Reviews (80)

Quintessential punk rebel
This is a great movie. James Dean plays the quintessential teenage punk rebel. He is the sensitive soul misunderstood by parents and the society that surrounds him. His efforts to fit in with other students fail and this leads to problems. Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo turn in realistic portrayals of teenagers without a cause. This film shows a darker side of the '50s than the vision espoused by the Happy Days sitcom. These kids are feeling a lot of alienation and angst. This is Seattle grunge 40 years before Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain. The pain they feel is very real. The screenplay by Stewart Stern reveals great sympathy towards these kids. They are good kids who have gone bad because they don't fit in. People always tell you that the high school years are the best years of your life. That isn't true for all kids, however, as this film poignantly illustrates. It is heartbreaking but powerful. It is vintage James Dean and becomes more wrenching due to Dean's early death. One can only guess how good his career would have been if he hadn't died so soon.

1950s Utopia?
This will always remain one of my favorite films of all time. After seeing it I can finally understand the reasons why James Dean has such a following. He is what everyone either envisions himself as or wishes to be. In my mind, you can't quite label him an anti-hero in this movie. You have to show his character respect. In my mind, what makes this film great is what you might find fault with in other films. At times it seems overly melodramatic and so emotional it seems painful to watch. But this ain't no "Titanic." Somehow, all this intense emotion is what gives the film its power. When you are in high school everything seems as though it is a life or death situation. Who can honestly say that they weren't utterly self-absorbed at that age and even in the present? All the typical themes are included such as unrequited love, fitting in, complex family relations, and violence(today kids might have guns but name another scene as riveting and dangerous as the switchblade fight). The additions to the widescreen version are very worthwhile and offer some extra insight. Is it just me or does Natalie Wood seem on edge during her interview? The Dean "safe driving" interview is also rather interesting if not kind of sick.

True Classic.
This movie is one of the best however one reviewer had a lot of negativity about this movie do not listen to him this movie is not crap. For one James dean is not wearing a Leather Jacket on the Cover is happens to be his Red... Jacket in black and white.Anyhow the story line was very authentic Natalie Wood is just great in this Movie Sal Mineo Is Great and James Dean As always Is Exceptional.I recommend this movie trust me you will not be Disapointed.

These Rebels DID have a cause
For all that the title is such a classic one, it is rather inaccurate. And possibly, it was meant to be. Maybe a catchy title to draw in the crowds or a deliberate lie to show later that their cause, seeming meaningless, was a valid one. And in the end, this film is so poignant! Not a "dated" film at all, but a lesson to the generations of teenagers before and afterwards. Teenage angst has not changed in the last 50 years, and the reasons have not become any less meaningful. "Rebel Without a Cause" offers a very truthful look into the lives of teenagers, the reasons they rebel and gives a reason to why rebeliousness should not be taken so lightly.

The movie begins with all three of the main characters Jim (James Dean) Judy (Natalie Wood) and Plato (Sal Mineo) in a police station in the wee hours of the morning. All are dressed in obviously middle and upper-class clothes but have been picked up on the street for wandering, drunkeness and violence. The title of the movie immediately gives itself away, Judy is upset because her father was rough with her, Plato's father left him and his mother is never at home...
Then we meet Jim's parents. A submissive father, sharp-tongued mother and uptight grandmother. True, they may give him "many things" but the tension, strain and ignorance of Jim's needs are, as he says, "tearing me apart!"

We find out in the course of the movie, as Jim, Judy and Plato come together, that they are really good kids who are only looking for love and acceptance. We see how little their parents understand of them and how they are rebelling against the ignorance that has been starving them for years!

And truly, this is my FAVORITE James Dean movie, I think his portrayal of Jim is really a mirror of his own life with his biological Dad and some of the kids he grew up with. His acting is just so true, real, passionate and believable. This movie is my reasoning for why he is still such a legend. Truly, one of the greatest actors of all time. And a fantastic movie to boot!

Great 50's fun.
This film was first released in 1955 and stars James Dean, Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo. It was directed by Nicholas Ray and is probably one of the best, and most remembered movies from the 1950's.

"Rebel Without a Cause" begins in the local police station, where Jim (James Dean) has been arrested for drunkeness, Judy (Natalie Wood) has been picked up for walking around before dawn after a fight with her father, and the disturbed Plato (Sal Mineo) has been brought in for killing a puppy. Jim is new to the place (his parents are always moving) and finds it hard to fit in at school. He gets in a fight, which later leads him to have a chicken race with one of the gang bullies. Jim, Judy and Plato are brought back together again at the chicken race, but it ends in trouble. While Jim gets away unharmed, his opponent is killed when he gets caught in the car and goes flying straight off of the cliff. While being chased by the dead boy's friends, Jim, Judy, and Plato end up at a deserted mansion, to hide out, away from their parents and the trouble looking for them out on the streets. But still, it does not end nicely.

The film may seem dated to some people, but it still remains a brilliant movie to a lot of others.

