Reviews (12)

Action-packed film is entertaining and satisfying
55 Days at peking surprised me. Though not having the best of titles, I thought this was going to be a romance centered around the Boxer Rebellion. Instead, the film is more along the lines of Zulu, featuring constant large scale sieges and fast-paced action.

55 Days is not perfect by any means. The political talks drag a bit and at 2 and a half hours the film goes on a bit longer than it really needs to. The use of American actors as Chinese characters is also quite distracting and occasionally produces some unintentional laughter.

Still, the film is entertaining and absorbing. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven all deliver good performance. The battle scenes are the film's most memorable aspects and they are very well made, especially for its time. The film was obviously made at a large budget so the film, in technical terms, is superior to a lot of similar action films of its time. Those looking for a companion piece to Zulu might find 55 Days worth watching.

A Well-Made But Biased & Politically-Dated Film
When I first saw this film as a child, I was offended by it, being an Asian-American of Filipino/Chinese descent. However, seeing it now, with the understanding that this film was made during the height of the Cold War & the beginnings of the War in Vietnam, I can understand why it was made (though I still don't agree with it's political point of view!)

First, for general viewers who just want to see a well made, big-budget war picture with hints of romance, then this movie does deliver on that level. Charleton Heston is excellent as a flawed, temperamental loner & professional soldier who falls for Eva Gardner, a "fallen woman" of Russian nobility, while the foreign "legations" in Peking (what we would today call "embassies") are under attack by the Boxer Rebels (I Ho Chuan Society) during the rebellion of 1900 in China. David Niven is likeable as the British ambassador, even though he does come off as a bit pompous. The sets & costumes are well-done (especially when you consider that this film, set during the last days of the Ching Dynasty in China, was actually shot in Spain!), & the battle sequences are realistically staged. (For martial-arts buffs, there's even a martial-arts demonstration during the birthday of the English Queen!) So, if all you're looking for is a fast-paced war picture with great costumes & macho action performances, then, on that level only, this film delivers.

If you're a history buff, however, then this film definately is not for you! For one thing, all of the major European characters, (whose point of view this movie favors) are fictional characters. The only real-life historical figures are the ruling Manchus (played by caucasian actors in "Asian-face!") & the Japanese Colonel Goro Shiba. (He & the other Japanese are played by real Asian actors. I guess during the Cold War, the Japanese were our allies against "the Red Menace", thus worthy of respect, while the Chinese, who were Communists, were not worthy of respect when portrayed on film. But then, this movie also features the Russians in a positive light, so go figure!) There is also a scene where the German minister is killed on the street by a mob of crazed Boxers, but in real life, the real German minister was shot by a Chinese officer (one man!) who was sympathetic to the Boxer cause. This film also carefully omits the subsequent rape & sacking of Peking after the defeat of the Boxers, though focusing heavily on the Boxer's depredations against Christians & foreigners. (True history is balanced, not one-sided.) Lastly, according to this film, the British & Americans were in charge of the relief efforts during the siege. Actually, the Germans, under von Waldersee, were the real leaders of the International Relief Force sent out to defeat the Boxers & rescue the besieged legations.

Finally, for Asian-americans & viewers interested in serious political debate, this film is also a no no! The most obviously offensive aspect of this movie is the white actors playing Chinese (though again, this was made in 1963), but the other offensive aspect is that this film favors the colonialists' point of view! (The basic point of 55 Days is, colonialism is good & whenever natives fight back, they deserve to be supressed! It's the same kind of thinking that got us involved in Vietnam.) This movie was made during the beginnings of our involvement in Southeast Asian politics & it's obvious that this "historical" drama is really a pro-Vietnam propaganda film disguised as an epic action-movie!

Okay, the "Boxers" (or I Ho Society) were not saints. They did murder a lot of innocent people in their anger over the semi-colonialism imposed by the West & Japan on China during the 19th Century. But this film shows only one point of view. (A bad story-telling style for a supposedly "realistic" war picture.) However, for viewers who want to get a balanced point of view in one film about the Boxer Rebellion, well, good luck! Chinese movies on the subject tend to do the exact extreme political opposite of 55 Days (which is just as bad!) And remember, though there are historical inaccuracies in 55 Days, Chinese movies (or more accurately, Hong Kong movies) can be just as inaccurate about their own culture! Check out any of the '70's Shaw Brothers kung-fu films if you don't believe me!

So in closing, personally, I would recommend watching this film, but only if you understand it's (many) flaws. For a truly balanced perspective on the subject, after watching 55 Days At Peking, check out The Boxer Rebellion/Bloody Avengers, a Shaw Brothers kung-fu flick about the Boxer Rebellion which exaggerates the Chinese p.o.v. at least as much (if not more) as 55 Days exaggerates the European/Japanese p.o.v. The real-truth lies right in-between these two films. Be sure you get the letter-boxed version of 55 Days, because the pan & scan really cuts out some important details (more so than other films.)

OK action film marred by some faults
"55 Days at Peking" is a decent action film for a war genre fan or maybe some one who wants to see a different time period in a film. The film is pretty decent as far as its genre goes, but there were some problems in the storyline that made me give it no higher than three stars.

The first problem I had with this film was the inclusion of the mandatory American hero. It seems quite often whenever some thing is set in a foreign land and involves foreign - and is made in America - there HAS to be an American lead. Most of the other nationalities play a mostly minor role save for David Niven's character, who feels like a historic individual. I'm not saying the Americans weren't at Peking, but Charleton Heston's character feels a tad too cliche.

The second problem I had was the love story. It takes up a good part of the film and slows it down...in fact it very nearly made me lose all interest in this movie. Doesn't really do much to the story and leaves some holes open. Even when Ava Gardner's character meets an unfortunate circumstance, I couldn't feel sorry for her. I didn't care too much since the whole thing felt like a typical forced movie romance.

Finally, there are some historical inaccuracies. The battle didn't quite happen as the movie portrays it. These mistakes are all fairly minor, I suppose, and some might just flat out ignore it since the battle (and war, really) isn't well known.

On the whole, it wasn't that bad. There are some great battle scenes including a charge up a ramp behind a wheeled defense, firing shots through sliding windows, and the climactic assault with a huge artillery tower - this last part is my personal favorite, and for what it's worth I thought it was a pretty cool scene.

