The Silver Chalice Reviews
All you need to know about the plot is that Paul Newman is the man who makes the Holy Grail the Holy Grail. That is all you need to know. The plot falls apart completely at the end, but in an almost awesomely bad way.
Now, I do give them points for trying(which it looks like they actually were), but the problem is everyone involved seems to have just been inept at what they were doing. Paul Newman was even bad, but since this was his feature film debut, he gets a big, BIG break. The reason he was bad was because he was still in stage/live televison mode. Typically, it is the director's job to shake it out of them, but again, with many things wrong with this film, its understandable why he didn't have the time.
In addition to giving points for trying, I give them points for doing a biblical epic in a sort of modern, experimental way, even though it turned out to be a spectacular failure.
? Good Solid Story
? A Younger Jack Palance as Simon the Magician
? Epic Story, spanning many years
? Paul Newman
? The Art and Set design was very dated
? The Score by Franz Waxman
? Some of the supporting cast were bad
Final Analysis: I mainly was intrigued by this film because of the Jack Palance character, Simon the Magician, though still obscure, more commonly known as Simon Magus. The performances, at times, delivered here are stilted and wooden. The set design arrestingly bad. The score also was your typical 1950s fare. The only reason to watch this film really is the Simon Magus story arc which is quite interesting and the interplay with Newman and the wife of his character.
Decent, maybe if you have a few hours free.