Very well executed

A Disappointing Continuation

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Actually Ain't so religious,but l like too much biblical epics that re-telling some famous happenings from holly book,this one is too fictional keeping the main fact and making dramatic statements that never occurred according the bible,apart this matter which had so many damages on movie itself,further bad things come together,like a low profile special effects which works sometimes and are so primitive in mainly time,Stewart Granger who are one of my fave actor ever this time disappointed me...anyway the movie sunk in the desert of Marrocos,at least Pier Angeli gave a decent acting noticed for many....pure Italian beauty!!Resume: First watch: 2006 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6

I can imagine why this film flopped when it came out in 1962 (1963 in the States). My take on watching "Sodom and Gomorrah" was no doubt like that of most or many other moviegoers. There was almost nothing in here that resembled any of the story that had come down to us in common lore from its Bible origins. When a movie purports to be about a real event, or recorded event, or well-known and oft-told story, it should resemble that story as much as possible. Of course Hollywood has license to embellish and write fictitious details to fill out a story. But when it totally reinvents the story, it disqualifies the film as a plausible source of some or part of the story.If this film was not a supposed Bible story, it would get a higher rating from me. I agree with a number of other reviewers that it still lacked in some production qualities. But, it would have been an interesting story about a migrating tribe in the ancient Middle East and some of its accomplishments. But one can't watch this film and separate it from the supposed Bible account. Ergo, it fails for its highly fictitious, revisionism in places, and outright erroneous attributions. The only things with any Biblical basis in this film are the names of the cities, Lot and his two daughters, a weak and general portrayal of the wickedness of the cities, and their final destruction. The Biblical accounts of Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are n pieces of Genesis chapters 14, 18 and 19. One big thing missing from the film would have given it some real action. That was Lot's capture by northern kings who waged war on Sodom, Gomorrah and the other south Jordan valley cities; and his rescue by Abram. A real erroneous attribution in the film is Lot trying to allay Sodom's destruction by appealing to God to save the city if just a number of good people are found there. Abram – not Lot, does this in Gen. 18: 22- 33. There were no queen and prince of Sodom as in this film. The king of Sodom at the time was Bera (Gen. 14:2). The Bible does not list names for Lot's daughters, and his wife was not a former slave of Sodom (Ildith in this film, played by Pier Angeli). The Bible has no account of Lot making a contract with the ruler of Sodom; nor does it have the Hebrews building a dam or fighting the battle in the film. The Bible does say that Lot's people were taken captive after they fought with the southern valley kings against the invading kings of the North. And, at the end, Lot and his two daughters and wife had to be taken by the arm by the Lord's angels (as men) to flee the city. He had hesitated and his two sons-in-laws didn't take him seriously. So, only Lot's immediate family fled – to a nearby small town of Zoar. He did not lead a retinue of fellow Hebrews out of the city. The film implies that Sodom was guilty of all types of sins, with an emphasis of hedonistic killing. The Bible clearly refers to the city's degradation to sexual sins of all types – adultery, homosexuality, incest, fornication and anything imaginable – "grave." So, I could not enjoy the film as it unfolded because none of it seemed to ring true to the story as I could remember it. And, that type of distraction is a very real harbinger of an audience's like or dislike for a film of this nature. As I said, had this not been based on a well- known Bible story, more people might have enjoyed it. I would have given it a higher rating by a couple notches. A follow-up Bible story that's not as well remembered is what happens next with Lot and his daughters. Gen. 19: 30-38 relates that his daughters didn't want to see his line die out, so they got their father drunk on successive nights. They took turns sleeping with Lot who wasn't aware of what they were doing. They conceived from their incest and the offspring became the Moabites and Ammonites who were enemies of the Israelites in much of the rest of the Old Testament. The word sodomy, referring to deviant sexual acts, comes from the Latin, meaning "sin of Sodom." Pier Angeli was an Italian actress making movies in Hollywood and Europe when she died in 1972. She was 39 and took a barbiturate overdoes while living in Los Angeles.

While there isn't much in this movie that is Biblically correct I still thought it was an enjoyable film all the same. Essentially, "Lot" (Stewart Granger) has decided to relocate his followers and herds to the lush plain of Jordan in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are located. It is at this point where Hollywood takes over and everything is radically different from the Scriptures. Be that as it may, "Bera" (Anouk Aimee), the Queen of Sodom and Gomorrah, recognizes that the Elamites are a threat to her cities and is desperate to protect her position at all costs. So when the Hebrews (led by Lot) enter the plain of Jordan she hastily forms an alliance with them. Lot agrees due in large part to his naive assumption that he can eventually convince the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to abandon their wicked ways. What he doesn't consider is that the Hebrews are also capable of adopting the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah as well. At any rate, rather than spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, I will just reiterate that what follows is not found in the Book of Genesis. But it is an exciting film with good acting by Stewart Granger, Pier Angeli (as Lot's wife "Ildith") and the aforementioned Anouk Aimee. It also has some nice scenery and some pretty good special effects for its time. However, it is rather long (154 minutes) and the manner in which the writers transform Lot into a combination of both Abraham and Moses is a bit far-fetched. But that's Hollywood I suppose. Slightly above average.

I'm a very critical viewer, and have left scathing reviews of several films here on IMDb. I am also no fan of biblical or sword and sandal epics - I've never gotten more than 30 minutes though The Robe, Spartacus or Ben Hur. I came across Sodom and Gomorrah half-way through on TV recently, and quickly became hooked ... so much so that I shelled out £17 to buy a full, uncut 154 DVD from Portugal! Take my word for it - Sodom and Gomarrah is really very, very enjoyable in many ways. It is NOT the camp, so-bad-it's good piece of junk some reviews would lead you to expect. The action sequences are really outstanding, and the performances of Stanley Baker and the fabulous Anouk Aimee as the twisted, wicked brother and sister are mesmerising. It is also very racy (for 1962) - indeed it was an X certificate upon release in the UK. In the biography of Pier Angeli, it is revealed that she and Stewart Granger were not on speaking terms, and during filming they spoke to each other only when they were working together. Pier also make a point of making Granger aware he was the only one of the film's leading actors that she had not slept with while on location! If you get the chance, do watch this film. It's nowhere near the disaster you might be expecting ... and by the way, none of those campy lines people have quoted ("Do not bend to the Sodomites", etc) are actually contained in the film!