I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

There's really only a shell of the biblical tale of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where sin went rampant and caused God to strike them down through a truly violent earthquake that mixed its power with an underground volcano. Slave girls with definite Caucasian backgrounds and modern hairstyles indicate that not much research was done into look of the times. Even researching past biblical epics would have been big help in maintaining a realistic view of the actual time period. Stewart Granger is cast as Lot, and unless you are a student of biblical studies, the movie will not give you much detail into the time period or relationship to other more famous biblical persons. The only real sin that the film shows the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah is of violence and certain elements of sexual perversion (all heterosexual) including what seems to be the aftermath of a huge orgy.Anouk Aimée provides the camp element here as the evil Queen, mistress of slave Pier Angeli who marries Lot and becomes the infamous pillar of salt in the film's closing sequences. It is everything leading up to the destruction of the two cities which seems to take forever to lead up to. Once this occurs though, the special effects are pretty amazing, and the final sequence of Granger shouting out to Angeli to look away is pretty frightening. But this film is one of the reasons why film historians often call the biblical epics poor representations of recorded history, something obviously caused by the presence of a still stiff production code that couldn't allow the elements of the recorded history to be shown on screen.

Although Biblical epics were popular in the fifties and sixties, the tale, originally told in the nineteenth chapter of Genesis, of the patriarch Lot and his sojourn in Sodom and Gomorrah does not seem a prime candidate for such treatment. After all, the one thing every schoolboy knows about the Sodomites is that they gave the word "sodomy" to the English language, and in the days of the Production Code homosexuality was the Abominable Vice, not to be referred to by film-makers. And wasn't there all that unpleasant business about Lot sleeping with his daughters while drunk? Well, this film tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah without ever mentioning the sin of Sodom. Or, for that matter, the sin of incest. Whenever the word "Sodomite" is used it is as description of a geographical origin, not of sexual orientation. There is plenty of heterosexual monkey business, and it is vaguely implied that the Queen of Sodom, whose friendships with attractive young slave-girls can be suspiciously close, may have lesbian tendencies, but of male homosexuality there is never a mention. Unless possibly unintentional doubles entendres like "Do not allow yourselves to bend to the Sodomites" count as such.In this version of the story, Lot is the leader of a wandering Hebrew tribe who settle on land by the Jordan granted to them by Bera, Queen of Sodom. For a tribe of pastoral nomads, the Hebrews show a remarkably advanced knowledge of civil engineering, building a dam to water their land, and for a people who claim to be devoted to peace they have an equally well-developed grasp of military strategy, helping the Sodomites defeat their Edomite enemies. As a result Lot becomes the Queen's trusted adviser. There are also a number of sub-plots; Lot, a widower, falls in love with and marries the slave-girl Ildith, one of Bera's discarded favourites. Astaroth, Bera's brother, who is plotting to overthrow his sister, becomes (unknown to her father) the lover of Lot's attractive daughter Shuah, although the Bible says of Lot's daughters that they "have not known man".At the centre of the film is a potentially interesting moral dilemma. In the film the major vice of the Sodomites is not sodomy but slavery; their economy is based upon the export of salt, which is mined by slaves. In this version of history, the Hebrews have a fundamental moral objection to slavery, and offer sanctuary to slaves escaping from the city. (In this respect the film deviates from the version of history contained in the Bible, according to which the ancient Hebrews themselves kept slaves- Lot's uncle Abraham is said to have fathered a child by his female slave Hagar). When Lot becomes the Queen's adviser, he hopes that he and his people will be able to use their influence to convert the Sodomites to the worship of the one true God and to persuade them to abandon slavery. The film therefore could have been an exploration of the dilemma (brilliantly explored in Roland Joffe's "The Mission") of whether the virtuous should collaborate with evildoers, in the hope that one can thereby mitigate their evil, or actively oppose them, with the risk that this might provoke them to commit even more wicked acts.The makers of "Sodom and Gomorrah" intended, essentially, to come to the same conclusion as did Joffe and his scriptwriter Robert Bolt in "The Mission", namely that one should resist evil rather than temporise with it. Lot realises too late that his collaboration with the Queen has not persuaded the Sodomites to become more humane but has rather led to his own people becoming less so and to their becoming corrupted by the sexual temptations on offer.Yet the film does not work as a moral fable because it takes the ethical values of the Old Testament story at face value. The controversial author Philip Pullman recently described the God of the Old Testament as a "psychotic tyrant". This is a huge oversimplification- some parts of the Old Testament have a far more elevated conception of the Deity- but as far as the God of Genesis 19 goes it seems pretty much on the mark. Smiting four whole cities (according to the Bible God smote not only Sodom and Gomorrah but also Admah and Zeboim) with fire and brimstone because of the sexual proclivities of their inhabitants must count as a massive over-reaction, and the story does not become any more morally edifying if, as here, God is motivated by a dislike of slavery rather than of homosexuality, especially as the slaves perish along with their masters. As for the bizarre episode in which Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for the crime of looking behind her, that seems to reveal God as a tyrant with the soul of a "rules are rules" bureaucrat.The film was an American/French/Italian co-production, which accounts for some of the odd accents; some of the cast appear not to have spoken English with any fluency. Among them is the Italian actress Pier Angeli (as Ildith) who, by chance, also appeared in the last religious epic I saw, "The Silver Chalice". Pier also appears to have had difficulties in picking the right film, because both films are among the weakest epics ever made, pretentious, bombastic and with an over-inflated sense of their own significance. Of the two, "Sodom and Gomorrah" is slightly the better; it provides more genuine spectacle and Stewart Granger, despite some frequently ridiculous dialogue, does at least have the presence and gravitas to portray a Biblical patriarch, whereas Paul Newman, playing the hero of "The Silver Chalice", looks horribly wooden and out-of-place. By comparison, however, with any of the classics of the epic genre such as "The Ten Commandments" or "Spartacus", "Sodom and Gomorrah" looks very third-rate material indeed. 5/10

