Las nieves del Kilimanjaro

I usually like old films and the title and cast of this one seemed a good bet. What a disappointment. Peck is grossly miscast - he's just not the gigolo he's portrayed, nor does he look like a man who's dying. Nor does 'Cynthia Green' convince me, even the name is too boring for the beautiful Ava Gardner. And the 'hunting' scene - sorry, standing in front of somebody else's adventure backdrop is again unconvincing as are the actual rhino shots, another time another place. The whole script is endlessly boring and I can't wait to get rid of it to the charity shop where I found it. And the 'Africans' - who are they kidding? 'What's he gonna do, sprinkle me with monkey dust?" Oh Lord, somebody please put him out of his misery and dismantle the set. The 'natives' did try to sound as though they'd learned their lines and that unconvincing chant with the luckless rhino head on a stretcher PULEASE! i don't know how painful gangrene is but Peck sure is bearing up well considering he only had his bandage changed but once and did he utter a sound when Hayward lanced the horrid green swelling? Nope, just looked his normal handsome self. Perhaps Humphrey Bogart might have managed this ponderously awful script better..but even he can't do miracles. The only one who deserved an Oscar was the hyena sniffing around the tent with a view to his next meal.

Director Henry King is what keeps this movie from getting 10 stars. Yet, despite his poor cinematography, poor directing and failure to take advantage of scenic backdrops (yet they shine through occasionally), the cast and the story save the film.

Peck portrays former Chicago Times journalist Harry Street, a fictional character penned by Ernest Hemmingway, portraying a strong glimpse himself . . . a bit ego-centric while feigning humility and modesty. Peck is superb at bringing Harry Street to life . . . and Hemmingway is always looming in the background of Street's character, like a phantom . . . the boozing womanizer, masking his insecurities with alcohol, egotism, aloofness toward other's feelings and needs. The beautiful, sexy, gorgeous Ava Gardner, one of the VERY few Hollywood starlets who could actually act, gives an excellent performance as the emotionally insecure, very dependent, sexually charged, less than moral, love of his life. Co-dependency could have been based on her character, Cynthia Green. Cynthia was too insecure to let Street live his life . . . Street was too self-centered and aloof to recognize Cynthia's emotional needs . . . very Hemmingway!

As he lay delirious on a bed in Africa, from a thorn scratch infection, snow covered Mt. Kilimanjaro looming in the background, Street recalls the lost loves of his past years, with Cynthia dominating his memories, as his one true love. His current wife, Helen, portrayed by Susan Hayward, tries desperately to find her place in his life, always feeling herself in the shadow of Cynthia and a later love, Countess Liz, played by Hildegard Neff, a selfish and insecure socialite, desperate to hang onto Street. Feverishly, Street flows in and out of consciousness, the scenes from his memories playing out in his mind, as Helen compassionately wipes his sweaty brow and tries to care for him, as he pushes her away.

This is a good film! Hemmingway fans should receive it well, as should fans of Peck and Gardner.

This film has been in the public domain for years and every copy I've seen on video or DVD as well as the ones I've seen on TV all feature a pretty lousy print. Perhaps there is a clean one out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. And, after watching the film all the way through (something I have attempted unsuccessfully before on several occasions), I could see why no one bothered to protect the copyright on this film. While it isn't exactly bad, it's so dull and uninspired that I am sure nobody even cared to worry about royalties! Now think about it,...the film stars Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Susan Hayward and is based on the tumultuous life of Ernest Hemmingway and it still is very dull in places and at best an ordinary film (though I won't be that generous).

So why is it such a disappointment? Well, the biggest problem was just how cheap the film looked. The location scenes clearly look like they were filmed by a second unit without the stars and the close-up scenes appear as if they were poorly staged in front of filmed footage. While I might expect this sort of sloppiness from an old one-reel comedy, I don't expect it from a big-budget film with top Hollywood talent. It really looked as if they spent too much on the stars and had nothing left to make the film! The other problem was that although Hemingway led a very adventurous life and traveled the world, once you dig beneath the exterior, you are left with a pretty rotten person who isn't exactly cuddly and endearing. While his devoted friends and fans probably will care whether Peck survives his injury, I found I just didn't particularly care--as the character Peck played didn't care--nor did I. And what you are left with are a long series of mildly interesting of flashbacks that tell about the author. The only way the film really works is as a psychological study--not as entertainment.

Many critics and fans love this movie, the best of all Hemingway stories on film perhaps. I think this film is so because it is honest, somewhat autobiographical and derived from a splendid and mature short story of enduring fame.  The plot line of the film is simple.  In a fever because of an accident, Harry lies perhaps dying, tended by his third wife in a camp in Africa.  His delirium causes him, through a long night spent waiting for help to arrive, to relive in his mind the triumphs, disappointments, sorrows, loves and moments of his somewhat unsatisfactory life as an author. He is bitter and takes it out on his wife; but he does not KNOW that he is going to die--so he continues to pester, ask questions, make demands, and study the reverie in his thoughts--which viewers see as extended flashbacks. As Harry Street, Gregory Peck is mostly very good indeed, exactly right for the role not of Hemingway but of a man who had lived what the author describes in the storyline.  As the wives, Hildegarde Neff is cold, beautiful and skilled, showing us how she tried to control Harry and protesting that she had loved him as much as she could.  The first wife, Ava Gardner, plays her part admirably as a young, not-important woman who wants domesticity not excitement (as Harry does), wrecks their union to have a child and drinks herself to death. The third wife, played amiably and with intelligence by Susan Hayward seems almost the product of Harry's training. And if finally she has come to understand, accept and even want his way of life, we assume that finally all will be well at the end.  The medical help arrives; and Harry will live to write more; he wants in fact very much to live again. There are amazingly enjoyable scenes in this big-appearing film--bullfights, a wartime scene, Mediterranean yachts and villas, Paris, and Kenya; and more. it is beautiful, moving and often thought-provoking.  Also in the cast are veterans Torin Thatcher, Leo G. Carroll and Marcel Dalio, all doing superbly.  Henry King directed; Casey Robinson wrote the script; and Leon Shamroy provided stunningly beautiful cinematography.  Harry may feel in the film that he has compromised something to become a success; but he still talks about the snow leopard once found frozen on Mt. Kilimanjaro at 18,000+ feet. He wonders what the leopard was seeking at that altitude--Hemingway's and Harry's parable for human mental curiosity and the sometimes perverse desire to invest much to achieve eventual greatness.  The film may not quite measure up to this famous conception;  but it is grand in mental scale and interesting throughout.

First, I found this movie, like most here, boring. Mainly a Susan fan, but i found her role was almost secondary to Ava's. I think Ava's part was more complex. I could not imagine why Susan chose to be in this one at all, until I read somewhere that she only accepted this role, cause Hedy Lamarr, her pal, was to play the Ava role, but Hedy turned it down, mainly cause of salary dispute. Hedy was in demand at that time because of her big comeback in "Samson And Delilah". Unfortunately, Susan had to go through her commitment. Aside from that, I felt that the flashbacks were intrusive to the story line, and so I got lost along the way. BTW, Peck looked bored as well.