Now for the DVD:
The film is presented in widescreen format and the print is brilliant. The sound is in 5.1 Dolby Digital. The extras include Trailers, behind-the-scenes documentary, and a few segments from TV Documentaries with Gig Young, including the 'Drive Safely' interview. Along with a few other little things aswell.

Overall, I think this is an excellent presentation for a great movie and I highly recommend this DVD.

PLEASE NOTE: Refers to Region 2 release, which appears to be the same as this Region 1 release, by the same company. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

"I've never seen a woman who was more like a man," a character observes of Vienna (Joan Crawford), who has just opened a saloon that hasn't exactly endeared itself to the local townspeople. Emma (Mercedes McCambridge), the local sexually repressed, lynch-happy harpy, is particularly displeased. Vienna is wooed both by the Dancin' Kid (Scott Brady) and by Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), a peripatetic tough guy-turned-troubadour with whom she has a past.

When the Kid's gang (which includes Ernest Borgnine) decides to knock over the bank before heading to California, Emma wants just about everyone in sight on the business end of a rope. Nicolas Ray's 1954 epic was considered one of the downright strangest Westerns of all time--the women were far tougher than the men (Johnny watches on laconically during the bank robbery, not bothering with heroics), and some saw in the film a bizarre allegory for the McCarthy Red scare. A half-century later, it's still a curious, intriguing piece of moral ambiguity from a time when such a thing ostensibly didn't exist. Hayden is an enigmatic presence, and Crawford's commanding star turn is what you'd expect. --David Kronke ... Read more

Reviews (11)

"Joannie's Guitar"
Joan Crawford said "I should have had my head examined" for doing
this film. But lovers of true cult should have their heads examined
for not having this film in thier collection. Ground breaking in so
many ways. This film not only predicted the feminist movement by a
mile it also plays on the communist themed witch-hunt if you really
want to read into it. Dispite it's title, Joan Crawford plays lead
it this stagebrush saga of two desparate women trying to hold on to
the only man who meant something in their lives. And what a cast of
stars! Sterling Hayden as Johnny, Ward Bond, Ernest Borgnine, Scott
Brady and of course Mercedes McCambridge as the "other woman" and I must say Technicolor never looked better in a western,I counted
at least six shades of red in Crawford's lipstick alone. I'm not
talking "The searchers" or anyhthing but its just a great obcure
film to sit back and relax with. So where's the DVD already?

WILD, WILD WEST....CRAWFORD & NICHOLAS RAY STYLE
Bizarre Western directed by the great Nicholas Ray and starring Joan Crawford as Vienna, a tough saloon/casino owner. Vienna is waiting for a railroad to come through to make her business boom but Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge) wants her dead. Emma hates Vienna supposedly because The Dancin' Kid (Scott Brady) likes Vienna instead of her. Vienna hires Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden) to play guitar in the saloon. They are old lovers from Vienna's dance-hall girl days. But all hell breaks loose when a bank robbery goes wrong and Emma implicates Vienna as the leader and leads a posse to lynch her. Vienna is rescued and takes refuge in the Dancin' Kid's hideout. Emma and Vienna will face off before it's over. Incredible tale written by Philip Yordan and laden with symbolism that has caused some to compare this film to the McCarthy witch hunts of the 50's. It's a fascinating piece all right. It's in color and features a great supporting cast with Ernest Borgnine, Ward Bond and John Carradine. McCambridge is pure hellfire as the self-righteous Emma and Crawford is noble and stoic as Vienna and supposedly did her own stunts. Allegedly, Crawford and McCambridge despised each other on the set and this information kind've adds to the fun of the film. Peggy Lee sings the haunting title ballad. A must see. Watch for it.

One of a kind Western action!
"Johnny Guitar" is one of the most bizarre Westerns ever made, probably second only to "Terror of Tiny Town," an oater starring midgets.
That being said, it is virtually impossible to take your eyes off of the screen as the story unfolds. "Guitar" tells the tale of the most desired (!) woman in town, tavern owner Vienna (Joan Crawford), and the woman who will see her destroyed at any cost (a slumming Mercedes McCambridge as Emma). Since there appears to be 200 men for every woman in the town, the pickens are indeed slim for the gents. (And, in this film, Crawford could easily pass for one of the 400 men!) To that end, it is truly bizarre to see how much she resembles Michael Jackson in one of the closing scenes -- heavy facial makeup, red blouse, black jeans, and white socks; straight out of "Thriller."
How Republic Studios talked dozens of fine character actors into supporting roles in this curio is amazing in itself. Western stalwarts Ward Bond, Sterling Hayden (Guitar), Ernest Borgnine, Royal Dano, Scott Brady, Denver Pyle, Clem Harvey, Frank Ferguson, John Carradine, Paul Fix, and Sheb Wooley, among others, are along for the wild ride.
Pour yourself a "tall one," then kick back and enjoy some one of a kind entertainment in "Johnny Guitar."

Vienna Mon Amour
An unconventional take on the conventional Western genre.