If you're a fan of to-the-last-man movies like the (superior) "Zulu" then you'll probably like this movie. Yes, some might not have compassion for the defenders since them being rescued meant an end to China's real independance, but I guess you really can't like the Boxers for trying to annihilate a group that includes women and children. Even if the Imperialists were morally bad guys, I can't hold compassion to the Boxers for their terrorist tactics. But enough of this...if you like this type of film, rent this and check it out.

Exciting epic produced on the grand old scale
"55 days at Peking", has certainly in the years since it's release in 1963 come in for it's share of flack over its romantisizing of history, fictional characters and depiction of Chinese nationals. In reality however I feel you must look at this film first and foremost as the first class piece of entertainment based on historical events it was intended to be. I certainly appreciate the great effort and attention to detail that was lavished on this stunning recreation of the events surrounding the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 in Imperial China.

As an ardent student of chinese history in general I can see that the focus is upon the foreigners that were present in China at that time and that the Chinese point of view is rarely explored in detail. However what must be appreciated in this Samual Bronston production is the vivid recreation of Imperial China, the earnest performances by the leads, exquisite costumes, the excellent action scenes, and sublime musical score by the famed Dimitri Tiomkins which all add up to an engrossing two and a half hours of viewing. Charlton Heston as Major Matt Lewis the tempremental soldier for hire, David Niven as the upright British Ambassador Sir. Arthur Robertson and especially the ever beautiful Ava Gardner as the "scandalous" Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff all lend a commanding presence in their roles. Ava Gardner as the "woman of ill repute" who falls for Heston's no nonsense Major during the seige of the foreign legations during the rebellion and ends up paying for her devotion with her life has I feel never been better. Ava proves her often underestimated talent here as she develops from shallow society lady out for a good time, into a human being who learns the value of self sacrifice for something you believe in. The wonderful Victorian costumes which suit her so well also emphasize what a great beauty she was in her movie heyday. The main criticism of this film has always been directed at the depiction of Chinese characters by caucasian actors. I feel that there is little to get offended by here as in particular the depiction of the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi is actually done in a much more favourable light than how the woman actually was in real life. I feel Flora Robson lends a commanding presence as the Dowager Empress and her Chinese makeup, far from being offensive is fascinating and superbly done. Robert Helpmann also shines in his sinister role of Prince Tuan, the empress's chief advisor and evil genius. They are actors playing roles just like any other performer that portray a character not of his or her own nationality and they should be rightly seen as just that.

"55 Days at Peking", while certainly not historically accurate contains an exciting fictional story woven into historical fact. This does not necessarily make it a bad drama or production and indeed here we are treated to a great story full of action, romance and a vivid retelling of a dramatic story from a "human level" as was probably witnessed by those that lived through it. The depiction of the rise of the boxers into a violent nationalist movement, the actual rebellion and siege of the foreign legations in Peking resulting in much bloodshed and destruction , the vivid and beautiful recreation of life in the decadent Ching court under the Grand Dowager Empress, are all beautifully played out in a eye popping and engrossing drama. Samuel Bronston who was responsible for some great early 1960's epics such as "El Cid", and especially the classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire" here excels himself in recreating the times in 19th Century China. The sets are sumptous with Peking being magically brought to life on sets created in Spain.Rarely nowadays do yuo see such an allout effort in mounting a top class production. The Ching court as depicted here, while not up to later "The Last Emperor", standards is still wonderful and really portrays the beauty of court life that hid so much that was wrong with the ruling system in China at the time. Rarely have more vivid depictions of the lives of ordinary Chinese been portrayed and the rebellion sequences are second to none in their raw energy, savage depiction of the loss of life and the destruction caused.

"55 Days at Peking", is not perfect by any means but I feel it has been unfairly condemmed by the supposed political correctness movement. I really enjoy historical dramas, even of the romanticised kind and Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner really maintain your interest through the long running time with their excellent work in this film. Long before computer generated special effects this film sees one of the great sets built for a film during the 1960's and for that alone it is worth seeing apart from all its other good qualities. Enjoy a journey back to grand old film making of the old school when Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner do battle against the boxers in "55 Days at Peking".

Excellent only for critical analysis
This film has only one redeeming quality- it provides an excellent opportunity to discuss bias, historical perspective, director's artistic liscence, and distortion of historical events. I viewed this film knowing that the Chinese, poorly portrayed by Americans or British, were being presented from a completely demeaning perspective that simultaneously plays the Americans as the savior heros. I plan to use this in my 7th grade social studies class to demonstrate exactly how a series of events as complex and consequential as the Boxer Rebellion can be recreated so completely and utterly wrong. Watch this as you would a Disney film like Mulan, knowing that it will only get the gist of something, and not provide any reliable characters or history. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The pairing of Bergman and Quinn
I must disagree with what Maltin wrote in his summary, about expecting much more from the cast. I think Bergman and Quinn did a fine job with the script that they were given. The pace was a bit slow in certain scenes, but that was the whole idea, since most of the story was taking place in the Tennessee mountains where everything is quite and serene. When the title indicated that Bergman was paired off with Quinn for this drama, I wasn't certain if Quinn would be the best match to act opposite Ingrid. However, after watching the entire movie, one gets to realize that he was perfect for the role and appreciate him even more. And even if I took a wild guess now, I wouldn't be able to pick a different actor that could portray Will Cade better than Quinn did. I highly recommend viewers to give this movie a chance. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Good movie,but not enough sex
I like the movie and the cast was great.But if I was writing the story I would have the lesbian scene steamed up even more and Melina Mercouri's character stalking Deborah Raffin's character.I am sadden the Jacqueline Susann is no longer with us but her good works live on.

A waste of time
What a disppointment! I loved the novel, but this movie is a lobotomized version of the original story that leaves out SO much. Brenda Vaccaro and David Jansen weren't bad given what they had to work with, but the rest of the acting was awful. And to add to the general awfulness, this is a pan-and-scan version of a scratched and dirty print with bad audio.

Deffinately a classic that deserves more attention
Jackie Susann is my favorite writer. So after I saw Valley Of The Dolls and read the book I was eager to read and see The Love Machine and Once Is Not Enough. I saw Once Is Not Enough on Sunday and was quite impressed This movie and the book are definately a Susann masterpiece. She is the queen of trash literature.

