User Reviews

I'm partial to any film in which Sophia Loren appears. And, I like the work of Eugene O'Neill, arguably America's finest playwright of the twentieth century.

So, it's a sad to admit that, although Burl Ives is superb as the irascible old father, and Sophia does her best – given that she'd only been part of the Hollywood scene for about a year – this rendition of the story of mad love is good, but not great.

The problem, in my opinion, is Tony Perkins: he's just not up to the task of playing opposite Sophia Loren, a more experienced performer (she'd already appeared in over thirty Italian movies before starring in Elms), and a lusty, fiery woman who just exudes sex appeal like it's the only thing to think about. In contrast, Perkins allows his distracted, tortured persona to intrude to the point of annoyance – for me; others might find him adequate to the role, however, as he first attempts to fob off the apparently unwelcome sexual innuendo of Loren, but then succumbs all too easily, I think, to her temptations.

Most of the story revolves around those three; the other main players, Pernell Roberts and Frank Overton as the two older step-brothers to Perkins, exit to California in the first act (and don't return until the third). Thereafter, the second act – the entrapment of Perkins in Loren's arms and their deepening romance about which the father knows naught – lays the groundwork for the inevitable tragedy to come. As the viewer, I found it interesting to speculate about the outcome as the third act started, especially after experiencing the excruciating suspense of an earlier Act II scene in the barn – a scene through which I actually stopped breathing, as I watched, fascinated...

But, what a third act it was from Burl Ives, as he danced and pranced around with much of the village folk, to celebrate the birth of his new son, provided by Loren, but fathered by...whom? Without a doubt, something's got to break, I thought.

As I continued to watch, I kept thinking: I've seen this before. But, this was my first viewing. Then it came to me: a story of two lovers, embroiled in dark, mad love and with mounting intent to murder has been done before – in 1867, Emile Zola wrote a book called Therese Raquin. In 1950, it was an American TV movie, followed in 1953 with a French version with Simone Signoret. I've read Zola's novel, but I can't vouch for the films. I could suggest, also, that The Postman Always Rings Twice (made many times, first in 1946) has a similar story and plot.

O'Neill's play, however, has an horrific twist – unlike any of the other stories. So, it's worth seeing for that alone. The bonus is watching Sophia Loren as a delectable temptress and Burl Ives as a pathological caricature of all that a good father should not be – a grand piece of acting by Ives, and more murderous than his performances in, say, Cat on a hot tin roof (1958) or The Big Country (1958). What a banner year for that great performer.

Being a stage play, the film version faithfully adheres to that format: small sets, obvious backdrops, deep shadows, very obvious multiple lighting – all that you'd expect, as if you were in a theater, front row center, and as it should be for all O'Neill's plays.

Get it out from your video store or library, see it and enjoy; but don't expect too much from Perkins.

When "Desire Under the Elms" came out at the end of the 1950s, it was dismissed by critics who were more interested in parading their education and artistic credentials than in assessing the movie sensibly. In particular, they commented on how far the film fell short of the original stage play. Nearly fifty years later, a more balanced perspective is possible.

Regardless of how it compares with the theatrical original, "Desire Under The Elms" works successfully as a dramatic movie. There is real tension as the drama unfolds, and the audience feels a sense of horror when it realises what Anna (Sophia Loren) is going to do to prove her love. The resolution is genuinely tragic, and this is reinforced by the fact that the two lovers were unlikable people until love entered their lives and gave them humanity and consideration for others.

The acting is quite good all round, and presumably much of the credit goes to the director Delbert Mann. (Some of his other films during this period were also well-acted: "The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs"/"The Bachelor Party"). Sophia Loren is a real surprise. I have never worshipped at her throne, but she is excellent in this movie, playing a greedy, calculating woman who marries a much older man merely to have a comfortable home. At the beginning, her venality and disregard for other people make her highly unpleasant, and she is not particularly attractive physically either. As love gradually dominates her, she becomes physically very attractive - her fans, no doubt, will say she becomes beautiful - until the circumstances she has helped create imprison her. Then once again, her physical allure subsides and she becomes gaunt and drawn. Obviously this play with Sophia Loren's looks was a joint effort, and presumably the camera department, costume department and make-up department all deserve credit.