On the surface you have title character "Johnny Guitar"---onetime ace gunfighter, now laconic loner and wanderer who has renounced his violent past and refuses to wear his guns. He looks up an old saloon-girl love (Joan Crawford as "Vienna") only to discover a town in turmoil---both his gal and the General Good need defending...

You might think you see what's coming: Johnny, after agonized moral deliberation, straps on his guns again and rights the prevalent wrongs, possibly with the help of his lady-friend, who's ambivalent about his violent past... A la "High Noon", et al.

But NO... Which is what makes this movie such an interesting, important milestone in the Western genre. Johnny G's role in the proceedings is almost immediately negligible; he hangs around the saloon and watches his past amour Vienna first boss around her employees, then confront the angry lynch-mob that stomps in, then placate the bunch of alleged outlaws who drunkenly seek refuge from a sandstorm and proceed to tussle with the already-assembled law folk... Vienna vanquishes all foes, with Johnny making smart remarks, but doing little else, throughout. Even after the law leaves and Johnny brawls with a gang-member, all of his action is off-camera---while we see Vienna parry verbally with one outlaw inside the saloon, we hear the sounds of scuffling outside, then witness the defeated bad guy come stumbling through the swinging doors. (Now WHEN has a Western EVER deprived us of a good old-fashioned street-brawl?? Aside from gunfights, that's the next best excuse for action.)

Johnny and Vienna DO kiss and make up, of course. But on the morning after, even though Vienna IS wearing a dress rather than the slacks we first saw her in, the two immediately head to the town bank, where Vienna again plays an active role in the goings-on while Johnny waits passively outside... He eventually does strap on the guns again, but it's certainly a minor plot point by that time: The final obligatory shoot-out has nothing at all to do with him.

Joan Crawford seems absolutely WIRED in her performance here, especially in the first half of the film, before the more conventional chasing/lynch-mob stuff starts. The early scenes in the saloon are especially fascinating and tension-filled because of Crawford's weirdly quivering intensity. She later regretted taking the role ("I should have had my head examined"), but time has proven her wrong---both she and the film are truly worthy of the cult status they've achieved.

Joan Crawford in western melodrama.
Like most of Joan's movies, I've seen this about 5-10 times. Her '50s movies were wild and over-the-top (Torch Song, Queen Bee, etc.) but that's why they are so great and entertaining. Johnny Guitar typifies Joan's far-out '50s technicolor period. Like always, she's tough with a tender side. Always captivating to watch. The best reason to buy this movie is because it is such a grand, glossy, big-budget western melodrama weeper spectacle. In color, too (you can see close-ups of Joan's beautiful blue eyes). It's really something else, and the haunting Victor Young score you will not soon forget. Peggy Lee sings Johnny Guitar while Sterling Hayden and Joan disappear in the sunset. Joan was a legend and this film was really the end of her queen of the box office status. After the success of Sudden Fear, both Torch Song and Johnny Guitar flopped (two films I think she really put her heart in). The films are classics today but Joan was just thrown aside for a couple years before her Columbia contract (her box office status never really recovered). ... 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 (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Reviews (80)

Quintessential punk rebel
This is a great movie. James Dean plays the quintessential teenage punk rebel. He is the sensitive soul misunderstood by parents and the society that surrounds him. His efforts to fit in with other students fail and this leads to problems. Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo turn in realistic portrayals of teenagers without a cause. This film shows a darker side of the '50s than the vision espoused by the Happy Days sitcom. These kids are feeling a lot of alienation and angst. This is Seattle grunge 40 years before Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain. The pain they feel is very real. The screenplay by Stewart Stern reveals great sympathy towards these kids. They are good kids who have gone bad because they don't fit in. People always tell you that the high school years are the best years of your life. That isn't true for all kids, however, as this film poignantly illustrates. It is heartbreaking but powerful. It is vintage James Dean and becomes more wrenching due to Dean's early death. One can only guess how good his career would have been if he hadn't died so soon.

1950s Utopia?
This will always remain one of my favorite films of all time. After seeing it I can finally understand the reasons why James Dean has such a following. He is what everyone either envisions himself as or wishes to be. In my mind, you can't quite label him an anti-hero in this movie. You have to show his character respect. In my mind, what makes this film great is what you might find fault with in other films. At times it seems overly melodramatic and so emotional it seems painful to watch. But this ain't no "Titanic." Somehow, all this intense emotion is what gives the film its power. When you are in high school everything seems as though it is a life or death situation. Who can honestly say that they weren't utterly self-absorbed at that age and even in the present? All the typical themes are included such as unrequited love, fitting in, complex family relations, and violence(today kids might have guns but name another scene as riveting and dangerous as the switchblade fight). The additions to the widescreen version are very worthwhile and offer some extra insight. Is it just me or does Natalie Wood seem on edge during her interview? The Dean "safe driving" interview is also rather interesting if not kind of sick.