STILL A GREAT MOVIE!......25 YEARS LATER!
I give this movie 5 stars because when I first saw it, I was a VERY young girl, and it left a lasting impression on me as being a very good movie. Being a young girl at that time, it had enough drama and sex, to keep this movie in my memory all these years. I was surfing for drama films, and this film popped into my head! I performed a search, and there it was!. If you take it as a movie made during the times of the "70's", and not judge it by today's movie standards, you will enjoy it. This movie will be in my collection for a long time to come.

Brenda Vacarro SHINES, but NOT ENOUGH DRUGS!
Although I wasn't as disappointed with this film as the previous reviewer, it was quite a letdown after reading the book. The "vitamin shots" and other assorted goodies (gang rapes, Karla's secret retarded daughter, etc.) that didn't make it on screen severely lower the scandal and glamour level of this film, but the exotic locales and Deborah Raffin's innate charm are undeniably great. It's also fun to see some of the retro kitschy sets (especially George Hamilton's swingin' bachelor pad), and the disco sequence. The film's saving grace is definitely Brenda Vacarro as the unabashed man hungry corporate sleep around Linda Riggs. Her Oscar nomination for the role was well deserved, and I am disappointed she didn't win. The bottom line, however, is this: NOT ENOUGH DRUGS!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

One of the first studio films to deal with interracial romance (or even the possibility of it), A Patch of Blue was a huge hitupon its release, appealing to those looking for both social protest and a smart date movie. Sidney Poitier plays Gordon, a compassionate stranger who befriends a blind white girl named Selina (Elizabeth Hartman). Selina, the next thing to a shut-in, can only judge people by their voices, and Gordon's is unusually patient, kind. Troubles ensue when Selina's abusive mother (Shelley Winters in her secondOscar-winning performance) happens upon the pair during one of their park rendezvous. Ivan Dixon plays Poitier's militant brother, and veteran Wallace Ford appears as Selina's kindly lush of a grandfather. Jerry Goldsmith earned an Oscar nomination for his lilting piano theme, surely one of the simplest, most effective pieces of music to grace a Hollywood film. --Glenn Lovell ... Read more

Reviews (33)

A Ray of Sunshine in a Life of Darkness
Warner Brothers produced A Patch of Blue in 1965, which was a black and white dramatic film set in California, starring such greats as Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Elizabeth Hartman, and Wallace Ford. This film was quite racy for its time, as the movie's plot was centered on a budding relationship between a black man and a white teenage woman, which in those days was unheard of.
Selina D'Arcy (Hartman), an 18-year old blind white girl, lives an isolated, Cinderella-like existence with her foul-mouthed mother Roseanne (Winters) and drunken grandfather, "Ol' Pa" (Ford). Selina wants nothing more than to listen to the radio and occasionally string beads in the park. It is there that she meets handsome black businessman Gordon Ralfe (Poitier) who sizes up her plight. As Gordon conveniently continues to run into Selina at the park and their relationship grows. He is delighted that he can teach Selina such everyday things as relying on her sense of smell, calling the pay phone operator, and pushing "Walk" just to listen to the traffic stop.
It is easy to see why Shelly Winters won an Oscar for her portrayal of Selina's drunken and abusive prostitute mother. As a viewer, I cringed with Selina every time her mother went on one of her tirades. I still wonder why Elizabeth Hartman only received an Oscar nomination for her performance, because she truly portrayed the essence of her character.
I give this film a four-star rating because I felt that the film accurately portrayed a 1965 interracial romance and addressed the subject of significant age differences between two people clearly drawn romantically to one another. The film could be disturbing at times because it showed just how bleak life can be for a blind girl living in poverty with a truly dysfunctional family.

A BITTERSWEET, HEARTBREAKING FILM...
This is a wonderful low-budget, black and white film starring a great cast of actors: Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Wallace Ford, and then newcomer, Elizabeth Hartman. It was filmed in 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement, and was then notable for its budding inter-racial romance. While this aspect may seem rather tame today, at the time the movie was filmed, this was still a somewhat controversial theme in many parts of America.

Elizabeth Hartman, in an exquisitely poignant performance for which she was nominated for an Academy Award, plays the part of Selina D'Arcy, an eighteen year old blind girl who lives an isolated and impoverished, almost Dickensian, existence. She lives with her abusive mother, Rose-Ann (Shelley Winters), who moonlights as a prostitute, and her drunken, though somewhat well-meaning, grandfather, whom she calls Ole Pa (Wallace Ford). Uneducated, having never gone to school, Selina spends her time stringing beads to earn some money for the family, cleaning up after her mother and grandfather, and being at the receiving end of constant physical abuse and verbal invectives heaped upon her by her mother. Hers is, indeed, a draconian existence.

One day, she prevails upon her grandfather to drop her off in the park, where she proceeds to sit under a tree, stringing her beads. There, she meets a kindly, well-educated business man, Gordon Ralphe (Sidney Poitier), who takes an interest in her and her quick appreciation for any kindness done to her. She responds to Gordon's kindness as if she were a flower turning its face to the sun for continued warmth. He, in turn, is touched by her eager interest in even the most mundane of matters. They continue to meet under that tree as often as possible, and a relationship develops.

Under Gordon's tutelage, Selina begins to blossom. Some of her disclosures to him about her life fill him with horror and a determination to do something constructive about it. While he goes about trying to improve her quality of life, their relationship deepens, despite the warnings of Gordon's brother. After all, Selina is white, uneducated, and comes from a trashy, dysfunctional family, while Gordon is black, well-educated, and from a good family.

Selina, sure that what she feels is love, is less restrained than Gordon about her feelings, though their budding romance culminates in nothing more than a chaste kiss. When Rose-Ann finds out whom Selina has been meeting, however, matters come to a head, and Gordon comes to the rescue. A modern day knight in shining armor, however, Gordon does the selfless thing in the end.

This is a wonderful movie in which the two main protagonists, Gordon and Selina, judge each other by the content of their respective character and not by the color of their skin. Though controversial at the time, this film may seem a little dated by today's standards. Yet, some of its themes are as fresh today as when it was filmed. The notion of selflessness and putting the needs of another before one's own remains timeless. This is a concept, however, rarely seen in today's films.

