Reviews

First, I was unaware that this was a re-make. If the first movie is on DVD, I'll try it to see any difference. As to this movie (2006), I am going to write my usual bug-aboo about historical accuracy and the movies.

I wish just once that a film set in the period of Yeshua/Jesus would depict the Jewish people with a less than jaundiced - read: historically inaccurate - eye. I was confronted at the very opening of this film with yet another scene of "crazed Jews" stoning a woman for adultery. According to some extensive research on this period, I have learned that the imposition of the death penalty in ancient Jewish society was rare and could only be undertaken under very controlled conditions. For example, a woman caught in adultery was not automatically put to death. Both she and her husband had to appear before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem - and only this body, with the consent of every single member, could actually pronounce the death sentence. One "no" vote and there was an acquittal. The husband could forgive his wife and take her back and that was the end of it. Or he could divorce her. If she was freed and committed adultery again, then the matter would be returned to the High Court. Trials took three days: testimony and evidence on the first day; deliberation by the court on the second, and the third day reserved for the verdict. This third day was meant as a "cooling off period" to avoid a rush to judgment. The sentence upon conviction was not always death. None of this "crazed outrage" in the streets followed by an angry stoning as depicted in this film. It is also said that any Sanhedrin that passed two death sentences within 7 years was called a "bloody Sanhedrin." In other words, the Jewish people had made a deliberate attempt to provide justice in an orderly and civilized way. To depict them as simply a bunch of "crazies" running about the streets like blood-crazed savages is nothing more than pure propaganda.

One other note on the trial, each member of the court had a small pebble - a stone - that they tossed (cast) into a large pot. The stones were then counted to reach a verdict. This is what is meant by the phrase: "Let those among you who are blameless (without malice; pure of heart) cast the first stone."

Further, no Sanhedrin would meet to hold a "trial" - especially one involving a potential death sentence - within three days BEFORE and three days AFTER a religious holiday. This is because of the three-day trial concept. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be tried and convicted on the same day.

As far as this movie is concerned, it is a standard Christian story told with some reverence for the faith, although it is not entirely original in it's story line. Compare it with "The Robe" (1953) where a Roman soldier (Richard Burton) is sent by the Emperor Tiberias to find the "true" story of what happened in Jerusalem. That Roman is cynical at first but, through the miracle of Peter saving a young woman (played then by Debra Paget), the soldier converts to Christianity.

There is no doubt that BEN HUR is a superb achievement in movie making. It is deeply moving (esspecially Miklos Rozsa's magnificent musical score), beautifully photographed and well directed/acted. I think it correctly explores the culture of a dictatorship versus an enslaved people. For certain dramatic purposes, it changes the thrust of Wallace's novel. In the novel, Messala does not die in the chariot race, but is only crippled. Ben-Hur becomes a true Christian by bringing the invalid Messala to view the crucifixion and Messala converts. The theme is that forgiveness triumphs over revenge. The movie changes this in Messala's death scene where the Roman dies still hating his old boyhood friend. No redemption for Messasla, only for Ben-Hur. The original idea is portrayed in the new animated version, with Heston recreating his original role. Secondly, and most importantly, Wyler's movie changes history. It begins with a title card stating that the time is AD 26. We learn from Messala that V. Gratus is arriving in Jerusalem as the NEW Prefect. Five years later, after Ben-Hur returns to Jerusalem from Rome, Gratus leaves and Pilate arrives, just prior to Jesus' trial. (In the film, Ben-Hur is introduced to Pilate at Arrius' party where we learn that Pilate is the newly appointed Governor of Judaea, thus reinforcing the historical error.) In actual history, Pilate ARRIVES in Jerusalem in AD 26; Gratus was Prefect from 15-26 and Pilate from 26-36. Thus Wyler and his writers (while getting a true feeling for the cultural setting) have created their own history to serve their own dramatic purposes. I know some would call this nit-picking (and it was not the first, nor is it the last, movie to adjust history for the sake of a good story), so you have to accept the film as it is: good, solid entertainment with a somewhat fickle regard for history. Note: the new, 4-disc DVD release is the best so far. The film is split onto 2 discs. The original aspect ratio is truer than other DVD/video releases, and the sound has been beautifully recorded. Also, the 1925 silent version is included on a separate disc.

