Opiniones de usuarios

Conte plays Felipe Rivera, a Mexican who joins up with a revolutionary group trying to wrest the country from its current leadership. His motivation is unclear to begin with but a long flashback takes care of that. Rivera's chief means of assisting the cause is boxing to raise cash for it. The film is flawed, there's no getting away from that. It has plenty of very wooden, stereotypical acting and the script is pretty crude. But there is some outstanding camera-work here (James Wong Howe was cinematographer, along with an uncredited Floyd Crosby, who shot High Noon and worked on From Here to Eternity), especially the boxing scenes but there are great moments throughout, and Conte's performance is another highlight. His role is ultimately more three dimensional than is often the case (in my experience - seen 9 of his films) and his fight scenes are great. Conte fans will almost certainly enjoy the film. Cobb's performance (as the leader of the revolutionaries) will divide viewers, but I enjoyed it - enthusiasm over realism. All in all, good fun. It's public domain and you can watch it online on The Internet Archive.

Richard Conte does a fine job playing a young Mexican prizefighter in the early years of the last century. It's a trade he took to in an effort to raise money for the cause of overthrowing Porfirio Diaz.

I have to confess I was a bit shocked learning that this film comes from a Jack London novel based on a real character, at least according to the narration. Fine writer that he was London had some truly racist views on Asians. Apparently that did not hold true for Hispanics.

The plot has Conte falling under the influence of revolutionary Lee J. Cobb after his village is destroyed in a barbaric act perpetrated by one of Diaz's generals Rodolfo Hoyos. Conte flees to El Paso and hooks up with the exiled supporters of Francisco Madero.

Where in order first to just have three hots and a cot he takes up prizefighting and gets quite a local reputation as an up and coming club fighter. Let's say Conte out of necessity finds a way to combine his newly acquired pugilistic skills with his revolutionary politics. His fight scene at the climax of The Fighter is one of the most brutal ever filmed.

London liked telling tales of the brutal realistic underbelly of society and in The Fighter he also mixes his politics in with his skill as a writer. This is a really good adaption of one of his stories. Fans of London, Conte, and Lee J. Cobb will like it and others will become fans.

This isn't so much a boxing movie as a peasant rebelling against a cruel dictatorship movie. Richard Conte (who, at 42, was about 15 years too old for the role of Felipe Rivera) plays the peasant in question who flees to New Mexico to raise funds for the rebellion after his beloved is murdered by troops. The film is a clumsy amalgamation of two stories - Rivera's life as a peasant, and his attempts to raise money to buy guns for the rebellion through boxing - the former of which is sandwiched between the latter as an extended flashback. As always in this type of film all the peasants are decent noble types and all the troops are leering sadists.

Lee J. Cobb plays Durango, the heroic rebel leader and he isn't that great. He was called upon a few times in his career to portray latino types and, with his tendency to exaggerate the accents he was never convincing. In fact the film is fairly ordinary throughout and directed in a workmanlike manner by Herbert Kline (who also wrote), although the fight sequences are fairly good for the time. This is one for Conte completists only.

This film is never mentioned by the film historians when listing great sports films. Richard Conte was brilliant and made this adaptation of the great Jack London's "The Mexican" a true representation. The director and castings reflect the era of the Mexican revolution. I do not have a biography of Conte, but he must have been either a boxer or an athlete of some ability. Lee J. Cobb was equally brilliant. Why it is not aired or remains buried, is a mystery.

Richard Conte walks into the Maduro office just across the river from Mexico. He has been sent by the head of the guerillas, Lee J. Cobb. He has no proof, just his word; at first they think he may be a Diaz spy, so they set him to mopping the floor, and tell him he can't stay there at night, even though he says he has no money. He shows up the next day with twenty dollars, which he gives to the cause. Eventually Vanessa Brown gets his story from him. He is from a small village which the Federales have been taxing to death. Cobb showed up alone. They hid him, and the Federales killed everyone and burned the village. The money is from acting as a sparring partner at a local boxing gym.

Conte plays his role as angry as possible, with no words, just body language. Cobb plays his at his biggest, which is immense. Fortunately, Conte has a weapon on his side; the cameraman is James Wong Howe, and the boxing match at the end is as brutal as any put on the screen, long shots (using a body double for Conte, hunched over) and closeups of the two men's upper bodies, trading blows alternately. No one could shoot a fight in black and white like Howe.

It's from a Jack London story, "The Mexican." I probably read it almost fifty years ago, but have no memory of it. I expect I'll remember this movie.

As I watched "The Fighter", I enjoyed the movie very much. However, again and again, I kept asking myself "why did they change the original story so much?" as I watched. In a few cases, perhaps it made some sense...but often it just didn't...and I cannot understand why they didn't trust the original Jack London story ("The Mexican").

Richard Conte, of all people, stars as Felipe Rivera. Casting him and Lee J. Cobb as Durango just seemed weird. After all, they clearly were NOT Hispanic and had no trace of a Mexican accent. I am not saying this because I am Mr. Political Correctness...it's more that it really seemed unrealistic to have the pair playing Mexicans.