Daniel L. Fapp's Vista-Vision cinematography is crystal clear and a major asset. The film's only big failing is the blatant artificiality of the back drops. "Desire Under The Elms" was obviously made in a studio.

Ephraim Cabot is an old man of amazing vitality who loves his New England farm with a greedy passion. Hating him, and sharing his greed, are the sons of two wives Cabot has overworked into early graves. Most bitter is Eben, whose mother had owned most of the farm, and who feels who should be sole heir.

This is a great cast all around, with Burl Ives and Sophia Loren. But Anthony Perkins is the star of the show and really excels as a conflicted son and love interest. Over the years, he has become increasingly synonymous with Norman Bates, but films like this show he is more versatile than his later horror career suggests.

I wonder how audiences viewed the morals of this film in the 1950s. While not quite incestuous, there is a very questionable morality. If not from the son, at the very least from a wife who is romantically linked to two generations of the same family.

If you imagine yourself in a 1950s New York theatre surrounded by American anti-Communists wearing narrow ties and wanting to be cultured, you'll be able to connect with this wooden, would-be Greek tragedy. If not, don't go there, and get on board with TV's the Cartwrights, who seem to inhabit identical territory and period because they were performing almost simultaneously for an audience thousands of times bigger. It's worth watching for Antony Perkins, who is superbly mixed-up as an anti-authoritarian rebel determined to secure ownership of the family farm, but driven a bit strange by anxiety, paternal neglect and the early death of his mother. See him exit his lover's garden gate, pirouetting as he goes; or spinning in place before rising from his bed. It's so graceful you barely notice. He's like an 11 year-old, changing his mind every five minutes, madly self-conflicted as a result of his irresistible lust for the maid, sorry, his father's third wife. Sophia Loren is powerful in this picture, if you can follow her English. She really occupies her part and fills her space. The passion between her and Perkins would be almost believable, if it weren't expounded in this stagey setting, with neither Loren nor Perkins exposing any skin, which just adds to the sense of attending a school play. Actually, the basic material of Desire Under The Elms is purely adult, but somehow this production renders it about as sinful as Agatha Christie.

Loren and Perkins smoke up the screen in this black and white, well-done love story. It is fascinating to see how quickly an all-American father and son can be weak for the same foreign woman. Sophia is wonderfully foreign, very talented in an early role. Anthony Perkins and she have surprisingly strong chemistry, the first kiss between them is one of the hottest kisses in the cinema. Burl Ives does an outstanding job as the miserly father who nabs himself a young pretty foreign wife. Sophia makes you believe she is married to Burl, she represents many a foreign wife who have married for economy. Anthony Perkins shocks you with his hatred and rivalry with his father.

This movie was made primarily as a star vehicle and things like the artistic integrity of the plot were thought of as unimportant. Needless to say, the movie suffered noticeably.

I saw this movie originally as part of a course on plays made into movies. Though this wasn't the most badly manhandled of the plays that we studied, it is a close second to "Sexual Perversity in Chicago" which became "About Last Night" staring Rob Lowe and Demi Moore.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, but it could have been great.

As much as I hate to say it, this is one of the rare cases where a remake might be in order. It is possible to imagine that a director willing to make a more faithful rendition could easily create something better than the original.

After a couple of studio films shot on location, Italian actress and sex symbol Sophia Loren finally made it onto Hollywood soil for this uneven, uncertain melodrama adapted from Eugene O'Neill's controversial play. A tyrannical New England farmer (Burl Ives), who apparently worked his past two wives to death, brings home a new wife to meet his sons--two of whom take off for California and the third (Anthony Perkins) who stays and eventually falls in love with the Mrs. The performers seem to be at a mismatch with this very strange material; though they try hard, the heavy prose and illogical situations would be enough to defeat anybody. The character motivations aren't always clear, not helped by the narrative which, at a crucial point, jumps ahead in time and nearly alienates the audience. Ives gives a full-throttle, blustery-old-windbag performance which infuses the scenario with a prickly tension (and the screenplay surprisingly never scores points against him), but glinty-eyed Loren is a bit out of her depth. Still, she survives the absurd final reel with her dignity intact, while the picture ends on such a dour note that the overall impression is one of supreme dissatisfaction. Daniel L. Fapp won an Oscar nomination for his handsome (if overlit) photography; Delbert Mann directed in an awkward and stagy fashion. **1/2 from ****

