CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

James Hitchcock The success of films like "The Robe" (based on a novel by Lloyd Douglas) and "Quo Vadis?" (based on a novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz) had Hollywood producers scouring the libraries and the bookshops for other novels about the life of Christ and the early Church that could be turned into quasi-Biblical epics. Lew Wallace's "Ben-Hur" must have seemed a natural for this treatment, and the resulting film is one of the greatest epics ever made, but there were some more obscure entries in the cycle such as the eccentric "The Silver Chalice". "Barabbas" was based on a novel by the Swedish writer Pär Lagerkvist, a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. The gospels do not tell us very much about Barabbas, the man released by Pontius Pilate in preference to Jesus, except that he was a criminal of some sort. The four evangelists cannot even agree on the nature of his crimes; Mark and Luke accuse him of rebellion and murder, John of robbery, while Matthew simply calls him a "notorious prisoner". In Lagerkvist's account he resumes his criminal career after his release, is recaptured and condemned to work as a slave in the sulphur mines of Sicily, and later becomes a gladiator. (And what Roman epic would be complete without gladiators?)When Monty Python's controversial "Life of Brian" was attacked for allegedly ridiculing Christianity, the Pythons claimed that their satire was not aimed at Christ's teaching but at grandiose, excessively reverential religious epics. Their critics may have dismissed this claim as disingenuous, but "Barabbas" strikes me as precisely the sort of film the Pythons were sending up. The script was written by the then-famous dramatist Christopher Fry and although it is not in verse, unlike most of Fry's stage plays, the dialogue often seems heavy and ponderous. As a practising Pythonist of long standing I kept hearing echoes of "Brian" throughout; during the release scene I was expecting the crowd to shout "Welease Bawabbas! He's a wobber and a wapist!" When Barabbas' ex- girlfriend Rachel, who has become a Christian, is stoned to death for blasphemy, I wondered if she had committed the sin of remarking "That piece of fish is good enough for Jehovah!"And yet, despite its tendency to slide into unintentional self-parody, this is not altogether a bad film. It was directed by Richard Fleischer, a director whose films varied in quality but who could generally come up with something original. He worked in virtually every movie genre known to Hollywood, and when he made two films in the same genre was careful not to repeat himself. Thus his two science-fiction films, the steampunk "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" and the psychedelic "Fantastic Voyage" are nothing like one another, and his "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing" and "10, Rillington Place" are about as dissimilar as it is possible for two based-on-fact historical crime dramas to be. Fleischer had made a previous epic, "The Vikings", but this mediaeval adventure story is very different to "Barabbas". Many epics were noted for their brilliant colour- by the fifties a black-and-white epic was virtually unthinkable- but "Barabbas" is sombre in tone with dull, muted colours. It does, however, include moments of spectacle, including a splendid duel in the arena and a crucifixion scene shot during a real eclipse of the sun. The film's other great strength is the performance of Anthony Quinn in the title role. As conceived by Lagerkvist, Barabbas is a man troubled by the implications of his unexpected reprieve from death. He recognises Christ as somebody special but does not, except at the very end of the film, fully accept the truth of Christianity, even though he is befriended by a Christian prisoner while in the mines. Quinn plays the role with a blazing sincerity which sets him apart from many leading men in films of this nature; Paul Newman, for example, gave one of his worst performances in "The Silver Chalice", and Richard Burton is hardly at his best in "The Robe". Jack Palance, who was about the only watchable thing about "The Silver Chalice", is also good here as the arrogant and sadistic gladiator Torvald who fights Barabbas in the arena. Torvald fights from a chariot, in a scene obviously influenced by the chariot race in "Ben-Hur".(Incidentally, I wonder why Lagerkvist gave the common Scandinavian Christian name "Torvald" to one of his characters; this struck me as the equivalent of a British novelist calling a Roman gladiator "Bill" or "Harry". Admittedly, the name, which incorporates that of the pagan god Thor, could have been used in pre-Christian times, but it is unlikely that someone from Scandinavia, to the Romans a little-known land far outside their empire, could have made his way to Rome)."Barabbas" is not the best-known of the quasi- Biblical epics, although it has been kept in the public eye by occasional showings over the Easter holidays. It cannot compare in quality with something like "Ben- Hur", but Quinn's acting and Fleischer's directorial touches give it a certain quality which lifts it above the likes of the ludicrous "Silver Chalice". 6/10

chaos-rampant In one of the first scenes Barabbas steps out of his dark prison cell to find the peculiar glinting figure of the man who's going to take his place on the cross and rubbing his eyes says he's not used to the light. So here we have both facets that make this interesting. It is, more so than Ben Hur and perhaps even Spartacus, less grand in the cinematic brushstroke but more troubled and honestly so about the spiritual picture it paints, more human.It starts with what we know as a spiritual narrative, Pilates' trial of Jesus, but approaches it in the historic light. It follows only the last legs of that narrative from the crucifixion on but does so through Barabbas' questioning eyes. We assume divinity because it's that story but the body could have been stolen, the eclipse natural; it all might just be a story about god.The spiritual question that looms is why doesn't god make himself plain? If this is a spiritual narrative as the newly devout insist throughout, why is it so hard to discern its truth?Barabbas finds it hard to believe so returns to his banditry which opens up a cycle of sinking deeper into a life of meaningless toil and punishment, seen most clearly in the sulphur mines where each subsequent year the slaves are lowered to a deeper level as their eyes become accustomed to the dark, again eyes tied to light. It isn't so just for him of course, Christians suffer next to him so what difference does it make, faith or god?There's a scene where a Christian lectures gladiators that their pagan gods are fictions that will be sure to amuse modern viewers. But this was the powerful reality of early Christianity, the only time it truly mattered. Christians could point to a specific time and place where god appeared as part of history, I can only imagine the invigorating urgency. It had all become clear, linear. They did joyfully expect to see his return within their lifetime.There is something powerful to be gleaned here; life isn't any better for the believers than Barabbas, the whole difference has nothing to do with the material facts, it's all about the light in which you choose to see. The tragic irony is that when Barabbas chooses to believe it is only out of guilt, a madness that is the fire he sets to things (this is during Nero's fire) that is his belief that the anticipated return would be fiery like this.So forget that it's a religious spectacle we watch during Lent and carries that form, this is more erudite than usual and deserves to be seen next to Stromboli about the difficulties of faith.

