compared to his excellent turn as Apollodorus in CAESAR & CLEOPATRA). I suspect Aldrich hated either the character or Granger the actor because Lot came across as someone virtuous and yet totally stupid. Like some sort of Dudley Do Wrong.Aldrich's penchant for things crude and quasi-trashy are in evidence throughout the movie. He certainly loves showcasing evil lesbians in his films (LYLAH CLARE, KILLING OF SISTER GEORGE, etc) and changing the actual ruler of Sodom from a King to a Queen, in order to indulge in his fetish, pointed to me that the director wasn't interested in anything to do with facts or creating a compelling dramatic story. Because of this, this grand epic looks no grander than your average Sword & Sandal film. In fact, Peplums are more fun than this because they rarely take themselves as seriously as this misguided project. There are some moment of great unintentional cheese/camp here but the film is way too long and tedious to make it worthwhile. Skip it.

DrLenera Sodom and Gomorrah was a big flop when it was released and has been almost forgotten since then. This is a shame. It's certainly no classic like Ben Hur or Spartacus,and it has the obvious flaws many films like this share-corny dialogue,women's make-up and hair which betrays the decade the film was made in,to name but two-but if you like this kind of film it's very entertaining and worth a watch. At times you could swear De Mille directed it,but it was actually directed by Robert Aldrich,a real curio in his career.The first hour does dawdle along a little,but the middle of the film contains a very lengthy battle sequence which is extremely impressive. In these days of CGI,it's great to see hundreds of REAL people fighting on the screen,and it's great the way the battle is in stages and shows various tactics by the two sides instead of just being a chaotic mess. The climatic destruction {well,it's based on a well known Bible story, so I don't think this is a spoiler!} of the twin cities of Sodom and Gommorah {although we only seem to see Sodom} is still quite a well achieved spectacle,in fact technically the film still generally holds up,except for a few very unconvincing shots when an army is engulfed in water.Those who find some of the film a little heavy can enjoy the odd touch of vivid sadism {people on a wheel lowered into fire,a prisoner threatened by a blind man whose armour produces spikes when he breaths} and plenty of references to the 'sins' of the Sodomites-nothing is explicit,but things such as incest,sexual servitude and lesbianism are certainly hinted at. Yet the Hebrews,by comparison,are such a dull humourless lot,one might occasionally sympathise with the Sodomites,and this was maybe intended. As with most of Aldrich's films,it's actually quite cynical,and doesn't take easy sides.Stuart Granger is fine as Lot but it's the underrated Stanley Baker,as the scheming Astorath who chases anything in a skirt, who gives the stand-out performance,memorably corrupt. One should also mention Miklos Rozsa's superb score which ranks along side his other classic scores for related films like Ben Hur and El Cid. He superbly evokes the period and setting whilst providing a gorgeous love theme and a number of other great themes. Of course it's very melodramatic,but it suits the film!Sodom and Gomorrah exists in several heavily cut down versions which may quicken the pace but are extremely choppy,often cutting into scenes when they are obviously half way through. The full 155-odd minute version is sometimes shown,and is available in some countries on DVD,but really demands a proper,remastered,etc. release. It's really worth seeing,as long as you like this kind of stuff of course!

bkoganbing With the filming of Sodom and Gomorrah, Stewart Granger began a phase of his career on the European continent. Not that Sodom and Gomorrah is any great film, but it was certainly better than some of those spaghetti westerns he did in the Sixties to pay for his hedonistic life style. Something like the one they allegedly lived down Sodom way.Of course Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't stick to the biblical version of the tale, but then neither did those DeMille epics, Samson and Delilah and The Ten Commandments. Nor is homosexuality singled out as THE sin that got the Deity all upset that he wanted to destroy the place. Then again it isn't even in the Bible.Lot as portrayed by Stewart Granger doesn't take just his family there, he leads a whole tribe of Hebrew people there after he parts from Uncle Abraham. Pretty soon he gets all tangled up in Sodomite politics and gets a bit entangled himself with Pier Angeli who is a slave girl to Queen Anouk Aimee. Villain of the piece is Stanley Baker who always improves every film he was ever in. He's Anouk's brother and he's got the idea he ought to be running things. He's also got an eye for Lot's daughters.There's a very nicely staged battle sequence with the Hebrews defending the land granted them by Anouk. But the script is definitely out of the Cecil B. DeMille school of arcane Victorian writing.Still it's entertaining in many respects.