True Classic.
This movie is one of the best however one reviewer had a lot of negativity about this movie do not listen to him this movie is not crap. For one James dean is not wearing a Leather Jacket on the Cover is happens to be his Red... Jacket in black and white.Anyhow the story line was very authentic Natalie Wood is just great in this Movie Sal Mineo Is Great and James Dean As always Is Exceptional.I recommend this movie trust me you will not be Disapointed.

These Rebels DID have a cause
For all that the title is such a classic one, it is rather inaccurate. And possibly, it was meant to be. Maybe a catchy title to draw in the crowds or a deliberate lie to show later that their cause, seeming meaningless, was a valid one. And in the end, this film is so poignant! Not a "dated" film at all, but a lesson to the generations of teenagers before and afterwards. Teenage angst has not changed in the last 50 years, and the reasons have not become any less meaningful. "Rebel Without a Cause" offers a very truthful look into the lives of teenagers, the reasons they rebel and gives a reason to why rebeliousness should not be taken so lightly.

The movie begins with all three of the main characters Jim (James Dean) Judy (Natalie Wood) and Plato (Sal Mineo) in a police station in the wee hours of the morning. All are dressed in obviously middle and upper-class clothes but have been picked up on the street for wandering, drunkeness and violence. The title of the movie immediately gives itself away, Judy is upset because her father was rough with her, Plato's father left him and his mother is never at home...
Then we meet Jim's parents. A submissive father, sharp-tongued mother and uptight grandmother. True, they may give him "many things" but the tension, strain and ignorance of Jim's needs are, as he says, "tearing me apart!"

We find out in the course of the movie, as Jim, Judy and Plato come together, that they are really good kids who are only looking for love and acceptance. We see how little their parents understand of them and how they are rebelling against the ignorance that has been starving them for years!

And truly, this is my FAVORITE James Dean movie, I think his portrayal of Jim is really a mirror of his own life with his biological Dad and some of the kids he grew up with. His acting is just so true, real, passionate and believable. This movie is my reasoning for why he is still such a legend. Truly, one of the greatest actors of all time. And a fantastic movie to boot!

Great 50's fun.
This film was first released in 1955 and stars James Dean, Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo. It was directed by Nicholas Ray and is probably one of the best, and most remembered movies from the 1950's.

"Rebel Without a Cause" begins in the local police station, where Jim (James Dean) has been arrested for drunkeness, Judy (Natalie Wood) has been picked up for walking around before dawn after a fight with her father, and the disturbed Plato (Sal Mineo) has been brought in for killing a puppy. Jim is new to the place (his parents are always moving) and finds it hard to fit in at school. He gets in a fight, which later leads him to have a chicken race with one of the gang bullies. Jim, Judy and Plato are brought back together again at the chicken race, but it ends in trouble. While Jim gets away unharmed, his opponent is killed when he gets caught in the car and goes flying straight off of the cliff. While being chased by the dead boy's friends, Jim, Judy, and Plato end up at a deserted mansion, to hide out, away from their parents and the trouble looking for them out on the streets. But still, it does not end nicely.

The film may seem dated to some people, but it still remains a brilliant movie to a lot of others.

Now for the DVD:
The film is presented in widescreen format and the print is brilliant. The sound is in 5.1 Dolby Digital. The extras include Trailers, behind-the-scenes documentary, and a few segments from TV Documentaries with Gig Young, including the 'Drive Safely' interview. Along with a few other little things aswell.

Overall, I think this is an excellent presentation for a great movie and I highly recommend this DVD.

PLEASE NOTE: Refers to Region 2 release, which appears to be the same as this Region 1 release, by the same company. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Flying Leathernecks!!........cool flying.........go Marines
Flying Leathernecks is one of my favorite war dramas to watch on a boring, rainy, summer day. John Wayne is a Marine avatior who drives his men to the edge during training and in the war, installing hatred in their hearts againist him, especially his second in command, played by Robert Ryan, who clashes with Wayne, but goes easy on the squad. Later in the movie, Wayne teaches Ryan the importance of being hard and rough on the squad. This movies should have got some Oscar nominations for
Best Actor: John Wayne
Best Cinematography
Best Supporting Actor: Robert Ryan and for
Best Special Effects.
If you were in the Marine Corps, and if you want to see some old war planes, like Corsairs, Wildcats, a PBY seaplane, and a real harsh look at what Marine Corps pilots went through in WWII, give this movie a try. I recemend it to anyone who served in the Marines, John Wayne fans, and models buffs. Semper Fi Go Marines.

Sands of Iwo Jima in the air
Flying Leathernecks is an entertaining John Wayne adventure about a squadron of Marine fighters stationed on Guadalcanal during the fierce fighting. The Duke plays Major Daniel Kirby, a new squadron leader who tries to get the men into fighting shape as he tries to prove his theory of ground attacks heavily supported by air support. Kirby and his executive officer, Captain Griffin butt heads as they argue over how to treat the men. The plot might sound familiar to Sands of Iwo Jima which it is, but it is still a quality movie. The aerial shots are taken from actual WWII footage that work pretty well with the shots of the actors in their planes. The story is fairly predictable, but it is still worth a watch if nothing else.