It's a while since I saw this film, but it has remained in my memory ever since. A solid drama with some impressive performances by Anthony Perkins, Burl Ives and Sophia Loren. Story of a classic father vs son conflict, it shows how love can have a destructive power as in the end it shows that effect on its protagonists, Perkins and Loren. Sophia Loren's character is quite impressive, but thats hardly a surprise knowing that it was created by Eugene O'Neill. She succeeds bringing it to life admirably. Anthony Perkins makes one of his best performances, especially in his early career.

This is a really pleasant experience for fans of good drama and coupled with some great scenery and the appeal of Loren and Perkins in their prime years, this comes off as a cross between "Wuthering Heights" and "Gone with the Wind". A wonderful film.

Hollywood, the factory of mass entertainment, has occasionally felt the need to produce films that are, for want of a better word, 'worthy'. There are notable exceptions of course in the case of Sidney Lumet, William Wyler and Daniel Mann but generally the attempts to bring plays to the screen are hampered by cinema's constraints and compromises.

Of all the ancient Greek dramatists it is the works of Euripides with their psychological penetration and destructive passions that have had the greatest influence on future dramatists and Eugene O'Neill's play 'Desire under the Elms' is inspired by the tragic love triangle of Phaedra, Hippolytus and Theseus. Adapting O'Neill for the screen has long been a thorny problem and has resulted in more misses than hits. This particular film, directed by Delbert Mann, must I fear, fall into the 'miss' category.

Burl Ives, although a far cry from the 'tall and gaunt' Ephraim of O'Neill's imagining, is simply stupendous in the role. 1958 was to be an annus mirabilis for him as he also gave us Big Daddy and picked up an Oscar for his Rufus in 'The Big Country'. Anthony Perkins as his son Eben is fine and utilises his rather neurotic persona to great effect. The weak link is the casting of Sophia Loren whose character's name has been changed, unsurpisingly, from Abbie to Anna. Of the five films she made for Paramount this is by far the most challenging. It is not that she is bad in the role but it comes too soon in her career. She certainly has the talent but lacks the skill to tackle such a complex character. That skill of course would develop under the guidance of her 'Svengali', Vittorio de Sica.

Delbert Mann has mainly kept the piece within the proscenium arch but the staginess is all too apparent and the overall effect is both lame and tame. He is alas totally out of his depth in this material and the commercially cynical attempt to capitalise on La Loren's sexual charisma has done the original no service whatsoever. Oh well, that's Hollywood!

Desire Under the Elms is one of those films that is a lethal combination: sordid and sluggish. It's not as though it would have been much better or less offensive if it went at a faster clip, but the funereal pacing only makes you recognize how hopeless it all is. The three leads try (and Burl Ives in particular gets well into the part), but at this point, the tale of a forbidden love affair and its consequences, once a much praised play by Eugene O'Neill, feels more like one of those horribly overheated and vulgar true crime stories that feature on TV as you race to move on to another channel. What can you really say when you can't stand any of the parties in this love (or is it lust) triangle? As Audrey Hepburn might have said in Breakfast at Tiffany's, they are all "superrats". What little there is that is salvageable to some degree is the remarkably crisp black-and-white cinematography and yet another fine musical score by Elmer Bernstein. Otherwise, a complete wash.

Eugene O'Neill is an author where virtually everyone seems compelled to pan any movie versus the stage production of any of his works -- and professional critics almost alway seem to have to criticize (endlessly) any subsequent stage production versus predecessors.

Whatever... this film is excellent - and now, as with any from its period of original release, provides a substantial nostalgic bonus, to view the work from its original period, as well as seeing these actors (some now gone, all others much older) as they were "then."

The scenes between Loren and Perkins - an unlikely pairing when viewed "on paper," are surprisingly engaging and steamy now (and with a CAPITAL "S" then).

Burl Ives is a conceited, domineering, hypercritical, even cruel, sort of "Big Daddy to the umpteenth power." In fact, he makes Big Dady, and, say, Orson Welles' Will Varner in "The Long, Hot Summer," look like pussycats.