I'm a fan of both Stanley Baker and Stewart Grainger, but both these actors in lead roles do nothing to raise this movie above the mediocre.Those who know the S&G legend will know they came a cropper as a result of too much sin. Well; a long, convoluted yarn about territory and the price of salt is spun out with shaky melodrama and unconvincing props for a couple of hours in lead-up to the great disaster. All the usual clichés are there. It's swords 'n' sandals at their most banal.Anyone who manages to sit through it all in hope of some big-time movie disaster stuff will be sorely disappointed, as effects less believable than those created by Jerry Anderson fall prey to an earthquake and a thunderstorm combined. God isn't very imaginative.This is strictly for the unemployed matinée class today. If you're bored with looking for a job; curl-up with a Stella or two and get bored watching this.

This really was terrible. I have seen a lot of Biblical epics and of course they get a lot of it wrong. But this didn't get anything right!First of all we have Lot moving his family and goods away from his Uncle Abraham, because the land couldn't support them all. In the Bible we are told that Lot picked the lush, fertile land; leaving the arid land to his uncle. In this film Lot gets an arid place as well but builds a dam. Then there is the battle. Lot does valiantly, although he has to destroy his dam in order to attain victory. Could have sworn he was taken captive in Genesis and Abraham had to come and sort it.Sodom had a king - not a queen.Only 4 people left the city after the angel of Lord informed Lot that it would be destroyed. In the film the 'exodus' would have done Moses proud. With the number of people willing to leave, it's a wonder God destroyed it at all.I could go on but you get the idea.But I'm really amazed that several of the other comments I've read about this film state that the Bible doesn't specifically mention homosexuality as the sin that displeased God. It does, loud and clear. Perhaps these contributers are not aware that the King James Version "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know them." does not refer to going out for a game of darts and a pint of lager at the pub. The word "know" in the Biblical sense, means to have sexual intercourse.I had to give this a 1 because zero wasn't an option.