John Wayne is pretty good as tough as nails Major Kirby, a role very similar to his role as Sergeant Stryker that earned him a Best Actor nomination. Robert Ryan gives a decent performance as Captain Griffin, who Kirby believes is not ready to take over command of the squadron. Wayne and Ryan work well together throughout. Don Taylor plays Griffin's brother-in-law and fellow squadron member. Jay C. Flippen has a very funny role as Master Sergeant Clancy, Kirby's line chief who has a talent for taking things that are just lying around. Like all Duke movies, I hope this one gets a DVD release since the VHS is not in the best of shape. For an enjoyable Duke adventure, check out Flying Leathernecks!

The Duke on Command
The Duke himself is in this movie about Marine pilots in the South Pacific during World War II. Since this movie was made in the fifties, there is not a lot of gore and violence. The fight scenes you see are mostly actual footage from aerial combats during WWII.

The movie centers around two things. First, it shows the usage of military planes providing close ground support. Repeatedly, everyone mentions it can't be done, but the Duke and his group continue to show that it is viable. Second, we see the agonies of command.

John Wayne is a major who is not always liked by his subordinates. He is a career military man trying to keep his team, mostly young college men, alive by enforcing discipline. He drives them relentlessly as the executive officer tries to ease up on them. By the end of the movie, the executive officer gets an explanation on why it is necessary for commanders to push their men.

For military film buffs or John Wayne fans, I would highly recommend seeing this movie.

flying leathernecks
This is one of the finest of the DUKES WWII movies which exemplifies the American fighting mans indominatable wills to endure and win above all odds

john wayne gives the marines air support
typical world war two aviation yarn starring the duke as the tough as nails squadron commander. good supporting cast. a plus for the film is the fact that its shot in color, a rarity for this type of film at the time. if you like john wayne and ww2, you'll like flying leathernecks ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

One of Humphrey Bogart's finest performances dominates this unusual 1950 film noir, which focuses less on the murder mystery at the center of its plot than on the investigation's devastating effect on a fragile romance. For Bogart, already a noir icon, the Andrew Solt script afforded an opportunity to explore a more complex and contradictory role--an antiheroic persona in line with the actor's most accomplished and absorbing triumphs throughout his career.

For maverick director Nicholas Ray, the film posed the challenge of taking crime dramas beyond their usual formulas and into a more mature realm, as well as a chance to cast a jaundiced eye on the film industry itself. Its protagonist is Dixon Steele, a Hollywood screenwriter with an acerbic wit and a violent temper. Tasked with adapting a bestseller, he meets a hatcheck girl who's read the book, hoping to glean its highlights before writing the script. When she's found murdered, Steele becomes the prime suspect, and a tightening knot of suspicion forms around the writer.

Steele's only, inconclusive witness is a pretty new neighbor, Laurel (Gloria Grahame), and the couple fall in love even as the pressure mounts. At first the new relationship is a tonic to the hard-boiled writer, who plunges into his script with a renewed vigor and discipline. But as the police continue to shadow him, Steele's own penchant for violence erupts against friends, strangers, and even Laurel herself, whose feelings are increasingly eclipsed by suspicion that her lover is a murderer, and fear that he'll harm her.

Bogart conveys Steele's world-weariness and underlying vulnerability, and manages the delicate task of making both his romantic yearning and sudden, murderous rages equally convincing. Ultimately, that performance and Grahame's sympathetic work elevate In a Lonely Place into what has been called "an existential love story" more than a crime drama. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Disturbing, Important Film
For all the praise film-noir is lavished with (quite a lot of it valid), the majority of it relies on convention as much as the standard white-picket-fence, happy-ending 'family' film does: just invert the cliches and bathe them in deep-focus shadows. While this movie, on its surface, resembles the classic-style film noir of DOUBLE INDEMNITY, beneath the surface it's a whole different animal. No calculating evil females or tough guys masking hearts of gold populate IN A LONELY PLACE. It's a much more wrenching and powerfully disturbing film because the murder that draws the protagonists together turns out to be of peripheral importance, while the love story between Humphrey Bogart's troubled screenwriter and Gloria Grahame's B-actress spins inexorably towards damnation completely on its own power. The basic story has him a suspect in a killing, and her in love with him yet unsure of his innocence, but director Nicholas Ray stages the proceedings so that WE see it's not the murder that disturbs her but her own conviction that his self-destructive and volatile nature will destroy them both. To his credit, Ray never takes the easy way out of having Bogart turn monster on her. You care inordinately about the characters, hoping hard (as Bogart's agent does in the film) that some transforming moment will come that will spare these people and allow their deeply felt love to flourish and heal them both - even as the evidence before your own eyes tells you there ain't no way. For 1950 -hell, for any year- such an unsentimental and uncompromising treatment of a tragic adult relationship is a rarity. The shadows suffusing this excellent film come not from UFA-influenced lighting but from the Black Dahlia murder, the HUAC hearings, the death throes of old Hollywood & the moral and spiritual detachment of postwar American life. But most of all, they're projected from within the characters themselves. Grahame and Ray's own real-life deteriorating relationship formed the template for the doomed lovers, and for them, this film is an act of great courage. For his part, Bogart (the star and executive producer) takes elements of all his previous romantic loners and blends them with the harsh, sour pigments of Fred C Dobbs, running the risk of audience rejection. His performance is unflinchingly honest, among his best work ever. See this movie.