Although this was Ms. Hartman's debut film, she deservedly received an Academy Award nomination for her sensitive portrayal of Selina. Unfortunately, her career never really took off after this film the way one would have expected after a performance of this caliber. She appeared only in a few notable films, such as, "The Group", "You're a Big Boy Now", and "Beguiled", before descending into virtual obscurity. I was saddened to hear that she committed suicide in the late nineteen eighties at the age of forty-five, a tragic figure in the end, leaving behind this beautiful performance for posterity.

Ending different in original book
I agree with most reviewers that this was an excellent film, which I have watched over and over again. All the acting is wonderful and deserving of many awards. As is true with many movies I really like, I searched out the original book on which the movie was based. It ran very true to form, they did an excellent job of adapting the book to the movie, but the happy racial ending in the movie was a change from the more realistic one in the book. Gordon arranges for Selena to go to school, but she breaks off her friendship with him when she finds out she is black. Blackness is horrible to her because she is blind and that's all she sees, plus it's the way she was raised. But all in all, one of my favorite movies.

completely destroys the book
I've read the novel version of this story several times, and love it. The movie, when Ii first watched it, was touching, but there was something missing. On the second viewing, I realized what this film lacks is a convincing ending, the thing that makes the book so believable and heartbreaking. The shattering, tearful cliff-hanger of the novel was replaced by a simply, almost predictable, feel-good ending that makes the film flop miserably for someone who knows the original intent of the author. Also, the many scenes which were thought up by the film-makers, while convincing and poignant in their own way, don't compare with the warm, yet darkly sinister, tone of the book. I love the music though. And one question: is that Elizabeth Heartman's real voice?

aways my favourite movie
I read with sadness other comments that this movie is outdated............oh really...surprise surprise....it was made in the 60's I think.

This movie above any I have seen since, speaks so clearly of sensitivity, gentle compassion and passionate love. The self-sacrificing love that we know so little about these days...

DARE I SAY IT? is this what TRUE LOVE IS.....TO LOVE AND THEN LET GO for the LIFE of the other......

Gordon loved so tenderly and Serina became aware so gently that she was lovable..AND loved........

How is it possible that one could miss this view of the film is beyond me.........

I have been "in-love" with Sidney ever since .... he has such skill as an actor and has broadened my horizons so immensely with his portrayal of Gordon

Thank GOD for this medium which gives me an opportunity to say to SIDNEY FANS what I have wanted to say to him for 35 years....

"THANK YOU AND I LOVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME .....esp. in this film"

one very devouted fan from MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A Must Have Video For Your Movie Collection
If you are a Lindsay Wagner fan then this movie is a must. If your not a Wagner fan then this movie is still for you. The story is very good, showing how herbal treatments and medicene does not have to be foes against each other. Powerful performances by Wagner, Wyman and Woods. This movie was well worth the money and is one I will watch over and over. You will not waste your money and/or time on this movie...order it today.

This movie will steal your heart away.
Beautiful scenery - the epitomy of dedication - Lindsey Wagoner is outstanding as a young doctor who goes back to the "hills" to bring modern medicine to the "hill" people who "don't take to outsiders." Jane Wyman as the "Granny doctor" is wonderful. James Wood as the "sin-eater" is spell-binding. This movie gives a wonderful glimpse of life in the "back woods." Heart-wrenching at times. A true classic. Get your "hankie." If you watch it, it will steal your heart away. It's one you won't forget....... ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Love it or hate it.
Some have called this movie "Luther according to Freud." Luther's struggles (spiritual and psychological) are the focus of this film, which was originally a stage play. It is true, Luther did have his struggles, but he also had his triumphs, which are not shown much in this movie. The whole film is done on one set, which gives the viewer a feeling of isolation. Keach does give an amazing performance as Luther the struggling monk and preacher. The ending is puzzling. Though a bit more bookish, the 1953 B/W classic "Martin Luther" gives a broader and more balanced view of his life. 2003's "Luther" with Joseph Fiennes should be out on DVD in Spring of 2004. That one is better yet!

Martin Luther
There is supposed to be a new film on Martin Luther done by the director Till with Alfred Molinari, and financed by the Lutheran Churches. I think Martin Luther is one of the greatest historical figures, and few people today realise just how revolutionary it was to break away from the Universal Catholic Church which controlled Church and State throughout Western Europe, and before the split with the Orthodox Church, Christendom was quite monolithic.

For a man who did not want to break with Rome, but wanted Rome to be scripturally-based rather than a multinational commercial enterprise; he it was who brought individual conscience when relating to God in place of Church and a hierarchical priesthood to the apex of God's representative on earth, the Pope; who combined this with being a Prince amongst nations.

If the West and its industrialisation, liberty, and split between Church and State can claim any one man as its initiator, it was Martin Luther; but as we all know, Luther was but the leading actor in a cast of many. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Action-packed film is entertaining and satisfying
55 Days at peking surprised me. Though not having the best of titles, I thought this was going to be a romance centered around the Boxer Rebellion. Instead, the film is more along the lines of Zulu, featuring constant large scale sieges and fast-paced action.

55 Days is not perfect by any means. The political talks drag a bit and at 2 and a half hours the film goes on a bit longer than it really needs to. The use of American actors as Chinese characters is also quite distracting and occasionally produces some unintentional laughter.

Still, the film is entertaining and absorbing. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven all deliver good performance. The battle scenes are the film's most memorable aspects and they are very well made, especially for its time. The film was obviously made at a large budget so the film, in technical terms, is superior to a lot of similar action films of its time. Those looking for a companion piece to Zulu might find 55 Days worth watching.

A Well-Made But Biased & Politically-Dated Film
When I first saw this film as a child, I was offended by it, being an Asian-American of Filipino/Chinese descent. However, seeing it now, with the understanding that this film was made during the height of the Cold War & the beginnings of the War in Vietnam, I can understand why it was made (though I still don't agree with it's political point of view!)

First, for general viewers who just want to see a well made, big-budget war picture with hints of romance, then this movie does deliver on that level. Charleton Heston is excellent as a flawed, temperamental loner & professional soldier who falls for Eva Gardner, a "fallen woman" of Russian nobility, while the foreign "legations" in Peking (what we would today call "embassies") are under attack by the Boxer Rebels (I Ho Chuan Society) during the rebellion of 1900 in China. David Niven is likeable as the British ambassador, even though he does come off as a bit pompous. The sets & costumes are well-done (especially when you consider that this film, set during the last days of the Ching Dynasty in China, was actually shot in Spain!), & the battle sequences are realistically staged. (For martial-arts buffs, there's even a martial-arts demonstration during the birthday of the English Queen!) So, if all you're looking for is a fast-paced war picture with great costumes & macho action performances, then, on that level only, this film delivers.