Rivera recently crossed the border from Mexico to El Paso, Texas. It turns out his village was wiped out by federal troops loyal to the dictator, Porfirio Diaz...President for Life in Mexico. Now he plans on working with other dissidents in Texas to help topple the regime. His greatest skill is his ability in the boxing ring and he boxes to fund the revolution.

As I mentioned above, a lot of details from the original story were changed...and in some case I had no idea why. For example, Rivera murders an evil General....but in the movie the victim is a Colonel and he's not killed by Rivera but shot by revolutionaries. Also, the reason for Rivera's village being wiped out was changed...perhaps because the production company thought it might seem 'left wing' to have them killed following a strike by employees. All I know is that I sure would have liked to have seen the original tale.

Now if you ignore the changes and weird casting, the film STILL is quite good....slightly better than the very low overall score listed for the movie on IMDB. Not great...but very good despite itself.

By the way, although it's not important, I noticed that when Rivera and the lady went to the shooting booth at the carnival, they never paid to play the game yet were given prizes after shooting. Not paying their dimes was an interesting tiny omission.

At the time this film was released in 1952 I was a sophomore intercollegiate boxer (135 lbs, 6'2"). I saw the film twice in 1952. I had seen other boxing films but none as realistic as boxing by Richard Conte. He was an incredibly talented and under rated actor. In you love boxing see this film! Conte looks like and moves like a boxer. Considering Conte was 42 years old at the time this film was made he appears in remarkable physical condition. Not only is the boxing itself "real" but the ostensible purpose of the boxing matches make sense. Conte's people need guns and he boxes to get money for those guns. It is difficult to remember scenes of a film I saw 56 years ago. I do remember that Conte during the course of boxing matches appeared to be exhausted just would a real boxer after a match. Of course the weight class I boxed, and especially intercollegiate boxing, is never designed to injure/harm anyone. Real boxing is designed to injure/damage the opponent.

Plot-- A peasant rebel fighting against Mexico's government in the early 1900's is separated from the main force and seeks to rejoin them with the 1000 rifles they need. But the only way he can finance the rifles is by returning to the boxing ring.

Oddball movie adapted from a Jack London story. I expect London's version gels better than the film, though the latter does have its moments. Unfortunately, the boxing sequences are typical Hollywood hokum in which blockbuster punches never miss nor is defense ever practiced. I guess that's because missed round-houses and defensive jabbing lack drama while film is expensive. Nonetheless, photographer Howe (and perhaps uncredited Crosby) alternate camera angles in unusual and compelling fashion that keep the viewer interested.

Too bad, IMDb doesn't report where the Mexican scenes were filmed, because the grimy hovels and city streets look authentic as heck. I wish I could say the same for the clumsy exterior backdrops that mar some scenes, but at least they're not over-used. Still, there are several darn near sublime scenes. That's when the camera suddenly drops us behind the lovers sitting seaside. In contrast to the movie's high-key lighting, this is a poetic night world in which the lovers appear to contemplate a noirish eternity that stretches out before them. To me, these are the movie highlights.

As an old movie fan, I'd never heard of this 1952 indie entry. Moreover, I expect it got crushed by the same year's release of Marlon Brando's Viva Zapata. Then too, I expect political lefties like actor Cobb, writer Kandel, and director Kline were drawn to the politically charged material. Unfortunately, for them and maybe the film too, the McCarthy purges of Hollywood lefties was gaining momentum. So likely a cheap indie like this didn't get much distribution, nor do I recall it showing up on a late show in film-conscious LA.

That fine actor Conte manages in the lead role, while Cobb's out-sized presence fits that of a revolutionary leader. Nonetheless, the conflicting sides are made up of stereotypes, right down to the well-scrubbed peasant women and the cruel Federales. All in all, the 70-minutes has an interesting look to it. Yet the parts do shift back and forth erratically, failing ultimately to merge into anything memorable.

The film is too short and ends where it actually should begin. However, those intense 90 minutes are loaded with drama and pathos, and Richard Conte (although too old for the role) is perfect in characters like this, the underdog who has nothing to lose (having lost everything already) and for that reason the more to fight for. Lee J. Cobb as the rebel leader Durango is always good and reliable, and the only objection against the film should be against its abrupt ending without a proper finish. What makes the film enjoyable, in spite of all the atrocities and rough fighting, is the delicious guitar music all through by Vicente Gomez, which actually adds a dimension of poetry to the drama. The Mexical scenes are delightful, reminding of films like "The Mark of Zorro" and the Mexican "The Pearl", and you are grateful for the idylls like oases in this grim drama of revolution and oppression. Richard Conte is always good and worth watching, and perhaps here more so than usual.

All long this excellent little social drama, I thought of John Garfield in the main lead character. But don't misundertand me, Richard Conte is excellent though, I would say as powerful, impressive, I mean for this film. Not for the whole Garfield career; Garfield was greater than Conte. That said, I did not know this director Herbert Kline, whose career was really short. This explains that. The movie is unfortunately too much predictable. That's not my all time favourite in terms of social drama, I guess that one or two decades before, starring Henry Fonda or Richard Barthelmess, it would have been better. With also a William Wellman behind the camera. It would have been a topic for him.