DARK, BROODING HUMAN EMOTIONS....
Excellent psychological noir drama about a cynical Hollywood screenwriter (Humphrey Bogart) with a disturbing violent streak who becomes a suspect in the brutal murder of a hat check girl from the club he frequents. His only alibi is Gloria Grahame, a starlet who's his neighbor in their apartment complex. She covers for him to the police even admitting that she likes his face. They begin a relationship and Grahame discovers his frightening violent tendencies. Now even she begins to doubt his innocence as well as fear for her own safety. Film crackles with cynicism and tension throughout and offers one of Bogart's best performances as the troubled writer struggling with his inner demons. Grahame is excellent in one of her first big roles before becoming the 50's film noir femme fatale she later did. Ironically, the film was directed by the great Nicholas Ray whose marriage to Grahame was falling apart at the time. This could explain why it has a bleak, gloomy feel to it and the two leads are such tormented characters who are powerless over their destinies. A must see, a must on DVD and a must have for those who know what Bogart could do in a role like this, for fans of Grahame and especially for those who are familiar with Nicholas Ray. A potent, adult film that's an underrated and overlooked classic.

Dark, angry Bogart in a noir classic
"In a Lonely Place" is usually considered a classic example of film noir, although-as other reviewers have pointed out-- it doesn't completely fit the mold. It has much of the darkness and violence typical of the genre, but the main female character(Laurel Gray) is less a classic femme fatale than an ordinary woman who has fallen in love with the wrong man (Dixon Steele, a screen writer whose career is on the skids). Although the background plot of the movie is about a murder investigation with the Steele as the prime suspect (he's innocent), its major focus is really on the man's psychology and the negative impact of his violent streak on those around him.

Bogart is perfect as Dixon Steele, the screen writer with what would now be called "anger management problems." His screen presence oozes with the dangerousness that lies under his character's surface. Gloria Grahame plays Laurel as a basically sweet women who finds herself increasingly uneasy and eventually terrified of her lover's potential for violence. The issue of domestic abuse is never explicitly raised, but it's implicit in Laurel's fear of Steele's dangerous side. The tension builds, the relationship collapses, and in the bittersweet end, both lovers are left in a "lonely place" without each other.

This film was based on a 1947 novel of the same name written by Dorothy Hughes. The novel is a classic example of hard-boiled pulp fiction. Dark as the movie is, the original novel is much darker. In the film version, Steele is a deeply flawed man, but one capable of love as well. In the novel, he's a twisted serial killer with no redeeming features. It's interesting to compare the book and the movie. Even given Bogart's penchant for tough guy roles, it's easy to understand why so many changes were made. Both versions are good, and both are concerned with the violent nature of the main character, but they're really two different works. Watch one, read the other--and enjoy both.

Much More than just a Disturbing Murder Mystery
IN A LONELY PLACE is a brilliant film from director Nicholas Ray. Humphrey Bogart with his usual cragged-faced presence dominates the screen once again. This time he is a man totally introverted and obsessed with some hidden lack of ability to express his own compassion and humanity. Bogart plays an elusive Hollywood screenwriter named Dixon Steele that becomes the focus of a police investigation of a murder in this atmospheric and unsettling film. What makes the film so unsettling is Bogart's performance. He is a very enigmatic, private and tired man who at times seems so detached from reality that it is frightening. Yet Bogart in this role still posses a virile and cynical coolness of style that is so appealing and it is one that only he can pull off with his screen charisma bringing this character to reality and believability.

In the film Bogart lives in a complex of courtyard apartments. The police investigation interferes with a relationship that Bogart has with Gloria Grahame who lives in the same complex. Bogart comes to be intrigued (and visa versa) by her and truly falls in love with her. Yet it is the police investigation that continues to intensify Bogart's inner struggle as a human being with his need to love and be loved and escalates his volatile and violent outbursts which confuse and distance Grahame from him.

IN A LONELY PLACE examines such human qualities and frailties of love, trust and loyalty. It explores and exposes the effects of our interpretations, perceptions and misconceptions and ultimately demonstrates that our own human flaws can lead to perpetual loneliness of the heart if left unchecked. IN A LONELY PLACE is an outstanding and important film.