If you're a history buff, however, then this film definately is not for you! For one thing, all of the major European characters, (whose point of view this movie favors) are fictional characters. The only real-life historical figures are the ruling Manchus (played by caucasian actors in "Asian-face!") & the Japanese Colonel Goro Shiba. (He & the other Japanese are played by real Asian actors. I guess during the Cold War, the Japanese were our allies against "the Red Menace", thus worthy of respect, while the Chinese, who were Communists, were not worthy of respect when portrayed on film. But then, this movie also features the Russians in a positive light, so go figure!) There is also a scene where the German minister is killed on the street by a mob of crazed Boxers, but in real life, the real German minister was shot by a Chinese officer (one man!) who was sympathetic to the Boxer cause. This film also carefully omits the subsequent rape & sacking of Peking after the defeat of the Boxers, though focusing heavily on the Boxer's depredations against Christians & foreigners. (True history is balanced, not one-sided.) Lastly, according to this film, the British & Americans were in charge of the relief efforts during the siege. Actually, the Germans, under von Waldersee, were the real leaders of the International Relief Force sent out to defeat the Boxers & rescue the besieged legations.

Finally, for Asian-americans & viewers interested in serious political debate, this film is also a no no! The most obviously offensive aspect of this movie is the white actors playing Chinese (though again, this was made in 1963), but the other offensive aspect is that this film favors the colonialists' point of view! (The basic point of 55 Days is, colonialism is good & whenever natives fight back, they deserve to be supressed! It's the same kind of thinking that got us involved in Vietnam.) This movie was made during the beginnings of our involvement in Southeast Asian politics & it's obvious that this "historical" drama is really a pro-Vietnam propaganda film disguised as an epic action-movie!

Okay, the "Boxers" (or I Ho Society) were not saints. They did murder a lot of innocent people in their anger over the semi-colonialism imposed by the West & Japan on China during the 19th Century. But this film shows only one point of view. (A bad story-telling style for a supposedly "realistic" war picture.) However, for viewers who want to get a balanced point of view in one film about the Boxer Rebellion, well, good luck! Chinese movies on the subject tend to do the exact extreme political opposite of 55 Days (which is just as bad!) And remember, though there are historical inaccuracies in 55 Days, Chinese movies (or more accurately, Hong Kong movies) can be just as inaccurate about their own culture! Check out any of the '70's Shaw Brothers kung-fu films if you don't believe me!

So in closing, personally, I would recommend watching this film, but only if you understand it's (many) flaws. For a truly balanced perspective on the subject, after watching 55 Days At Peking, check out The Boxer Rebellion/Bloody Avengers, a Shaw Brothers kung-fu flick about the Boxer Rebellion which exaggerates the Chinese p.o.v. at least as much (if not more) as 55 Days exaggerates the European/Japanese p.o.v. The real-truth lies right in-between these two films. Be sure you get the letter-boxed version of 55 Days, because the pan & scan really cuts out some important details (more so than other films.)

OK action film marred by some faults
"55 Days at Peking" is a decent action film for a war genre fan or maybe some one who wants to see a different time period in a film. The film is pretty decent as far as its genre goes, but there were some problems in the storyline that made me give it no higher than three stars.

The first problem I had with this film was the inclusion of the mandatory American hero. It seems quite often whenever some thing is set in a foreign land and involves foreign - and is made in America - there HAS to be an American lead. Most of the other nationalities play a mostly minor role save for David Niven's character, who feels like a historic individual. I'm not saying the Americans weren't at Peking, but Charleton Heston's character feels a tad too cliche.

The second problem I had was the love story. It takes up a good part of the film and slows it down...in fact it very nearly made me lose all interest in this movie. Doesn't really do much to the story and leaves some holes open. Even when Ava Gardner's character meets an unfortunate circumstance, I couldn't feel sorry for her. I didn't care too much since the whole thing felt like a typical forced movie romance.

Finally, there are some historical inaccuracies. The battle didn't quite happen as the movie portrays it. These mistakes are all fairly minor, I suppose, and some might just flat out ignore it since the battle (and war, really) isn't well known.

On the whole, it wasn't that bad. There are some great battle scenes including a charge up a ramp behind a wheeled defense, firing shots through sliding windows, and the climactic assault with a huge artillery tower - this last part is my personal favorite, and for what it's worth I thought it was a pretty cool scene.

If you're a fan of to-the-last-man movies like the (superior) "Zulu" then you'll probably like this movie. Yes, some might not have compassion for the defenders since them being rescued meant an end to China's real independance, but I guess you really can't like the Boxers for trying to annihilate a group that includes women and children. Even if the Imperialists were morally bad guys, I can't hold compassion to the Boxers for their terrorist tactics. But enough of this...if you like this type of film, rent this and check it out.

Exciting epic produced on the grand old scale
"55 days at Peking", has certainly in the years since it's release in 1963 come in for it's share of flack over its romantisizing of history, fictional characters and depiction of Chinese nationals. In reality however I feel you must look at this film first and foremost as the first class piece of entertainment based on historical events it was intended to be. I certainly appreciate the great effort and attention to detail that was lavished on this stunning recreation of the events surrounding the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 in Imperial China.

As an ardent student of chinese history in general I can see that the focus is upon the foreigners that were present in China at that time and that the Chinese point of view is rarely explored in detail. However what must be appreciated in this Samual Bronston production is the vivid recreation of Imperial China, the earnest performances by the leads, exquisite costumes, the excellent action scenes, and sublime musical score by the famed Dimitri Tiomkins which all add up to an engrossing two and a half hours of viewing. Charlton Heston as Major Matt Lewis the tempremental soldier for hire, David Niven as the upright British Ambassador Sir. Arthur Robertson and especially the ever beautiful Ava Gardner as the "scandalous" Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff all lend a commanding presence in their roles. Ava Gardner as the "woman of ill repute" who falls for Heston's no nonsense Major during the seige of the foreign legations during the rebellion and ends up paying for her devotion with her life has I feel never been better. Ava proves her often underestimated talent here as she develops from shallow society lady out for a good time, into a human being who learns the value of self sacrifice for something you believe in. The wonderful Victorian costumes which suit her so well also emphasize what a great beauty she was in her movie heyday. The main criticism of this film has always been directed at the depiction of Chinese characters by caucasian actors. I feel that there is little to get offended by here as in particular the depiction of the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi is actually done in a much more favourable light than how the woman actually was in real life. I feel Flora Robson lends a commanding presence as the Dowager Empress and her Chinese makeup, far from being offensive is fascinating and superbly done. Robert Helpmann also shines in his sinister role of Prince Tuan, the empress's chief advisor and evil genius. They are actors playing roles just like any other performer that portray a character not of his or her own nationality and they should be rightly seen as just that.

