Very disappointed :(

Let's be realistic.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

I couldn't watch without cringing at the sophomoric stiff acting, the amazingly cheap set design and the stoic and jejune dialog. I almost expected some commentary by Crow and the boys to chime in to add some needed 'comic' relief! Amazingly bad but captivating Saturday Night Live quality boredom. Obama and Clinton could have rightly used this movie as a better excuse for Benghazi than the video they chose of a talking donkey.Thanks to Ted Turner for airing this turkey right after Thanksgiving. Please shelve it for another 50 years or until the next ice age comes and goes. The Oscars have come some distance since this Turkey was nominated..., twice?

Okay, The Silver Chalice is not that terrible, but considering the talent it was a huge disappointment and saw the worst work and films of almost everybody involved(apart from Jack Palance, he was in the Gor films and that bizarre Treasure Island adaptation).The Silver Chalice does have some good things. William V Skall's cinematography and Franz Waxman's score were nominated for Oscars and the nominations were deserving, the cinematography is beautiful and makes the most of the spectacle while the music positively sweeps, is lushly orchestrated in distinctive Waxman fashion and gives the film heart and pace. Jack Palance is enormously entertaining and maniacal as magician Simon, it's over the top- but you can say that that was in comparison to the rest of the performances- but in a deliciously gleeful way. Pier Angeli gives a heartfelt performance as well and Simon's flying off the sky scraping Tower of Babel is an unforgettable scene and close to being the highlight of the film.Paul Newman on the other hand is very wooden and ill-at-ease in his role, it is his debut(one that is understandably one he'd rather forget) but he was an amazing talent in acting and that did not come through here. Virginia Mayo is alluring but looks completely and utterly lost and Natalie Wood is quite charming but her acting is bland compared to her usual performances. Joseph Wiseman and Lorne Greene are largely wasted(Greene at least though had his concluding narration that was mildly powerful). They are hindered by very sketchily written characters and as dreary and stilted a script as you can get where the one memorable line is Nero's "he didn't fly"(for me it is one of, perhaps THE worst script for a biblical film). Victor Saville's direction never comes to life and the story feels overlong, stodgy and over-stretched with scenes that are either stagy, superfluous or unintentionally funny(some also like the fighting over the gown and with the dancers that would be better belonging somewhere else). The costumes are the opposite of lavish, rather a hodge-podge with some not fitting at all with the setting, with Palance donning the weirdest costumes of his whole career(especially the last one, admittedly he does wear them well). The make-up goes well over-the-top, Mayo is caked in it and it cheapens her looks, it's that ridiculous, and while a few sets are amazing most are bizarrely stylised that it gives the film a cheap look.In conclusion, The Silver Chalice is not a terrible film with the cinematography, score and Palance making it halfway watchable, but as a whole it, like Simon, didn't fly with everybody involved deserving far better than this. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this movie on TV in the early 1960s the first time. It is a mishmash of both good and bad, and is still watchable for a number of reasons. The Silver Chalice must have had a miserable production budget because some of the sets are ludicrously cheap, one set in particular (a stone wall) looked like it was drawn onto cardboard using a black permanent marker with a yardstick. So hilariously funny that it completely made me forget what was happening in that scene!And, speaking of hilarious, Jack Palance's performance was over-the-top total high camp. It was never clear if this was a deliberate move on the part of the director or producer or just an actor's ploy to steal every scene in which he appeared in this film. Not too far behind was the performance of Virginia Mayo, as his "magician's assistant", whose obvious job duties included prostitution as well. I think this was Palance's all time best performance, if only for the preposterous overacting. His Mickey Mouse Sorcerer's Apprentice costume and hairdo certainly did not contribute to a serious character role!Paul Newman was just really starting his career in movies, although he had chalked up a lot of time and experience in theatrical plays. He mainly seemed uninvolved in his character's role, and uncomfortable in the movie in general. He has been quoted several times that this was the one production that he wanted to purchase all possible copies of since he regretted this role more than any other. Not really bad, but he was probably suffering from the difference between live acting on a theatre stage vs a movie set. The script didn't help him out much.It was fun trying to identify the actors portraying supporting players in this convoluted story which was in reality fairly straightforward. It had the same overall cheesy and disjointed feeling of another overblown attempt by the old Hollywood Studio machine when it made another interesting stinker titled THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, which contained few starring roles, but a series of scenes populated by a cameos of a veritable Who's Who of Hollywood's plethora of film celebrities, mainly from the 1940s.I highly recommend both of these movies, if only to watch how the best of the film industry's intentions can go so publicly awry, regardless of casting and production efforts. Watch these two films and see how many famous actors and actresses you can pick out in the various scenes, while having a really fun and hilarious couple of hours along the way!