Bogey's Best
Here's late 1940's early 1950's Film Noir, a love gone wrong drama. Bogart's ugliness, the angles of his forehead, the lines about his mouth are fascinating. Bogart is both violent and tender by body language. A truly remarkable and revealing performance. Not that the dialogue doesn't matter. It's brilliant give and take, literary musings with tough guy and gal repertoire. Gloria Graham is no piker either. She is the beautiful actress, but there is no doubt she loves Dixon Steele the screenwriter and comes to fear him too. I can't imagine another actress of this period pulling off this love story. And we get Bogart in love, a tough, and maybe psychotic guy in love. His manliness is counterpoint to his unprotected psyche. Also homage should be paid to Nicholas Ray's direction. There is a dark LA at night, eyes in the headlights of a post-war Buick feel in his direction. The story is adapted from a potboiler novel, but the adaptation takes it to another level. ... Read more

Description

Based on George Bernard Shaw's sparkling play, this satire of ancient Rome is a triumph of comic dialogue and acting.The fable of the tailor who removes a thorn from a lion's paw is retold magnificently with Maurice Evans as Caesar, Robert Newton as a hilarious zealot, and the radiant Jean Simmons. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

What a GOOD Movie!
This movie is highly entertaining and very funny. I had laughed at some scenes in this movie. Even kids will enjoy this movie.
"Androcles and the Lion" is about a meek tailor befriending a lion by removing a thorn out of his paw (his mean wife ran away though). Androcles named the lion "Tommy". The tailor, Androcles, gets captured by the Roman army because he's a Christian, and makes friends with a beautiful woman and a burly man named Fevvorus (sp?), among other Christians with them. The beautiful woman, named Lavina, falls in love with a Roman Captain (played by Victor Mature), but she still keeps her faith in God. Later when all the Christians arrived at the Colluseum where the fighting to kill the Christian men, and the lions are for the ladies to die, Fevvorus slays all the fighters and won the affections of Ceaser. Androcles was picked to be killed by the lions...and guess who he met? The lion named Tommy! Ceaser gets impressed once more because Tommy and Androcles danced together in the arena and the lion is tame. :) Ceaser finally lets all the Christians go free, Fevvorus gets to be a guard at the palace, and Tommy and Androcles walk the streets together at the end.
Very good movie and it's highly recommended!

Androcles The Great
This Hollywood adaptation of Shaw's play came as a very pleasant surprise indeed since as Shaw's plays are always about ideas, I was gratified to see those outlined in the play were faithfully retained in the film. It is also one of Shaw's wittiest tracts on behalf of his abiding belief in animal rights, (the theological debate about whether animals have souls being retained and convincingly presented), as well as his mistrust of any religious dogma that isn't constantly on the side of the here-and-now and the Life Force. Although obvious budget constraints show here and there, all concerned certainly display a grasp of what Shaw was trying to say, and acquit themselves with distinction in all department. Full of Shavian irony and compassion, (the sadness and poignancy in Shaw's work is seldom noted these days), it turns accepted values upside down and helps you on the road to thinking laterally and, hopefully, autonomously. Subversive stuff as always with Shaw! Highly recommended.

Very entertaining movie
A very funny, entertaining black and white movie. It's quite lively and I would recomend it! ... Read more

Description

A traveling night club singer gets hired by an American expatriate who runs a casino in Macao and specializes in converting stolen jewelry into cash. Complications ensue when one of her traveling companions turns out to be a cop. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Made For Each Other
MACAO is a fairly entertaining story of crime and adventure in the Portuguese colony near Hong Kong after World War II. Jane Russell is a singer working for a local gambling boss (Brad Dexter). Robert Mitchum is an American who is on the run and William Bendix is pretending to be a salesman but he really has another more mysterious identity. The best thing about MACAO is the pairing of Russell and Mitchum who seem to be made for each other.

Josef von Sternberg also directed THE BLUE ANGEL.

A MITCHUM AND RUSSELL BLOCKBUSTER!
This film is a potpourri of oriental and expatriate American film noir. It's two major stars (Jane Russell and Robert Mitchum) fit like gloves into their roles. Their attraction to each other melts through the screen. There are also outstanding character role performances (and these are the film's other great strengths) by Brad Dexter (nightclub owner, gem smuggler, etc.) Thomas Gomez, Gloria Grahame, and a special mention of William Bendix, who really added a tight performance to the film.

The plot is one of mistaken identities, a worn-out songstress looking for a place to land and rest, a man who can't go home, and a NYC policeman on a job. The center scene of the film is a Macao nightclub run by a shady and dangerous character. Mitchum and Russell captivate this plot with their on-screen presences.

Josef von Sternberg directed this film, but his stern movie set policies offended all, and especially Mitchum who did something about it (in the video, Jane Russell, still dazzling in old-age with shining silver hair) tells us this amusing anecdote. Nicholas Ray finished up the directorial tasks when von Sternberg was booted out, and their two talents form an interesting combination.

Mitchem and Russell had a preceding hit film called "His Kind of Woman." They probably would have been teamed again after "Macao," but Howard Hughes sold the RKO studio.

All in all, Macao belongs in anyone's collection of classic film noir.

