Reviews

My title for this review says it all. The script was predictable and sophomoric, more like a high school play. The make-up and hair-dos were perfect for 1969, instead of the silent film era. Dick Van Dyke does the most with what's there, but even his (and Carl Reiner's) gigantic talents couldn't save this spoonful of nothingness.

What a waste of talent! So many familiar, capable actors in an embarrassingly bad movie! Is it trying to make a statement about slavery and racial exploitation? A little, here and there. But if that's the point, it's lost in a nonsensical plot with trite dialogue and stereotypical characters. The most glaring issue (besides the plot, with many scenes making no LOGICAL, temporal sense) is the clearly 1950s dress styles masquerading as antebellum fashions, but with hoop skirts. The other production values are fine -- typical mid-50s stuff. The music score from the master (Max Steiner) is fine, but again, it's lost behind the senselessness of the plot. It's always fun to see movie stars in their earliest roles, but even the fun of seeing young Sidney Poitier, or the pre-Lily Munster Yvonne De Carlo, or the late-in-career Clark Gable, isn't worth having to watch the rest of this stupid attempt to make a meaningful statement about race and values in the antebellum South.

My headline really says it all. The effects are so hyper-real that one can almost forget that they are man-made, and the talents of the stars doing the various animals' voices are great!

My concern is the levels of anxiety-producing violence (and threats of violence) in the film. I suppose that after the first viewing, a kid would know how each scene ends, so maybe they wouldn't be that scared any more. But a first viewing would be way too intense for any kid under about 10. Which makes the PG rating appropriate. But, as we know, too many parents don't pay attention to the ratings, and they take even little kids to films like this and/or buy the DVD, which I think isn't good for them.

I'm also sad that the tiger is the bad guy in this film. As we know, the number of tigers in the wild is only in the hundreds at this point, so they are very close to extinction. Yes, yes -- I know that's how Kipling wrote the stories, but it still makes me sad that kids may start judging tigers to be evil because of this movie.

Unlike previous commentary here, I thought that both principal actors did a good job (Lana Turner and John Shelton), but even good acting by the principals and the bit players as well, can't rescue a terrible plot. Honestly, I think this had every cliché and/or hackneyed phrase in the book, and almost every plot point followed a tired (and very stupid) formula. Here's an example: The couple learns they are pregnant, but they don't have money for a private doctor to deliver the baby. Wifey says, "I'll happily go to a clinic," but husband, in pure idiocy, claims that "No wife of mine will be going to a clinic!" Which promptly causes him to take out usurious payday loans, which make for terrible troubles that cause them to hit rock bottom for a while. I am SHOCKED that Dalton Trumbo wrote the script! I mean - Jeez - that's the guy who wrote "Spartacus" and "Roman Holiday"! In any case, this is worth watching only if you're in the mood to see a young Lana Turner, an underrated male actor in the lead, and what must have been Dalton Trumbo's C- attempt at a script when he was in Middle School.

I've seen this movie dozens of times and never get tired of it. It's beautifully acted, and directed with great sensitivity by Elia Kazan. It centers on Francie, especially her blind hero worship for her alcoholic father. We see that even with his alcoholism, he is able to impart great love and wisdom to Francie that help her survive and grow up despite the many troubles she and her family encounter. Francie is like the beloved tree outside her window that got cut down, yet which grows again through cracks in the sidewalk.

Francie's relationship with her mother and her brother are also interesting, though secondary to the story of Francie and her father in the first half of the movie.

This is by far my favorite role by Dorothy McGuire, playing a woman who has to be "hard" to make up for her impractical, alcoholic, fantasy-driven husband. She shows her love in ways completely opposite to the ways that her husband does. Between the two parents, we see a perhaps-necessary balance of opposites. I've also always loved the roles played by Joan Blondell as Francie's man-hungry aunt, and Lloyd Nolan as the neighborhood cop. Joan Blondell's role brings touches of comedy into this wonderful drama about life and love and growing up in the city.

I just wish that Turner Classic Movies would show this film again! I think they haven't showed it in years! I think it should be shown regularly, twice a year at the very least. it is a treasure.

Spoilers

Everything in the film seems as real as real can be - so much so, in fact, that I am convinced that the angry butchering of the helpless large shark on deck was real. I had to turn my eyes away right away, but I saw enough to be convinced that this was a real shark and he suffered terribly. I'm also pretty sure that the parrot's death was real, although I can't be as sure about that. I know I'm going to have nightmares about that shark's horrible death.

As to the actual expedition, it was truly one of the most remarkable experiments/adventures in modern history. It is amazing that everyone who participated survived!

I remember the actress Ruth Gordon quite well. She was quite a character! This film gives us a wonderful glimpse into how her career started.

This cast contains some of my most-favorite-ever actors, especially Jean Simmons, Anthony Perkins, and Teresa Wright. It is filled with great humanity and wonderful humor, thanks especially to Spencer Tracy's great delivery of his character's lines. The scenes involving the early home telephone are particularly chuckle-worthy.

It's a simple film about "ordinary" people and a long-ago era, but it shines in every detail, in every scene, in every line. I'm always pleased to find it airing on TCM every so often.

1. This is a movie, folks. Yes, based on a novel, but it was just that - a novel. Uris didn't claim to be writing a history textbook. As with all memorable literature, he tweaked some facts and embroidered his landscape with memorable fictional characters (although yes, many were based on real-life people.) So it's not appropriate to criticize either the novel or the book for not getting every historical fact absolutely right.

2. This is a MOVIE, folks. Based on a novel, but it's still a movie. Which meant that the actors were cast for a variety of reasons, one of which was solid bank-ability at the box office. To those who complained that Eva Marie Saint is too old in this film, I'd like to remind them that she was only a few months older (in real life) than Paul Newman was. And having her a bit older than the character in the novel is fine, since she brings a different life perspective than someone in her 20s would have. Especially since she was playing a widow. just mho.

3. What has depressed me is that this IMDb discussion of a movie has brought out the Haters. I don't mean people who hated the movie; I mean people who hate Jews and the State of Israel. Apparently, no amount of art, or even actual history, will ever be enough for some people to stop hating, to get them to stop looking for every possible opportunity to malign any group of people they get something -- however perverse or destructive -- out of hating.

4. My personal opinion of this movie is that it's an excellent MOVIE. It entertains. It teaches us a few basic facts about the creation of Israel that most of us never learned in school. It is well-cast, well-acted, well-directed, and well-photographed. In addition, it has a great score throughout the film (not just the very memorable main theme.) I saw it at a movie theater when I was fairly young, and I've probably seen it on TV over a dozen times since then. I also read the novel (a long time ago), but if I've learned anything over the years, it's that movies and novels are different animals that can't fairly be compared page-for-page, so to speak. Heck - ever read "Gone With The Wind?" In the novel, Scarlett has one child with each of her husbands, but in the movie, she only has the one child, with Rhett. But no one complains about it because it's a damn good movie. And so is "Exodus." It's damn good movie.

Robert Vaughn and Terence Stamp are two of my all-time favorite actors, and they never give disappointing performances. However, even their prodigious talents couldn't save this film. The film descends into hackneyed clichés and ultimately disappoints. It wound up being a cross between "Charly" and "Frankenstein."

I should add that it was great seeing Judy Parfitt (currently one of the nuns on "Call The Midwife" on the PBS series) in her much-younger days, and Nigel Davenport, an under-appreciated actor who should have been given more leading roles during his long career, imho.

In summary, I think it's worthwhile to see this film once, if only for the great cast.