Avaliações de usuários

"Valerie" is a movie that only gets better the more you watch of the film. Up until the last 15 minutes or so, I wasn't that impressed with the story (or Miss Ekberg's acting) but it all got very exciting towars teh end...making it well worth seeing.

The story begins with a mass murder. John Garth (Sterling Hayden) leaves a home after a shooting which left three people dead and his wife shot and close to death. The film shows both his account and hers of the events leading up to the shooting...a shooting he claims was in self defense. What really happened?

In some ways, this story is like the classic Japanese film "Rashomon", though instead of three viewpoints you have two...and teasing apart what REALLY happened is a bit easier in "Valerie". It's a simpler story...but still well done. As I mentioned above, my only quibble was some of Ekberg's acting....it often wasn't great and her accent was a bit thick, so, if possible, watch with captions.

Valerie is directed by Gerd Oswald and written by Leonard Heiderman and Emmett Murphy. It stars Sterling Hayden, Anita Ekberg and Anthony Steel. Music is by Albert Glasser and cinematography by Ernest Laszlo.

John Garth (Hayden) is arrested and put on trial for the wounding of his wife Valerie (Ekberg) and murder of her parents. The trial hinges on three testimonies, each telling in flashback what actually unfolded to lead up to the bloodshed. But who is telling the truth?

Set in the West, a murder mystery with a noirish edge, with crisp black and white photography keeping things in the ream of sombre, Valerie is a mixed bag. Yet it works as entertainment, the screenplay has some surprises in store, where it's not afraid to paint a world of wanton desires, seedy suspicions, violent mistreatment and possible war tainted masochistic tendencies. The court case at the centre of tale throws up the sometimes fragility of the law, with some biased spice and hurtful hearsay added into the mix, and it all builds nicely to a dramatically bleak finale.

Hayden delivers one for his fans, all straight backed machismo and menacing drawl, and Ekberg scores well as a scenic beauty who deftly pulls off a dual portrayal that calls for seduction or victim credibility. Steel, Ekberg's real life beau, is a bit lightweight but doesn't harm the drama, while there's not much airy landscapes to enjoy (filmed on location at Iverson Ranch in Chatsworth). Still, this is very much one for fans of the stars to seek out, whilst noir and Western fans will find pleasures too. 7/10

Like in "the iron sheriff" ,which also features Hayden as the lead,the movie begins when many important events happened .

In this whodunit disguised as western, the hero wanted to piece together the past ,meeting several suspects ,during his son' s trial .We watched the story through different eyes .

The same goes for "Valerie" which is nothing but a long flashback;whereas the scenes are told by the hero or his lawyer or by the showdown's victim,the story takes an entirely new meaning .The main inspiration is not the traditional western,but rather Japanese Kurosawa's "Rashomon"(1950) -which was remade by Martin Ritt as ""the outrage" (1964) The story sustains interest throughout ,except for the final scenes which are botched.Anita Ekberg possesses enough ambiguity to pass for an angel or a demon.Sterling Hayden is ,as usual,an imposing individual,even in the scenes of his trial when he is supposed to keep a low profile.

The western was generally a male-dominated genre, so it is unusual to come across one bearing the name of a female character for its title. Even a film like Nicholas Ray's "Johnny Guitar", which features two strong women played by Joan Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge, bears the name of one of the male characters. "Valerie", however, is not a typical western. Most westerns from the fifties tended to revolve around a few well-worn themes- Cavalry versus Indians, lawman versus outlaws, wagon train, range war over grazing rights, cattle drive, etc. This one is different. Indeed, it might be more accurate to describe it not as a western but rather as a courtroom thriller or domestic melodrama which just happens to be set in the Old West. Unlike most westerns, the story could, with only a few minor changes of detail, be transferred to virtually any other part of America- or, indeed, to many other countries- at virtually any other period in history. This perhaps explains why it was made in black-and-white; although colour was increasingly becoming the norm for traditional westerns in the late fifties, monochrome was still commonly used for psychological dramas.

As the film opens, a wealthy rancher named John Garth is tried for shooting his beautiful young Hungarian-born wife Valerie, critically wounding her, and murdering her parents. Most of the story is told in a series of flashbacks, using for a framework the testimony given in the courtroom by various characters. The two main witnesses are Garth himself and Valerie, who has by now recovered sufficiently to give her evidence from her hospital bed. As might be expected, the two give very different accounts of their marriage. His testimony is that she was a cold, unloving wife who was unfaithful to him with his own brother and with the local preacher, the Reverend Blake, that her parents constantly interfered in the marriage and that the shooting was either a crime of passion or self-defence. She testifies that he was a brutal, foul- tempered husband who wrongly and unreasonably accused her of adultery in an attempt to justify the violence he wreaked on her in his frequent rages.