A Delightfully Cool Trip to Macao
This is one of Mitchum's coolest films. It is not a dark noir film like "Out of the Past" but has an atmosphere all it's own. This is pure entertainment with a breezy feel all the way through, much the same as "The Big Steal" with Jane Greer, which is sadly unavailable now. Mitchum ends up in Macao and is mistaken for William Bendix, a cop looking to extradite casino owner Brad Dexter. Gloris Grahame plays the beautiful and abused ingenue tangled up with Dexter and would steal this film were it not for the wonderful chemistry between Mitchum and Jane Russell.
They obviously liked each other and had a lot of fun making this film. Mitchum always had nice things to say about Russell whenever asked about the actresses he had worked with. Both of them had their difficulties with the little dictator and director Joseph von Sternberg and it is probably in spite of his involvement with this film rather than because of it this movie turns out so utterly entertaining.
This film has a glossy sheen and an airy feel, Hollywood escapism at it's very best. The entertaining crime angle, as the easy going Mitchum is mistaken for Bendix, is played out in the exotic locale of Macao, and the burgeoning romance between Mitchum and Russell gives this film just the right flavor. A movie that is great fun to watch. You'll enjoy it a little more every time you watch it. Don't miss this one!

One of the coolest
I admit I am a huge Robert Mitchum fan and have very little to say bad about him but being as objective as possible this is one of the coolest movies ever made. I've watched it repeatly and never tire of it. It really feels like you're in Macao.

Mitchum & Russell in flawed but fun film
Being that Robert Mitchum is my favorite actor it is difficult for me to say anything negative about the films he appears in. This isn't a bad film, just a little murky. Mitchum is confident and cocky as ever; Russell is sexy as a nightclub singer on the lamb. Atmosphere is good, characters are o.k. , but I get the feeling this film is trying to be steal some of the elements of "Gilda" and it falls way short. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

JOHN DEREK - a pre-James Dean
I saw this years ago and was spellbound... Bogart and John Derek(Sinatra badly wanted the role but was thought too old)are at their best.... It really is in the same vein as Rebel without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass, My Own Private Idaho.... films about young people-coming-of-age and the problems the grown ups/the system/society does to individuals that not quite follow the stream.... It is a must-see because of these ingredients and that is was one of first of its kind.

Ouch
It's hard to believe that a Nicholas Ray film starring Humphrey Bogart could have turned out this badly. The problem is the script, which combines poor plot structure with leaden social commentary. Throw in some of the most laughably unrealistic courtroom scenes imaginable and you've got a near-total disaster. The only thing keeping this movie out of the one-star category is the occasional flash of acting or directing talent that intermittently rises above the dreadful script.

Not perfect, but effective and impressive
This is by no stretch neither one of Bogart's best nor one of his worse films. In the late 1940s and 1950s, as Bogart began to break away from Warner Brothers and do more independent films, he began more and more to explore a greater variety of roles. In this one, he plays a lawyer who managed to break out of the rough and nasty neighborhood where he grew up, and a young tough who has been unable to break out and has gotten himself into a string of bad situations. The young thug is played by John Derek, who would go on to appear in a number of films (such as ALL THE KINGS MEN and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, in which he would play Joshua) before becoming a photographer and director an husband of a number of famed (and similar looking) beauties, including Ursala Andress, Linda Evans, and Bo Derek). Given the utterly horrible movies he directed starring Bo Derek, it was quite a nice surprise to see what a nice job he does in this film. He was not merely a pretty face; he had some talent.

Bogart managed to excel in every movie he was ever in, with only a few exceptions, like THE OKLAHOMA KID, a Western in which he played a Mexican bandit, complete with utterly unconvincing accent. Apart from that and a couple of other 1930s roles, Bogart managed to shine even when the rest of the movie was vile.

The problem with KNOCK ON ANY DOOR is twofold. One is the highly artificial script, in which much of the film is told in flashback in what is supposed to be the opening remarks at a trial. It is unbalancing to have so much of the film told in flashback at a moment in a trial when such personal remarks would have been inappropriate. As a result, the trial ends up feeling not so much like a trial as a parody of a trial. The second problem is that the movie is a bit heavy handed in its social commentary. That society can have a pervasive and overwhelming influence on the ultimate destiny of a young person had been developed in the late 19th century by people like Jane Addams, and had become commonplace in the following decades. Many films of the 1930s focused on the importance of providing kids with more positive social influences, like DEAD END and BOY'S TOWN. KNOCK ON ANY DOOR tries to get a lot of mileage out of an idea that was hardly new. During the heavier of the social commentary moments, I kept thinking of a line from Monty Python, when the Church Police arrest a young kid who had murdered a parson. Someone points out in the arrest that society was to blame. "We'll be arresting him [i.e., society] too."

Nonetheless, this is an interesting and effective film, though somewhat marred by social sentiment and some serious structural problems in the script.

Court room drama
Bogie (as a lawyer) defends John Derek (as the defendant) on a cop-killing charge. This movie is mainly for Bogie and/or court room drama fans (like Perry Mason, or Matlock), but Bogie DOES make a good "theatrical" lawyer. The story is not new, the "defense" is not new, the "twist" is not new (but nothing is really new in court room dramas anyway), but the acting is good, and thereby saves the film. Watchable. ... Read more