You won't be disappointed!

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Is it me, or is this movie boring? I'm into historical epics--my all time favourites are Ben-Hur and Spartacus--and I was looking forward to the Robe based on its reputation but...nothing happened. Nothing happened for an hour, then there was a somewhat perfunctory one-on-one sword-fight, hardly exciting, and then not much happened for another hour. There was certainly no action of any consequence. I know this may sound superficial (and no, I'm not some short-attention-span teenager), but I do expect a few action set pieces in an historical epic and this film just didn't have them. (Oddly, the sequel, Demetrius & the Gladiators, did, and was much more entertaining for it). If it hadn't been for Jay Robinson joyously chewing the scenery like scenery has never been chewed before, and Alfred Newman's soaring music, the film would have been unbearable; as it was I found myself thinking of other things for much of its running time and only coming back when the music roused me. I kind of cringe now when I see it listed with the big-boy epics of the 50s because it just doesn't belong there; whatever one may think of the script or acting it's not an epic. It's like a musical with the musical numbers removed.More action, guys. Keep the sensitive stuff. Keep the elevated stuff. Keep the literate stuff. But more action.

I saw this film at its premiere in Tucson in 1953 on the new Cinemascope screen and was utterly enthralled. Fifty some years later the film is an absolute disaster! The script just stinks period. They took one of the best selling books of all time and gave a Reader's Digest version of the story with characters that have absolutely no basis in reality - they come across purely as cardboard. There is no character development at all. What the writers did was take the most important plot points from the book and put them into a script without any idea of how they related to one another and what would motivate them to begin with. The result is a confusing mish-mash that leaves the viewer in a constant state of ignorance that is really annoying and forced me to give up on the film after an hour of utter torture.

When the filmmakers were making "The Robe", they knew that they'd also be making the sequel "Demetrius and the Gladiators" and filmed them one after the other with no stoppage in between. Now you'd expect that as usual, the first film would be much better than the next, but this is an odd case where this is NOT so. While I really liked "Demetrius and the Gladiators" when I saw it recently, I was very disappointed by "The Robe". And, yes, I watched the films in reverse order! The film is set near the time of Jesus' death and is told from the point of view of a Roman official, Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton). He and his slave, Demetrius (Victor Mature) are sent to Judea and his is there at the crucifixion. In fact, as the Roman soldiers are casting dice for Jesus' clothes, Marcellus wins the robe. However, little does he know that this robe seems to have magical properties (huh?!) and through this robe, Marcellus comes to become a Christian--making it among the strangest conversion experiences in Hollywood history. However, the insane Emperor, Caligula (Jay Robinson) is not at all pleased, as he hates Christians and takes great sport in killing them. What's to become of Marcellus and his sweetie, Diana (Jean Simmons) once their conversions come to the attention of the nutty 'ol Emperor? Of all of Richard Burton's films, according to IMDb he was least proud of this one because of his wooden performance. While I would agree that it was generally wooden, when it wasn't so flat it was hilariously over-acted. I particularly laughed when Marcellus went mad--and Burton did it in a way highly reminiscent of William Shatner in "Impulse"--and this is NOT meant as a compliment for either of them.Overall, I'd say that the film is, at best, a time-passer. It has lovely sets and nice costumes but it also features some bad acting and a dubious message about Christianity. My advice is so see the sequel--it's something "The Robe" isn't--entertaining. A little bit more subtlety sure would have helped this film, as would an infusion of life and fun. As a result, the film just drags and drags to its conclusion.

Without Victor Mature and Jean Simmons this movie would be a zero. These actors had the talent to give some nobility and seriousness to the nonsense. The dialog is dreadful and the whole thing looks so cheap. But what is really awful is that it moves so slowly. Some of the score is quite touching, it does the work that the director and screenplay can't. It is hard to understand in the 21st century what could have made audiences then flock to it. It had to be the Cinemascope. That isn't to say that this century hasn't offered its own bores. Biblical movies don't seem to hold the public's interest as they once did. And in spite of my not liking this movie, I think that it could be remade today if a director could pick up the pace. There is some potentially touching stuff but 1950s America was such an unimaginative time and place for movie-making that this one didn't have a chance to be well remembered.