The film has been compared to Kurosawa's influential "Rashomon", which also told its story from several different viewpoints, although as another reviewer points out, there is a difference. In Kurosawa's film the various conflicting viewpoints were all presented as equally valid, implying that truth is something subjective, whereas here truth is treated more objectively. One of the parties is telling the truth and the other is lying. Which of the accounts is true and which is false is revealed in the final denouement.

This made Valerie a difficult role to play, as the actress playing her needed, effectively, to play two quite different characters, both the innocent wronged wife which Valerie claims to be and the heartless, promiscuous seductress which is how her husband depicts her. The role therefore needed someone more accomplished than the Swedish sex symbol Anita Ekberg who always, or so it seemed to me, got by more on looks than on talent, at least in her English-language movies. (She was perhaps fortunate that the early part of her career came in the fifties, at a time when the film industry seemed particularly obsessed with voluptuous blondes- Monroe, Dors, Mansfield, Bardot, Van Doren, et al.) Here she is rather disappointing, failing to portray either of the two Valeries with any great conviction. Sterling Hayden, however, is more convincing as Garth, possibly because the difference between the two versions of Garth's character is not as great. Even on his own testimony Garth is an unhappy, tormented man, haunted by memories of the Civil War in which he was responsible for torturing Confederate prisoners in order to extract information from them. The Reverend Blake is played by Ekberg's real-life husband, Anthony Steele.

I had never heard of this film until I caught it when it was recently shown on television, and I note that mine is only the third review it has received, suggesting that it is not very well known. Yet despite the weakness of its leading actress, I feel that this is one of those westerns that deserves to be better known. Its German-born director Gerd Oswald handles his material well and the unusual subject-matter makes the film a welcome and refreshing change. 7/10

This independent film from Unite Artists has got one unusual story for a western. The plot is definitely not western, the themes are universal and could apply just about in any setting.

Valerie has Anita Ekberg in the title role and she's a recent immigrant to the USA and her parents have arranged a marriage with ranch owner Sterling Hayden.

What happens is that there's ben a wild shooting and both her parents are dead and Ekberg gravely wounded.

There's a formal hearing and we see and hear how these events came to pass.

This Rashomon like tale with two different points of view is one interesting film. As both tales are told big credit goes to Sterling Hayden and Anita Ekberg. Playing the same characters it's like watching two films in a row.

You'll have ti see what the outcome is. i will say that irrefutable evidence is brought in showing the real truth.

If not for Ernest Laszlo's competent photography, "Valerie" would be a complete fiasco, exploiting the points-of-view concept of "Rashomon" minus any humanistic insights. In the first scene, a Civil War veteran, 40-year-old rancher John Garth (Sterling Hayden), is arrested for shooting his 26-year-old wife Valerie (Anita Ekberg) and her parents. She survives; they don't.

The trial commences with testimony which is shown in flashbacks. We start with Garth's point of view, in which Valerie is a wine-swilling gold-digger who, once she finds out he is still paying off his father's debts, shuns him in favor of playing footsie with his brother Herb (Peter Walker) and seducing the local padre, Reverend Blake (Anthony Steel), whose child she is carrying when Garth shoots her.

Testifying from a bed in the infirmary, Valerie claims to be an innocent victim. Her parents, recent immigrants, persuaded her to marry Garth, who mistreated her, pouring liquor down her throat before taking her to bed, and striking her. In her distress, she sought only rapport with her brother-in-law and only counsel from the handsome Rev. Blake, who eventually rescued her and returned her to her parents' homestead, where Garth found and shot them.

Who's telling the truth? Who cares.

Lurid marketing focused on Ekberg's upper assets, including whorls of blond hair, and I was rather amazed none of the buttons popped off her taut blouses and bodices, which are typical of the total lack of subtlety in the entire melodrama. Ekberg plays her part and displays her parts well enough, but Sterling Hayden breaks his own personal record for stiff acting.

The whole debacle was cheaply filmed at the Iverson Ranch in California, the location of a raft of TV westerns from "The Lone Ranger" to solid fare like "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza," any episode of which is better than "Valerie."

