mallaverack As a real fan of 'La Lolla' (meaning I believe she is a fine actor as well as a drop dead gorgeous looking woman) I recall the anticipation in originally viewing this movie. Unfortunately the film is too long - surely it could have been cut by 30 mins or more. Battle scenes in particular were way too lengthy and somewhat mundane - the all too obvious fake horses and soldiers 'forever' falling into the great ravine prompted much laughter at the time! In addition, the acting of George Sanders and Marisa Pavan was below standard, indeed Sanders was completely miscast and fairly woeful for the most part. It does not concern me greatly that the story in the film did not even closely follow the biblical narrative nor that the accents were a hotch-potch nor (as one critic here points out) that the soldiers' shields would have been of a different design! The central concern is that the plot provides a good yarn, the cinematography is excellent, the musical score is appropriately utilised and the two leading characters are played well by Yul and Gina. It was a box-office success, so despite its faults, the movie had lots of admirers. And apart from the obvious sex-appeal of La Lolla, the fact that her portrayal was suitably conniving, intelligent and sexually alluring played a large part in the film's overall appeal.

lorddoctorray A previous reviewer states that this film IS historically inaccurate. You CANNOT make such a daft statement. We're talking about ancient history here where they are few if any contemporary writings and witnesses etc so NO ONE knows exactly what happened. Anyway does it really matter? A film should be watched and enjoyed for its entertainment value NOT its historic accuracy.I personally love this film. I love any film about ancient history and cultures. This film was made in 1959 when Hollywood still knew how to make great biblical epics. The scene where the Egyptian army is destroyed by the Israelites using their highly polished shields is sheer brilliance!Yul Brynner was brought in to replace Tyrone Power who died 3 day into filming, and here gives one of his best ever performances. Gina Lollobrigida is beautiful and seductive as the Queen of Sheba.I give this film 9 out of 10.

James Hitchcock Note One. "Sheba" was the name of a country, not a person. Calling the heroine of this film "Sheba", therefore, is about as logical as making a film about Cleopatra and calling her "Egypt", or about Queen Victoria and calling her "Great Britain". The Queen's personal name is not recorded in the Bible, but tradition gives it either as Bilqis/Balkis or as Makeda. Note Two. The Queen of Sheba would have been black, or at least much darker skinned than Gina Lollobrigida. Hollywood squeamishness about interracial love affairs is doubtless to blame for this piece of miscasting. Note Three. What is a blue-and-gold macaw (native to South America) doing in the ancient Near East? Epic films based upon the Bible were popular in the 1950s, but sometimes they were only very loosely so based. "Solomon and Sheba" is a case in point. The biblical account of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon is a very brief one, but this film uses it as the basis for a particularly complicated plot. In this version Sheba is an ally of Solomon's arch- enemy, the Pharaoh of Egypt, and conspires with the Pharaoh to undermine him. The idea is that she will seduce him and persuade him to allow pagan worship in Jerusalem, thus provoking his own people to rebel against him. The plan comes close to success, but Sheba begins to fall in love with the man she has sworn to destroy. There is also a sub-plot involving Solomon's jealous brother Adonijah who covets his throne. Cecil B. DeMille, the man whose "Samson and Delilah" is often regarded as marking the beginning of the fifties epic cycle, once wrote "I am sometimes accused of gingering up the Bible with large and lavish infusions of sex and violence. I can only wonder if my accusers have ever read certain parts of the Bible." There certainly seemed to be an unofficial rule that epics were exempt from the strict rigours of the Production Code, provided the film as a whole conveyed some improving religious or moral message. Sexiness was next to godliness. In "Salome", for example, Rita Hayworth was able to get away with performing a provocative dance because in this version of the story (contrary to the Biblical one) Salome is a virtuous heroine who is trying to save John the Baptist's life."Solomon and Sheba" was made six years after "Salome" and goes a lot further than that film, or than anything made by DeMille, in its intermingling of sexiness and godliness. The film even includes an orgy scene which was virtually pornographic by the standards of fifties Hollywood, but its overall message is essentially "Judaeo-Christianity good, paganism bad". The orgy is presented as a "love feast" in honour of a Sheban god, with an implied subtext that those who do not acknowledge the one true God will lack moral strength and be unable to resist sexual temptation. The film ends with Sheba's conversion both to the worship of Jehovah and to the paths of virtue. The film was hit by tragedy when the original Solomon, Tyrone Power, died suddenly during filming; Yul Brynner was hastily drafted in to replace him and Power's scenes had to be re-shot. The director, King Vidor, seems to have been unhappy with Brynner, who he thought was too calm and self-assured; he felt that Power would have been better at portraying the conflict in Solomon's nature between love and duty. The best acting contribution comes from George Sanders (generally a decent villain) as the villainous Adonijah. (Sanders also played the Philistine King in "Samson and Delilah"). There may have been some truth in Vidor's criticism, but I felt that Brynner was not too bad, bearing in mind that he had inherited his role from another actor with a rather different style of acting. La Lollo, however, is weak as Sheba; it is all too clear that English is not her native language and her lines were sometimes difficult to understand. I assumed that the role of Abishag (an innocent young girl in love with Solomon) was being played by Pier Angeli, who seemed to specialise in sub-standard epics (she also had parts in "The Silver Chalice" and "Sodom and Gomorrah"), but in fact the role was taken by Pier's twin sister Marisa Pavan, whose English is no better than Lollobrigida's. Or for that matter than her sister's. The film was made in 1959, the same year as "Ben-Hur", one of the greatest epics, but the two films are in nothing like the same class. "Solomon and Sheba" was made on less than half the budget of the other film, and at times it shows. When the Temple in Jerusalem is struck by lightning, it is obvious that what we are seeing is a model (probably one put together by a child playing with Lego bricks). The acting is variable in quality and the plot at times defies belief, especially during that scene (not found in the Bible) where the entire Egyptian army are so dazzled by the sunlight reflected from the shields of the Israelite soldiers that they plunge to their deaths in a canyon. (And remember: the Israelites of this period would only have had bronze shields, not polished steel ones). DeMille might have been able to acquit himself of gingering up the Bible; the verdict against Vidor and his scriptwriters on this charge must be "guilty". 5/10