"55 Days at Peking", while certainly not historically accurate contains an exciting fictional story woven into historical fact. This does not necessarily make it a bad drama or production and indeed here we are treated to a great story full of action, romance and a vivid retelling of a dramatic story from a "human level" as was probably witnessed by those that lived through it. The depiction of the rise of the boxers into a violent nationalist movement, the actual rebellion and siege of the foreign legations in Peking resulting in much bloodshed and destruction , the vivid and beautiful recreation of life in the decadent Ching court under the Grand Dowager Empress, are all beautifully played out in a eye popping and engrossing drama. Samuel Bronston who was responsible for some great early 1960's epics such as "El Cid", and especially the classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire" here excels himself in recreating the times in 19th Century China. The sets are sumptous with Peking being magically brought to life on sets created in Spain.Rarely nowadays do yuo see such an allout effort in mounting a top class production. The Ching court as depicted here, while not up to later "The Last Emperor", standards is still wonderful and really portrays the beauty of court life that hid so much that was wrong with the ruling system in China at the time. Rarely have more vivid depictions of the lives of ordinary Chinese been portrayed and the rebellion sequences are second to none in their raw energy, savage depiction of the loss of life and the destruction caused.

"55 Days at Peking", is not perfect by any means but I feel it has been unfairly condemmed by the supposed political correctness movement. I really enjoy historical dramas, even of the romanticised kind and Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner really maintain your interest through the long running time with their excellent work in this film. Long before computer generated special effects this film sees one of the great sets built for a film during the 1960's and for that alone it is worth seeing apart from all its other good qualities. Enjoy a journey back to grand old film making of the old school when Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner do battle against the boxers in "55 Days at Peking".

Excellent only for critical analysis
This film has only one redeeming quality- it provides an excellent opportunity to discuss bias, historical perspective, director's artistic liscence, and distortion of historical events. I viewed this film knowing that the Chinese, poorly portrayed by Americans or British, were being presented from a completely demeaning perspective that simultaneously plays the Americans as the savior heros. I plan to use this in my 7th grade social studies class to demonstrate exactly how a series of events as complex and consequential as the Boxer Rebellion can be recreated so completely and utterly wrong. Watch this as you would a Disney film like Mulan, knowing that it will only get the gist of something, and not provide any reliable characters or history. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

A bit too much melodrama , but I love films about Hawaii
This 1962 film is set in Hawaii and, considering that it had just become a state a mere three years before, certainly captured the public's imagination and interest. Charlton Heston is cast as a wealthy widower whose sister, Yvette Mimieux, is in love with a Polynesian, played by James Darren. He vehemently objects to the marriage on racial grounds, but has no problem having his own little inter-racial affair with France Nuyen. Complications arise, especially when Nuyen becomes pregnant. There is a violent incident when the future bridegroom is murdered, and his doctor brother, George Chakiris, gets into a romance with Yvette Mimieux. The whole film is about racial intolerance and it sends a strong message, which kept the story interesting. The acting was good and Yvette Mimieux, then 20 years old, was a pleasure to look at. The setting was beautiful too; I can never get tired of looking at films set in Hawaii.

However, there was just a bit too much melodrama for my taste and although the story moved fast and was well plotted, I never felt any real emotion for the characters. And, as in the 60s, most of the people who were supposed to be Polynesian were really Caucasian actors with darkened skin, thereby losing authenticity. Usually, this kind of casting makes me angry, but this time I just relaxed and enjoyed the video, which was pleasant, dealt with a controversial theme, and was easy to follow. But we can't expect all movies to be works of art. Therefore, despite its faults, I give this film a lightweight recommendation.

For Fans of Charlton Heston Only
Contemporary audiences may only know Charlton Heston from his vehement NRA sponsorship and his occasional cameo roles in big budget films and commmercials, but at one time, he was a BIG MAN in film. Fresh from his role in "Ben-Hur, the film has him playing a domineering and self-serving plantation owner who makes life "hell" for his young sister played by Yvette Mimieux. Filmed three years or so after the admission of Hawaii into the Union, the film carefully treads the tense waters that exist between haole and native Hawaiians. Mimieux's character is romantically involved with James Darren's Paul Kahanna, a "native" boy. The relationsip is frowned on by the hypocrital Heston who himself is having a "back street" affair with France Nuyen. George Chakiris, as Darren's successful doctor brother, provides support for Mimieux after a fatal occurance.

As far as political correctness is concerned, the film is hopelessly flawed with the choice of actors playing the respective Hawaiians. Darren, an alumnus of so many teen movies, does a credible job, but, not once, is believed to be Hawaiian. Chakiris, who had previously won an Academy Award for playing a Puerto Rican in "West Side Story" fares even less. Mimieux is adequate in the typical 60's sex kitten role. Heston is basically playing his typical larger than-life self as "King" Howland.

The film is entertaining and noteworthy as an early exercise in focusing on race relations. For that reason, it gets a recommendation. Heston fans, of which I am one, will probably like it.

One highlight is the powerful score done by a young John Williams. As Heston rides a horse over the opening credits, the music is majestic and worthy of the scope and expanse of the plantation, and hints at the story to follow.

ENTERTAINING -- EVEN WITH CHARLETON HESTON!
Maybe that's because he played such a scoundrel -- not much of a stretch.

I did however, appreciate the performances of the rest of this wonderful ensemble cast. When the price comes down, this video goes in my library.

Charleton Heston at his most-controlling best!
A wealthy pineapple grower and US Senatorial candidate, tries to run the lives of everyone around him, including his headstrong younger sister. He learns the hard way that money and power don't bring happiness.