This film is a film noir Western. It opens with a murder and then unfolds as a courtroom drama with flashbacks. A marriage is described from three different perspectives. I thought Anita Eckberg and Sterling Hayden's performances were very good in rather unlikable roles. Miss Eckberg was effective in portraying her character from two opposite points of view. It was a movie featuring sadistic behavior and was unsettling to watch.

After the Civil War, Union Major John Garth (Sterling Hayden) marries immigrant Valerie Horvat (Anita Ekberg). Somehow it ends in murder. John is surprised that Valerie is still alive, barely. Most see that she got what she deserves. He goes to trial as different people testify.

I like the idea of the Rashomon structure although different witnesses describe different incidents. It can be a bit of a grind with the differing accounts. I do question a few things. I would think that her injuries would be very obvious and that the sheriff would figure it out before going to trial. He should have questioned the doctor who would know the situation. It was probably done to be absolutely clear to the audience of its time. As for the acting, Ekberg's shortcomings can be attributed to her injured character's limitations. I like this movie challenging a 50's audience although it may not be completely successful.

This film is awful. Shouldn't be called a western. Ekberg and Hayden are atrocious. Dumb story line and could't wait for it to be over. Ugh.

For a western, this film couldn't be more original. Well-to-do emigrants from Vienna settle in the west to make a new beginning in life. We never learn what they left in Vienna or anything about their background, but they are well off, and with their European continental education they feel obliged to have their daughter married well including a generous dowry - $15,000, which is a vast sum in the Wild West. Their great mistake is that they have no idea of what America and its western mentality is about.

Anita Ekberg is the beautiful daughter, and her parents accept her first suitor, who is Sterling Hayden, without knowing anything about him except that he has vast riches and lands. So he appears as the perfect match for their daughter.

The film opens up by Sterling Hayden making a visit and gunning down three people, one of them being his wife. Not until late in the film we learn who the other two victims are. Anita Ekberg survives, which was not according to Sterling Hayden's plan.

The case is that he was a major in the civil war and branded and damaged for life by his experiences of the inhumanities, atrocities and brutalities of a civil war. Of course, neither Anita Ekberg nor her parents have any idea of this until it becomes too late.

She has two friends, though, who gradually get initiated in the difficult situation she has found herself stranded in, one of them is Sterling Hayden's younger brother, who knows everything too well, and the other is Anthony Steel, a reverend who comes to town in time for the final act and reluctantly gets involved in a hopeless case history.

The acting is excellent throughout, Sterling Hayden's acting is among his best, you have never seen Anita Ekberg exposed and vulnerable like this, and Anthony Steel is the gentleman of the play. Peter Walker plays the brother, who has been more or less muzzled all his life, with admirable restraint, but grows the stronger character for the necessity of always having been put down.

In brief, it's one of the best psychological thrillers ever made for a western.

I've seen another movie entitled "Valerie" but it was a bit different from movie I saw last with same actors, and actress! The story was similar in that the husband thought his wife was cheating on him with his brother and with their church pastor. I remember events being different how Sterling Hayden told Valerie that he paid her parents for her hand, not they paid him. Her parents didn't have a lot of money. True that she didn't love him cause she was courting both his brother outright, and the pastor on the sneak. I'm NOT understanding why if he had lots of valuable land then why would he accept money from her parents selling Valerie to him?!? He wasn't a poor man! I know this is weird but I know I watched two different versions of this movie at different times. The first time I watched movie I DIDN'T catch it from the beginning but saw enough to remember movie. The second one I saw last night was a bit different. The same storyline and characters but the details were a but different.😒🤔

I had never heard of this movie before, and had not really seen any of the actors (I did recognize Gage Clarke, aka Mr. Botkin of "Gunsmoke.")

This is Alfred Hitchcock-style comes to the West. Do I believe her? Do I believe him? Who is telling the truth? Is the Reverend being honest? Is the brother? Is she a seductress? Is she a victim?

The suspense builds to an undeniable conclusion! I really enjoyed this movie and actually want to see it again!

We get 82 minutes to appraise the character of beautiful Anita Ekberg, daughter of immigrants, who married her off to prominent land baron/cattleman Sterling Hayden, driven a bit crazy by his Civil War experiences. Her one friend is the mild-mannered Minister, Anthony Steel, Ekberg's real life husband at the time. Can her marriage survive Hayden's Jekyll and Hyde cruelties? Director Gerd Oswald excelled at directing low budget films, often on a short schedule, like five days. His staging is brilliant. His best work may have driven the early '60s TV hit, "The Outer Limits" to ratings glory, in 14 episodes. "Valerie" is a nuanced, unsettling story of domestic terror.