MartinHafer Tyrone Power was cast in the lead as Solomon. However, part-way through the film he died unexpectedly. The studio chose to cast Yul Brynner in the lead and re-shoot the scenes that Power had done. In hindsight, considering how awful this film was, Power was lucky--as this would have been a horrible way to end his lovely film career!!! Of all the Biblical epics I have seen, this one is by far the worst--and that's saying a lot because Hollywood has made many dull Biblical tales--so many you wonder if the creation of these films was an Atheist conspiracy!! In fact, the film was so dull that it deservedly was included in Harry Medved's brilliant book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". There are so many reasons to hate the film but the worst is how incredibly ponderous the whole thing was! Sure, casting people with Italian, Eastern European, Scottish and English accents to play Egyptians and Israelis was pretty bad--but at least this made the film oddly humorous. Having bosomy Gina Lollobrigida playing the role of a woman reputed to have come from a place around Ethiopia was also just awful, but at least she was beautiful even if she couldn't act. Having an overweight and post-middle aged George Sanders play such a young role was also pretty bad, but at least he had a pretty voice. Creating an orgy scene that was choreographed and revoltingly dull was pretty bad, but at least you got to see in the credits a mention of a person as the "orgy choreographer"! No, the worse thing about this movie is that almost two and a half hours, it seemed like nine it was so poorly paced and insipid! Considering that the only mention of this Queen of Sheba and Solomon is only in a few measly verses in the Old Testament, it's amazing the film just went on and on and on. THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD was a bit longer, but that movie was based on four gospels--not a dozen or so verses! The bottom line is that the film is wretched in practically every way (except for Gina's cleavage). Even for devoted Christians and Jews, this is a must-avoid film because it plays so fast and loose with the truth as well as injects an amazing amount of sex into a Biblical film!!! Terrible in almost every way, it is truly a blessing for Tyrone Power that he's not remembered for starring in this bloated turkey.