Pandora und der fliegende Holländer

Albert Lewin's work as director had not impressed me prior to seeing "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" I found myself frankly quite bored by his version of Maugham's "The Moon and Sixpence" as well as "The Private Affairs of Bel Ami". "The Picture of Dorian Gray" has quite the reputation, but I unfortunately haven't seen it yet.

'Exceeded expectations' cannot begin to describe how surprised I was at how absorbing, intense, captivating, and utterly gorgeous "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" is. Sure, there are flaws, mostly in the script which occasionally seems to think it's smarter than it actually is and goes for the sort of intrusive voice-over narration that never fails to annoy, but also in scenes where Lewin's decisions as director become frustrating and in the score which is generally quite good but often overbearing.

Regardless of its flaws, "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" is a literate, creative, fairly original, and exceptionally well-acted film, with the exceptional feature of being photographed by Jack Cardiff OBE, who was on quite a run going into this film having photographed the three Powell/Pressburger classics from the 40's: "A Matter of Life and Death", "Black Narcissus", and "The Red Shoes" as well as the underrated if not exactly great 1949 Hitchcock offering "Under Capricorn". James Mason and Ava Gardner are really excellent here in the lead roles.

I was not looking forward to "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" but I found myself very pleasantly surprised by it. It's far from a perfect film but I did find it to be quite excellent; even the melodrama that tends to bother me in romances from this era of film worked in the context of this film. A surprisingly good film, overall.

8/10

Funny thing about the legend of the Flying Dutchman is that nobody knows what it exactly is all about. Different stories about the history of the alleged ghost ship exist and different names of its captain also float around. Hendrik van der Zee, as he is being called in this movie, is one of them.

This is a movie I just can't really put my finger on. I don't understand what this movie is trying to tell really. It's hard to label this movie as well. It's a romantic drama with fantasy elements in it as well. It doesn't have an everyday story and also some not so everyday characters in it. Guess the movie is about love and human nature but for me it wasn't very appealing all. The main characters are quite repulsive ones, of which the female deliberately hurt other persons feelings to get what she want and the man killed the woman he loved out of sheer jealousy. Why should we care about a love story between these two. Of course the characters redeem themselves but no, I just wasn't drawn into it.

It's also a rather slowly paced movie. Some excitement wouldn't had harmed the movie. Not that it's dull but its slow pace just makes the movie drag on in parts. You have the feeling that the movie could had easily been halve an hour shorter. The movie does still takes some nice turns though, making this movie all in all still a perfectly watchable one.

The movie is also good looking. It's a period piece, shot in color. It actually was the first motion color picture Ava Gardner appeared in. It still obviously wan't the most expensive movie to shoot, judging by its visual qualities but it helps that movie that it was being shot at location rather than in sound-studio somewhere.

Ava Gardner and James Mason are both obviously some capable actors but because I just wasn't drawn into the movie and it's story I also didn't really got into their characters. Can't blame the actors for that really, since they are obviously doing the best they can with the material given to them.

By all means its not a badly made and constructed movie, I had just wished it's execution would had been a bit more lively and perhaps also some more fun. The movie is being mostly serious of tone, making this movie more heavy than it really should be.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

There is much to enjoy in this legendary tale. The story is well told and quickly grabs the viewer. I thought the Spanish setting was perfect and the land speed record and bullfighting scenes in the main convincingly shot. The extraordinary use of Technicolor gives the whole picture an almost dream like ethereal look and many scenes have an almost surreal quality. The whole cast are splendid with Ava Gardner particularly spellbinding - I can't think of any actress today who could carry her role as convincingly.

.... cause ,though a bit too long,"Pandora" is an unique film .It is part of those movies in which love refutes everything ,including space and time.It is continuously constructed and when it's over we have the strange feeling of having come full circle.

"Pandora" is wrapped in mystery and it renewed the genre which "Peter Ibbetson "and "portrait of Jennie" had pioneered in the thirties and late forties which "Somewhere in Time" (based on a Richard Matheson novel) would continue in the eighties.

Ava Gardner,the most beautiful woman of that era (and for me the most beautiful woman of all time) is ideally cast as the female lead.Who else could play such a gorgeous creature ?James Mason gives a tormented heartrending performance.

Albert Lewin made few movies but the best of them (the picture of Dorian Gray" "the private Affairs of Bel-Ami" ) are worth seeking out.The only real horror is "Saadia" which even Michel Simon could not redeem.

Ava Gardner and James Mason would play another legendary couple (real this time):Francis-Joseph and Elisabeth of Austria.("Mayerling",Terence Young,1968)

I was an usher in the Paramount Theater in Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania when this film came out. That's when ushers were ushers! I must have seen the picture 30 times while working. The picture was not popular at the time -- and I had a heck of a time understanding it. But I do remember being fascinated by the scenery. The film was initially promoted as "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" -- but when it came to the Paramount, they changed the name to "The Loves of Pandora". I have no clue why that change was made -- but I remember that the revised title as it appeared on the screen was sort of "home made" and not of the quality of a new film. Were they experimenting with changing the name to get more patrons? I have not read anything about this anywhere on the internet. I have always been curious about this picture and intend to rent it to see it now that I'm 75 years old and may understand it at this stage of my life -- a full 58 years after seeing it at the Paramount.