Good character study, held my interest through till the end
Good cast, fine performances, beautiful cinematography. A little long, but worth it. I found it very entertaining and would enjoy watching it over and over again. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Highly recommended
Here's a little known gem, which every B-movie fan should see!

Excellent. Stuart Whitman's BEST FILM.
The added bonus of Stuart Whitman's commentary makes this DVD even more enjoyable. He has an easy going style and let's us in on a few tidbits of his life before and after his 7 year contract with Fox. Highly recommended.

One of Stuart Whitman's best performances. A must see film.
Arguably the best performance of Stuart Whitman's career, one wonders why he didn't win the Oscar for his sensitive portrayal. A film that leaves one thinking long after the closing credits.

Unforgettable
I have seen this movie once, in a cheap hotel on a business trip, late at night, over ten years ago. I remember it still. The movie covers the offence, treatment and rehabilitation of a paedophile. Be warned, it is not to everyone's taste. I discussed it with friends who were violently opposed to the subject. Me too, but the movie is still riveting - and unique (in my experience). It leaves the final question to answer yourself - can such an offender be cured? ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Good movie,but not enough sex
I like the movie and the cast was great.But if I was writing the story I would have the lesbian scene steamed up even more and Melina Mercouri's character stalking Deborah Raffin's character.I am sadden the Jacqueline Susann is no longer with us but her good works live on.

A waste of time
What a disppointment! I loved the novel, but this movie is a lobotomized version of the original story that leaves out SO much. Brenda Vaccaro and David Jansen weren't bad given what they had to work with, but the rest of the acting was awful. And to add to the general awfulness, this is a pan-and-scan version of a scratched and dirty print with bad audio.

Deffinately a classic that deserves more attention
Jackie Susann is my favorite writer. So after I saw Valley Of The Dolls and read the book I was eager to read and see The Love Machine and Once Is Not Enough. I saw Once Is Not Enough on Sunday and was quite impressed This movie and the book are definately a Susann masterpiece. She is the queen of trash literature.

STILL A GREAT MOVIE!......25 YEARS LATER!
I give this movie 5 stars because when I first saw it, I was a VERY young girl, and it left a lasting impression on me as being a very good movie. Being a young girl at that time, it had enough drama and sex, to keep this movie in my memory all these years. I was surfing for drama films, and this film popped into my head! I performed a search, and there it was!. If you take it as a movie made during the times of the "70's", and not judge it by today's movie standards, you will enjoy it. This movie will be in my collection for a long time to come.

Brenda Vacarro SHINES, but NOT ENOUGH DRUGS!
Although I wasn't as disappointed with this film as the previous reviewer, it was quite a letdown after reading the book. The "vitamin shots" and other assorted goodies (gang rapes, Karla's secret retarded daughter, etc.) that didn't make it on screen severely lower the scandal and glamour level of this film, but the exotic locales and Deborah Raffin's innate charm are undeniably great. It's also fun to see some of the retro kitschy sets (especially George Hamilton's swingin' bachelor pad), and the disco sequence. The film's saving grace is definitely Brenda Vacarro as the unabashed man hungry corporate sleep around Linda Riggs. Her Oscar nomination for the role was well deserved, and I am disappointed she didn't win. The bottom line, however, is this: NOT ENOUGH DRUGS!!! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Good movie, horrid copy
I received this from "Best Videos", an Amazon co-seller. HORRIBLE!! Sound is bad, video is bad. Looks like it was taped off TV on a 1980 mono recorder! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Highly recommended
Here's a little known gem, which every B-movie fan should see!

Excellent. Stuart Whitman's BEST FILM.
The added bonus of Stuart Whitman's commentary makes this DVD even more enjoyable. He has an easy going style and let's us in on a few tidbits of his life before and after his 7 year contract with Fox. Highly recommended.

One of Stuart Whitman's best performances. A must see film.
Arguably the best performance of Stuart Whitman's career, one wonders why he didn't win the Oscar for his sensitive portrayal. A film that leaves one thinking long after the closing credits.

Unforgettable
I have seen this movie once, in a cheap hotel on a business trip, late at night, over ten years ago. I remember it still. The movie covers the offence, treatment and rehabilitation of a paedophile. Be warned, it is not to everyone's taste. I discussed it with friends who were violently opposed to the subject. Me too, but the movie is still riveting - and unique (in my experience). It leaves the final question to answer yourself - can such an offender be cured? ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

One of the first studio films to deal with interracial romance (or even the possibility of it), A Patch of Blue was a huge hitupon its release, appealing to those looking for both social protest and a smart date movie. Sidney Poitier plays Gordon, a compassionate stranger who befriends a blind white girl named Selina (Elizabeth Hartman). Selina, the next thing to a shut-in, can only judge people by their voices, and Gordon's is unusually patient, kind. Troubles ensue when Selina's abusive mother (Shelley Winters in her secondOscar-winning performance) happens upon the pair during one of their park rendezvous. Ivan Dixon plays Poitier's militant brother, and veteran Wallace Ford appears as Selina's kindly lush of a grandfather. Jerry Goldsmith earned an Oscar nomination for his lilting piano theme, surely one of the simplest, most effective pieces of music to grace a Hollywood film. --Glenn Lovell ... Read more

Reviews (33)

A Ray of Sunshine in a Life of Darkness
Warner Brothers produced A Patch of Blue in 1965, which was a black and white dramatic film set in California, starring such greats as Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Elizabeth Hartman, and Wallace Ford. This film was quite racy for its time, as the movie's plot was centered on a budding relationship between a black man and a white teenage woman, which in those days was unheard of.
Selina D'Arcy (Hartman), an 18-year old blind white girl, lives an isolated, Cinderella-like existence with her foul-mouthed mother Roseanne (Winters) and drunken grandfather, "Ol' Pa" (Ford). Selina wants nothing more than to listen to the radio and occasionally string beads in the park. It is there that she meets handsome black businessman Gordon Ralfe (Poitier) who sizes up her plight. As Gordon conveniently continues to run into Selina at the park and their relationship grows. He is delighted that he can teach Selina such everyday things as relying on her sense of smell, calling the pay phone operator, and pushing "Walk" just to listen to the traffic stop.
It is easy to see why Shelly Winters won an Oscar for her portrayal of Selina's drunken and abusive prostitute mother. As a viewer, I cringed with Selina every time her mother went on one of her tirades. I still wonder why Elizabeth Hartman only received an Oscar nomination for her performance, because she truly portrayed the essence of her character.
I give this film a four-star rating because I felt that the film accurately portrayed a 1965 interracial romance and addressed the subject of significant age differences between two people clearly drawn romantically to one another. The film could be disturbing at times because it showed just how bleak life can be for a blind girl living in poverty with a truly dysfunctional family.