sol1218 ***SPOILERS*** The film "Barabbas" starts where the New Testament left off with petty thief bandit and womanizer Barabbas, Anthony Quinn, having his life speared by Roman Mayor of Jerusalem Pontius Pilate, Arthur Kennedy.This was done as a as a good will jester by Pilate to placate the angry crowd,mostly members of the Pharisees, that wanted the other person scheduled to be crucified the innocent Jesus of Nazareth, Roy Mangano,to be executed instead. It's from that point on without of the holy scriptures that were treated to what happened to Barabbas since his escape from death. And we soon see he was more or less the same nasty uncouth and unfeeling person as he was up until then.In fact Barabbas was infuriated when he found out that his girlfriend Rachael, Silvana Mangano, had become a Christian and follower of Jesus! The very man that was crucified in his place! This had Barabbas try to find out what exactly this new religion was all about by getting in touch with some of Jesus' disciples hiding out in Jerusalem ! Finding out that Christianity has to do with loving not only your neighbor but enemy as well had the very disappointed Barabbas go back to his old ways of womanizing robbing as well as murdering which he felt quite at home with. Captured and sentenced to work in the Sicilian sulfur pits for life had,since having his life speared by Pontius Pilate prevented him for any future execution, Barabbas finally finds God with the help of fellow prisoner newly converted Christian Sahak, Vittorio Gassman, just to be able to survive his ordeal. Later released from the pits, together with Sahak, for good behavior a what looked like in his 60's Barabbas was recruited by the Roman Emperor Nero to fight in the Colosseum as a gladiator against men young enough to his sons or even grandsons! It's when Sahak refused to denounce his Christian faith and was executed for doing it that a sudden change of heart came into Barabbas head and he himself accepted Jesus' teachings and became a Christian. Still Barabbas had some unfinished business to take care of by battling the head of the gladiator Torvald (Jack Palance), who killed his good friend Sahak, in a fight to the death at the Roman Colosseum. Being a lot more formidable then Trovald thought he was the haggard and out of shape looking Barabbas made short order of him by using his head and outmaneuvering and outsmarting Torvald at his own game! Trovald who was so sure of himself in him winning the "death match" against Barabbas that he got himself good and gloriously drunk before the festivities even began and kept on drinking in his early matches, that he won hands down, and even during during his battle with Barabbas when he could barley stand on his feet!***SPOILERS*** Now a free man and what he thought practicing Christian Barabbas later makes the fatal mistake of eagerly taking the blame for setting Rome on fire when he sees thousands of Romans fleeing the city. Thinking that was what his fellow Christians, who were totally non violent even to their abusive Roman masters, wanted he ended up where we first saw him nailed to a cross for what in this case turned out to be a crime that he didn't commit! It was the mad as a hatter Emperor Nero who set the city on fire not the luckless and confused,in him thinking he was doing the right thing, Barabbas! With all the breaks Barabbas got throughout the movie he never realized that his life was speared for a reason. That was to give him a second chance in life by becoming a decent God fearing law abiding and and honest human being. Instead Barabbas who has a cross to bare in his new life resorted back to his old and evil ways that put him right back to square one, nailed to the cross, where we last see him as the film finally ends.

Maciste_Brother As a fan of Sword & Sandal films, with over 250 films in my collection, I have to say how disappointing BARABBAS is. It's overproduced baroque nonsense that takes a real character from history and then creates a wildly speculative story, which is an overlong and cluttered symbolic one at that, and for what? The film's first big mistake was casting Quinn who was all wrong as the titular character. At 46, he was too old for the character. How many 46 year old gladiators would survive in the arena? As incredulous as that was, the combination of the busy cast of known and unknown actors populating the landscape, most of them overacting as if their lives depended on it, the episodic story, of Barabbas stumbling from one forgettable clichéd roman storyline after another, within its numerous big, elaborate sets, with almost all of them not even remotely believable, looking like massive papier mache monstrosities (the uninspired lighting and camera-work don't help them look more than sets), gave the film a needless baroque atmosphere. The film was less biblical, more spaghetti western. In many instances this would actually be a plus but in this case, the baroque quality simply overwhelmed everything to a point of being gag inducing. The overwrought sulfur mine moment is a perfect example of it being too much.Director Richard Fleischer was obviously not interested in any of it, probably thinking that if one could keep the fake story busy no one would notice that not much of it makes any sense. Of all the biblical/Sword & Sandal/Peplum epics, this one is as bad as SODOM & GOMORRAH.As a side note, for fans of S&S flicks, you'll enjoy spotting many familiar faces, including Joe Robinson (from the Thor/Taur movies), Vittorio Gassman and Salvatore Borghese (the mute from the Ten Gladiators films) and many others.