To classify O'Neill's drama as dark probably is redundant - but that's his appeal, which he carries-off superbly, here and in his other works, whether on screen or stage. This is a real classic.

Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 "Western". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.

Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.

The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles "My Bonnie" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.

Critics knocking Sophia Lorens "command of the English language" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into "proper Italian". Her "accent", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.

"Desire Under The Elms" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall "pay off" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!

(This was my first IMDB review)

Occasionally, an old movie surprises me with it's subject matter, acting, and intensity. Sophia Loren is plenty sexy on a desolate farm full of unattractive men, and her beauty stand out against the homely Anthony Perkins or the fat and angry Burl Ives.

This is a tale of desperation, told with some great acting and a twist ending. Better than most old dramas of the time period.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting - 1/1;

Casting - 1/1;

Directing - 1/1;

Story - 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay - 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers:

Originality: +1 (The story may seem generic, but the acting and the writing make this an original film that stands out against similar plots in the genre.);

Total Real Review Rating: 6.

Overwrought is too mild a word for this lulu of a Gothic melodrama. Of course being a Eugene O'Neill story the epic tragedy is no surprise but it is turned out in purple prose and declamatory acting. Sophia looks beautiful and full of ripe sensuality but as adrift as the rest of the cast. Burl Ives is made up to look older than his years but just looks foolish and Anthony Perkins keeps his twitchy intensity mostly under control but the film is just short of operatic overstatement which make it hard to take. Add into that the obviously fake settings and the whole thing is too much. Delbert Mann could be a fine director but he has no handle on this material.

Never viewed this film and was completely surprised at the great acting by Burl Ives, (Ephriam Cabot) and Sophia Loren, (Anna Cabot). Ephriam is an old man who runs his farm with a steel arm and treats his son's like dirt and he manages to work his wives to death on the farm. There are three sons and two of them decide to run off and go to California. While, Eben Cabot, (Anthony Perkins) stays on. Eben was very close to his real mother and she told him the farm was his and she also told Eben where Ephriam hid his money under a rock in the woods. Ephriam decides to find another wife and chooses a young 25 year old gal from Italy, Anna Cabot, (Sophia Loren) who makes herself right at home on the farm and manages to wrap her 76 year old husband around her little finger. Eben does not get along with Anna very much at first, but things do start to happen to these two in a romantic way. Excellent film and the ending you will never be able to figure out. Enjoy.

I know nothing of the play by Eugene O'Neill that some reviewers describe and watched this film in 2021 merely because of the cast. It stands alone as a movie in that respect, brilliantly directed by Delbert Mann, a director I'm also unfamiliar with. Yes, I guess it's stagey but nevertheless I found it atmospheric from the first few minutes when we are introduced to the family, headed by patriarch Burl Ives who gives an almost Shakespearean performance. Anthony Perkins, who I was first made aware of as a kid in Friendly Persuasion is superb as the brooding one amongst Ive's three sons. I got so into the story, in spite of the limited presentation, that I was gripped from beginning to end. It's basically a plot about a family of very selfish people, who are prepared to lust and steal and kill to obtain their desires. In spite of it being well known that Anthony Perkins was gay, he still manages to exude a sexual chemistry with screen legend Sophia Loren that I could feel generating from the screen. Perkins and Loren were only in their early twenties at the time but their charisma blasts out at you. Burl Ives gives a towering performance of a man of 76 when in fact he was only 48. You'll spot Pernell Robert's also from Bonanza as one of the brothers if you're old enough to have seen that. A riveting drama unless possibly you're a purist like some viewers who can only compare it to the stage production. I for one thought it Oscar worthy all round and Loren is so sexy she compares to Monroe from the same period.