The historical epics which were so popular in the fifties and early sixties frequently had a religious theme. Some were based, not always faithfully, on stories from the Bible ("The Ten Commandments", "Solomon and Sheba", "Esther and the King"), while others tried to convey a Christian message indirectly. Thus the central character of "Spartacus" is treated as a metaphorical Christ-figure, and "The Egyptian" draws parallels between Christianity and the monotheistic religion of Atenism which briefly flourished under the heretical Pharaoh Akhnaten. "The Silver Chalice" is one of a number of films which deal with the early days of the Christian church and its persecution by the Roman emperors. The stories told by such films were normally fictitious, but were set against a background of historical fact. The most famous film of this type is "Ben Hur", but others include "The Robe" and its sequel "Demetrius and the Gladiators", "Quo Vadis?" and "The Fall of the Roman Empire".The plot of "The Silver Chalice" is essentially similar to that of "The Robe", which was made the previous year. Both concerned a sacred relic of Christ which is being sought by the enemies of Christianity. In "The Robe" this relic is the robe which Christ wore at His crucifixion; in "The Silver Chalice" it is the cup which He used at the Last Supper. (This cup has become known as the Holy Grail, especially in the context of the Arthurian legends, but this name is not used in the film).The central character is Basil, a young Greek craftsman from Antioch who is wrongly sold into slavery, rescued by Saint Luke, and commissioned by him to make a silver chalice to house the sacred cup. The chalice is to have the faces of the disciples and Jesus himself sculpted around its rim, and Basil travels to Jerusalem and to Rome to complete this task. The cup, however, is being sought by Simon Magus, the villain of the story, who hopes to found his own religion and who uses conjuring tricks in an attempt to convince people that he is the new Messiah. The film also deals with Basil's relationships with two women, the pagan prostitute Helena, who is also Simon's mistress, and the Christian convert Deborah, the granddaughter of Joseph of Arimathea."The Silver Chalice" was Paul Newman's first film, but seldom can someone who went on to become a major star have made so unpromising a debut. Newman is totally wooden and unconvincing; there is no hint here of the great actor he was to become only a few years later. He himself apparently loathed the film; when it was later broadcast on television in 1966, he is said to have taken out an advertisement in a Hollywood trade paper apologising for his performance, and asking people not to watch it. Predictably, this achieved precisely the opposite of what he was hoping for; his advertisement aroused interest in the film and the broadcast received unusually high ratings. He even allegedly called the film "the worst motion picture produced during the 1950s", even though this was the decade that brought us the likes of Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space".To be fair to him, his is by no means the only below par acting performance in the film. Probably the best comes from Jack Palance, a splendidly over-the-top villain as Simon, and the teenage Natalie Wood is charming as Helena in the days when she was still an innocent young slave-girl. Virginia Mayo, however, her good looks hidden behind some weird make-up, fails to make the older Helena sufficiently seductive or alluring. Pier Angeli looks lovely as Deborah, but her acting is hampered by her thick foreign accent.The acting is not the only problem with the film. It is overlong, the plot is often confusing, and the dialogue frequently has the artificial, stilted flavour common to many Biblical epics. (The scriptwriters seem to have imagined that a film on a religious theme needed to be written in something resembling the language of the King James Bible). The stylised, minimalist set designs would be more suited to a modernist theatrical production than they would to a major feature film; this sort of Brechtian minimalism seems particularly inappropriate in an epic, a genre which has always relied on visual splendour.One reviewer says that the film is "no worse than numerous other Biblical epics", but in my experience epics vary greatly in quality. "The Silver Chalice" is not only inferior to the classics of the genre ("The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus") but also to second-division examples such as "The Egyptian" or "Demetrius and the Gladiators". I would even rank it lower than mediocre third-raters like "Samson and Delilah" or "Esther and the King". About the only one it can compare with is that dreadful John Wayne vehicle "The Conqueror". It is perhaps appropriate that the hero of this fourth-rate film is called Basil. "The Silver Chalice" is to epic movies what Fawlty Towers is to hotels. 4/10