nobsnews

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.

(The Bad): If there is any short coming to this film, it's the fact that it is an adaption of a Luke Short western short-story (Short is a city boy who never saw the west and pretends to be a native westerner - how he ever made it as a western writer is beyond me). Screenwriter Irving Ravetch improved the tale via his screenplay.

(The Good): Burt Lancaster, Joanne Dru, Sally Forrest and Carleton Carpenter gave not only excellent performances, but made you believe that they were real people, with real values, of the old school. The supporting cast of "good guys" were great as well.

(The Ugly): Robert Walker (of Ensign Pulver fame) was well cast as a spoiled, immature bad boy, using everybody around him, especially those closest to him, and spitting in their faces. Walker has always been a natural for these roles. Hugh O'Brian is barely recognizable . . . his natural looks well disguised behind an unshaven face, does a good job of playing a very sinister, meddling and not too bright bad guy, along with John Ireland, as the Fasken brothers.

The title of the movie is a total misnomer . . . maybe "Justice in the End" would have been better. The "good guys" are good - the bad guys are really bad - and the women are beautiful and tough! A very good movie!

This flick is worse than awful! It took a good story plot and turned it into schizophrenic cinema. The photography is EXTREMELY amateurish . . . looks like a 5th graders home movie project filmed with malfunctioning 8mm kiddie cameras . . . the editing appears to have been done by somebody having psychotic flashbacks (while on drugs and booze), with scenes cut short, followed by other, unrelated scenes, then chopped segments of scenes pasted in . . . totally unnecessary and gratuitous nudity . . . missing scenes . . . daytime scenes inexplicably turning into night-time scenes, then suddenly back to daytime . . . obviously no continuity. Tom Skerritt, Wendy Hughes and James Mason's good acting skills are wasted, as are the talents of the "key" supporting cast - (forget the villain and the Anderson women - very amateurish acting). This movie is a good candidate for a remake, even with Skerritt and Hughes . . . just have it professionally done this time.