I cannot count the number of times I've seen this excellent film. It is endlessly watchable. James Mason plays a very believable Rommel (at least he looked the proper age unlike the actor who played him in PATTON). True, this is an idolized portrait of Rommel, whose reputation in history (after all he was Hitler's favorite general, an autocratic and egotistical warrior who served his Furher with skill and zeal) was salvaged because of his final opposition to Hitler, an action that caused his death on Hitler's orders. It would be interesting, as one reviewer wrote, to see a German filmmaker's take on Rommel's life.

The script is tight, giving the cast excellent opportunities to create intelligent and believable characters. To the film's credit, the historical events are generqally presented with fairly good accuracy. As a side note: the voice of British General Desmond Morris (upon whose biography the film is based and who gives a running narration throughout) was dubbed by actor Michael Rennie (THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL), but who is not credited.

Despite flaws that mark all historical movies of any age, but especially biographies, I highly recommend THE DESERT FOX, especially for it's acting.

I missed this TNT original back in 2000 and, honestly, forgot all about it. I was browsing through my Netflix listings one day and there it was. I sat down to watch it without any preconceived views and was pleasantly surprised by the result.

I've read some other critical reviews of this movie on this website. Frankly, I'm surprised by some of the comments. What the heck is wrong with just an old-fashioned, "feel good" movie? And who better to pull these off than a stellar cast like the one featured here? I'm not expecting aching Russian drama. I'm not really expecting the ironic, leave the theatre wondering twist of Redford's THE CANDIDATE.

I do agree with one reviewer that the build up to Selleck's final speech on the platform at the convention lacked tension. I was reminded of Rob Reiner's THE American PRESIDENT, when we see President Sheppard walking the halls of the White House, mulling things over after his scene with girlfriend Annette Benning. That build up to his final scene when he gives his passionate speech to the White House press Pool was nicely staged. We knew he was going to do the right thing. The tension was in wondering when, and especially how, he was going to do it.

Tom Selleck is a powerful presence on screen. Good looking and with a voice that carries charm and deep emotion. His portrait of Gen. Eisenhower (while he didn't actually look a hick of lot like Ike, or have Ike's high pitched voice) did convey honor and genuine, deep emotions. He gave us not an exact portrait of Ike, but an emotional one, much like George C. Scott's portrait of Gen. Patton.

It takes such an actor to deliver speeches like the one that climaxes both RUNNING MATES and THE American PRESIDENT. It is the emotional portrait, rather than an exact photograph that is at the core of movies like these. This may not be the way it is, we agree, but it darn well is the way it should be. Give me a good guy, a hero who must be tempted, and occasionally swayed, but who can be counted on in the end to do the right thing. Obvious and predictable? Sure. But what's wrong with heroes?

This film is also not at all a waste of the talents of Laura Linney, Teri Hatcher, Nancy Travis or Faye Dunaway. It's good entertainment. It's more of a MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON than it is THE BEST MAN, (Henry Fonda) one of the very best political dramas on stage or screen. Many film critics begin their reviews by saying that "this movie could have been so much better if only . . . " What they're really saying is, " . . . if only I had written the script or directed." I look at films for what they actually are and look for their strengths before complaining about their weaknesses, the famous "if only."

Walt Disney arranged for Buena Vista Distribution (a company formed to release Disney films instead of RKO) to release the film as he wanted a long biblical epic to compete with the other major studios. In particular, he wanted to cash in on their successes, particularly that of BEN-HUR. One reviewer even commented that this production borrowed the MGM Camera 65 cameras used to film BEN-HUR.

THE BIG FISHERMAN was nominated for several Oscars, a testament to the quality of the film and its technical professionals. Of course, it lost to BEN-HUR (almost everybody lost to BEN-HUR).

In the mid-1970's, I worked at the Disney Studios in 16mm film distribution (mostly to schools and airlines as this was prior to the rise of home video). I located some 16mm anamorphic (scope) prints of THE BIG FISHERMAN.

Using a dialog continuity script as a guide, I managed to reconstruct a decent, complete print and turned it over to my management, thinking it would be a great 16mm rental title. It wasn't accepted for that medium, but a few years later, SFM MEDIA CORPORATION distributed it to TV (in a pan-and-scan version only).

The film is based on Lloyd C. Douglas' novel, a sequel to his massive bestselling book THE ROBE. The performances are consistently excellent. Howard Keel creates a moving and heart-felt portrait of Simon/Peter. There are several other standout performances. For example, Jonathan Harris as the chief steward in the palace of Herod Antipas. This was before his memorable turn as Dr. Zachary Smith in LOST IN SPACE. The best way to describe his characterization is to borrow a line from MY FAIR LADY: "Oozing charm from every pour, he oiled his way around the floor." Herbet Lom and Martha Hyer (as Antipas and Herodias) are particular standouts.