A BITTERSWEET, HEARTBREAKING FILM...
This is a wonderful low-budget, black and white film starring a great cast of actors: Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Wallace Ford, and then newcomer, Elizabeth Hartman. It was filmed in 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement, and was then notable for its budding inter-racial romance. While this aspect may seem rather tame today, at the time the movie was filmed, this was still a somewhat controversial theme in many parts of America.

Elizabeth Hartman, in an exquisitely poignant performance for which she was nominated for an Academy Award, plays the part of Selina D'Arcy, an eighteen year old blind girl who lives an isolated and impoverished, almost Dickensian, existence. She lives with her abusive mother, Rose-Ann (Shelley Winters), who moonlights as a prostitute, and her drunken, though somewhat well-meaning, grandfather, whom she calls Ole Pa (Wallace Ford). Uneducated, having never gone to school, Selina spends her time stringing beads to earn some money for the family, cleaning up after her mother and grandfather, and being at the receiving end of constant physical abuse and verbal invectives heaped upon her by her mother. Hers is, indeed, a draconian existence.

One day, she prevails upon her grandfather to drop her off in the park, where she proceeds to sit under a tree, stringing her beads. There, she meets a kindly, well-educated business man, Gordon Ralphe (Sidney Poitier), who takes an interest in her and her quick appreciation for any kindness done to her. She responds to Gordon's kindness as if she were a flower turning its face to the sun for continued warmth. He, in turn, is touched by her eager interest in even the most mundane of matters. They continue to meet under that tree as often as possible, and a relationship develops.

Under Gordon's tutelage, Selina begins to blossom. Some of her disclosures to him about her life fill him with horror and a determination to do something constructive about it. While he goes about trying to improve her quality of life, their relationship deepens, despite the warnings of Gordon's brother. After all, Selina is white, uneducated, and comes from a trashy, dysfunctional family, while Gordon is black, well-educated, and from a good family.

Selina, sure that what she feels is love, is less restrained than Gordon about her feelings, though their budding romance culminates in nothing more than a chaste kiss. When Rose-Ann finds out whom Selina has been meeting, however, matters come to a head, and Gordon comes to the rescue. A modern day knight in shining armor, however, Gordon does the selfless thing in the end.

This is a wonderful movie in which the two main protagonists, Gordon and Selina, judge each other by the content of their respective character and not by the color of their skin. Though controversial at the time, this film may seem a little dated by today's standards. Yet, some of its themes are as fresh today as when it was filmed. The notion of selflessness and putting the needs of another before one's own remains timeless. This is a concept, however, rarely seen in today's films.

Although this was Ms. Hartman's debut film, she deservedly received an Academy Award nomination for her sensitive portrayal of Selina. Unfortunately, her career never really took off after this film the way one would have expected after a performance of this caliber. She appeared only in a few notable films, such as, "The Group", "You're a Big Boy Now", and "Beguiled", before descending into virtual obscurity. I was saddened to hear that she committed suicide in the late nineteen eighties at the age of forty-five, a tragic figure in the end, leaving behind this beautiful performance for posterity.

Ending different in original book
I agree with most reviewers that this was an excellent film, which I have watched over and over again. All the acting is wonderful and deserving of many awards. As is true with many movies I really like, I searched out the original book on which the movie was based. It ran very true to form, they did an excellent job of adapting the book to the movie, but the happy racial ending in the movie was a change from the more realistic one in the book. Gordon arranges for Selena to go to school, but she breaks off her friendship with him when she finds out she is black. Blackness is horrible to her because she is blind and that's all she sees, plus it's the way she was raised. But all in all, one of my favorite movies.

completely destroys the book
I've read the novel version of this story several times, and love it. The movie, when Ii first watched it, was touching, but there was something missing. On the second viewing, I realized what this film lacks is a convincing ending, the thing that makes the book so believable and heartbreaking. The shattering, tearful cliff-hanger of the novel was replaced by a simply, almost predictable, feel-good ending that makes the film flop miserably for someone who knows the original intent of the author. Also, the many scenes which were thought up by the film-makers, while convincing and poignant in their own way, don't compare with the warm, yet darkly sinister, tone of the book. I love the music though. And one question: is that Elizabeth Heartman's real voice?

aways my favourite movie
I read with sadness other comments that this movie is outdated............oh really...surprise surprise....it was made in the 60's I think.

This movie above any I have seen since, speaks so clearly of sensitivity, gentle compassion and passionate love. The self-sacrificing love that we know so little about these days...

DARE I SAY IT? is this what TRUE LOVE IS.....TO LOVE AND THEN LET GO for the LIFE of the other......

Gordon loved so tenderly and Serina became aware so gently that she was lovable..AND loved........

How is it possible that one could miss this view of the film is beyond me.........

I have been "in-love" with Sidney ever since .... he has such skill as an actor and has broadened my horizons so immensely with his portrayal of Gordon

Thank GOD for this medium which gives me an opportunity to say to SIDNEY FANS what I have wanted to say to him for 35 years....

"THANK YOU AND I LOVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME .....esp. in this film"

one very devouted fan from MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An entertaining curiosty
"55 Days at Peking" is somewhat of a novelty to me. The reason I gave it one more star than it deserves is because of the novel direction of the great Nicholas Ray. I am still amused at films that use over-the-hill actors portraying characters who are supposed to be considerably younger. This is a story about foreign diplomats trapped in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. Sets are exotic (filmed at Bronston studios in Spain) and the colors are exquisite, though the VHS tape version is badly in need of a restoration; colors have faded. This film could not be released in the politically correct mainstream that film purists have seemed to develop. Most of the "Chinese" are actually Japanese actors, and, worse, Europeans made up as Asians. Very tacky. (Flora Robson, however, seems to have loads of fun as the Chinese dowager empress). See this film for the wonderful direction of Ray; seeing Ava Gardner working again is always a delight. The scope of the film is powerful (too bad there's not a letterbox version, since it was filmed in super-Panavision), and it's a fine history lesson, historically quite accurate. ... Read more