The acting is superb, but O'Neill, as usual, does not make a too convincing story. Sophia Loren shines from the very beginning she steps into the hut of the living dead, who don't know they are living dead - the brothers try to escape the fact by leaving for California, but Burl Ives as Ephraim is hopelessly stuck in his own absurd morbidity. Anthony Perkins as Eben tries to rebel but fails, seems to succeed in falling for Sophia Loren but blows it, and so it all ends up in a totally unnecessary and illogical disaster, maybe just for the dramatic effect of it - that was maybe O'Neill's idea. It's difficult to find any better one. The highlight of the film is the christening party, when Burl Ives really bursts forth without reins turning his own party into a rowdy scandal - without being aware of it himself. That's maybe my chief objection against most of O'Neill's plays - his characters never realize their own limitations, and so there is almost no psychology, and the result is rather casual and almost base. The cinematography is good, Elmer Bernstein's music is quite appropriate, and all the lesser characters, especially at the party, are excellent. But all you have in the end is the total void of the desolation of the leading man's desperate futility.

It's an interesting movie, with a very good story from Eugene O'Neill...The drama is well performed by the protagonists, specially Sophia Loren (less by Perkins). Among the secondary roles, there is a little jewel with Pernell Roberts' performance: his Peter Cabot is a perfect creature from an actor. The action is well developed, the dramatism grows up. If not a great movie, it's an interesting one...

Desire Under the Elms (1958)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Ephraim Cabot (Burt Ives) is an elderly man who loves his New England farm more than anything that has ever entered his life. He drove two wives to an early death and drove two sons away to his constant abuse over the work he requires done on the farm. His youngest son, Ebon (Anthony Perkins) believes the farm should be his when his father dies because it originally belonged to his mother before being stolen by Ephraim. Ebon lives with the abuse because he loves the land and hopes to own it one day. After leaving for six weeks, Ephraim returns home with a new bride, a 25-year-old Anna (Sophia Loren) who sees the farm as a way to escape her pass. Ebon knows that when his father dies the farm will be left to his new stepmother and the greed and jealousy comes to the surface but soon he begins to fall for Anna and their plans for the future are put on hold due to the old man who simply refuses to die.

Desire Under the Elms is based on the play by Eugene O'Neill, which I had no prior knowledge of before this movie and if the movie is anything like the play, it's certainly brave in its themes but in the end it just left a really bad taste in my mouth. The film tries to do a lot of things from telling the ugly side of greed, to a good love story and the ugliness that can come from all of these things but it's that ugliness that really killed the film for me in its final act, which is so incredibly bad that I was tempted to shut the film off.

The first act of the film wonders around a bit too much as we get introduced to all the characters who aren't anything we haven't seen before. The film spends way too much time telling us how angry Ebon is and after a while it starts to become quite laughable because the melodrama is so thick when less would have been more. The Bible-quoting father also doesn't do much as he comes off looking like such a fool we can't help but laugh at him the entire way. The screenplay goes way too thick in the drama that it gives the viewer way too much to laugh at, which isn't a good thing.

The second act is a lot more interesting and the film finally starts to come to life as the wife and her new stepson fall in love, which sets the film in a new direction. How the two come together isn't all that believable but Loren is such a beauty that we overlook this and just go along for the ride until that final act happens, which is so incredibly bleak and ugly that I wanted to jump through the screen and kill all three of the leads. I have no problems with a dark subject matter but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed unless the script knows what it's going to do and there's a good reason for doing it. To me, the ending just didn't have any of the class it needed for the thing to work and I suppose the director was trying to put a love stamp on it but I left the film being very angry.

Sophia Loren is the one thing that keeps the film afloat and I was quite impressed with her acting job here. At the start of the film she's playing a cold-hearted bitch and she pulls this off remarkably well making the viewer know exactly why the son hates her so much. When the love story kicks in she also comes off very well as a victim and even in the final actor Loren brings some grace to her character. Burt Ives is an actor I've always admired very much and he comes off very nice here during the quiet moments where the viewer can somewhat start to care for him. Whenever Ives is screaming his Bible talk, it just doesn't work. The dancing sequence with Ives is a classic however.

Anthony Perkins is another favorite of mine and he was a good character actor but unfortunately he brings this film down a few notches. It seems as if Perkins doesn't know how to play the role because he's all over the map throughout the film. He comes off looking really bad during all the dramatic scenes when he tries to be serious by speaking in a deeper, slower voice, which just doesn't work. The music score by Elmer Bernstein is very nice and the Academy Award winning cinematography shows off the farmland very nicely. Desire Under the Elms tries to be a serious film and while I admire the attempt at something different, the end results just left a bad taste in my mouth that I couldn't wash away.