Also, Ray Stricklyn as Deran, the evil son of the Arabian king, who has an unhealthy lust for Princess Fara (Susan Kohner), whose heart belongs to Prince Voldi (John Saxon). Kohner and Saxon create a very believable chemistry of two star-crossed lovers.

When Deran dies suddenly of a heart attack while addressing his chiefs, who surround him on horseback, his passing is remarked on by two lines of dialog: "I think he is dead," says one chief. Another chief, looking at the body on the ground before him, replies, "Let us let him lay there until we are certain."

It is a pity that this title is not available on video, preferably on DVD, where it's widescreen image can be preserved. I'm surprised that TCM hasn't gotten hold of this, unless it's a case of who owns the legal rights; possibly Buena Vista, the original distributor (which, of course, involves the Walt Disney Studios, who have their own strong home video distribution system). Perhaps these copyright owners feel that no decent elements exist for a DVD transfer. Perhaps they feel that the title just wouldn't find a large enough market to justify the cost of transferring such a long movie. That is a misguided belief. Anyway, it's still a pity. It deserves to be seen again.

The release year of 1960 is significant. America was still living in the long and shameful shadow of the actions of the House on Un-American Activities Committee. This was followed quickly both by the Korean War (a struggle for freedom) and the Civil Rights Movement (yet another fight for freedom, but this time in a supposedly already free America). It was noted at the time that all these events had parallels to the wars in the period of the late Roman Republic. Howard Fast set his novel SPARTACUS during that time for obvious reasons. It wasn't just a novel of an ancient uprising, but a political statement on his own times. A few years later, novelist Taylor Caldwell would dedicate her 1964 novel of Cicero ("A PILLAR OF IRON") to the memory of President John Kennedy. She also stated that any similarities between ancient Rome and modern America were intentional.

Producer Kirk Douglas' deliberate choice of Dalton Trumbo (a blacklisted American screenwriter) to write the script for SPARTACUS was a bold political move. Douglas' choice of a book source was just as deliberate. Howard Fast was also the author of "April Morning" a very patriotic and heroic tale of the American Revolution.

For an interesting, and different, take on the story of Spartacus, read Colleen McCullough's third novel of ancient Rome, "Fortune's Favorites" which she insists was based on reliable ancient sources. Here, Spartacus is not an ignorant slave but a Roman officer who, found guilty of a crime, must choose between execution or life as a gladiator. Being a former officer, he is thus able to understand the tactics of the legions sent against his slave armies. The conclusion also shows Spartacus and his wife sailing off on a pirate ship into a luxurious exile in a foreign country hostile to Rome.

We should be clear, in our praise and admiration of Kirk Douglas' heroic version of Spartacus, that we are not giving in to an idolized legend rather than the true story of the real man. The script's message is simple and straight-forward (or, perhaps too simple?): tyranny must always be fought and defeated by brave warriors fighting for human freedom. Thus the story of SPARTACUS could be set in any age, especially America at the beginning of the decade of the 60s. Such messages raise up heroic figures, composed of unequal parts of truth and legend. It will never be possible to present a true and accurate picture of the ancient past in movies. Movies create images, shadows - legends. They are not historical truth. They are "movie truths." We must be certain that we know the difference.

I worked at the Disney Studios when this film was made. It was given a wide showing to Studio employees prior to release. At that time there were no "main titles." We were also given a list of potential release titles, the simple "Candleshoe" winning out. The employee comments were overwhelmingly positive and the movie went on to do good business.

One reviewer commented that the movie contained a high level of violence for a live action Disney film. It is no more violent than many such Disney movies (just see the final fight in "Blackbeard's Ghost" for example). There are several general brawls in Candleshoe, (including the climatic battle between the good guys and the bad guys), but it all done tongue-in-cheek; it is totally unobjectionable, and meant purely for fun. This last "battle" is played so broadly in fact that one might even say it nearly goes "over the top."

David Niven is wonderful in a variety of roles, from the butler, to a gardener to a retired army colonel. (The role was originally set for Laurence Oliver.) This was the first of two Niven films for Disney, the other being "No Deposit, No Return."

The nice thing about "Candleshoe" is that it continues to entertain more than 25 years after its release.