Benedito Dias Rodrigues
Definitelly Errol Flynn didn't work in western despite him tried hard to do it more l assure over it,the analogy told by the drunken lawyer John Plato Beck played by the great Thomas Mitchell one the greatest actor all time according over so many best acting along his career,about the biblical passage over the King David and Bathsheba was put in action on movie,Beck perhaps was the only good character who deserves so much attention,always speaking in speech way and has been a man who spent a time to study of human soul using facts from the past civilization,back to the movie for a western is more about politics matters instead what this genre used to provide,also Ann Sheridan's character after his husbund's death change too much your previous behavior gave us a lack of feelings!!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7
howardeisman
This movie is a bit of a downer. The plot is hardly upbeat. It is a pessimistic story. Pessimistic stories can be engrossing-look at "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" for example-but, here, not all that much interesting happens. The performers do their usual shtick.. Sheridan, Bennett, and Mitchell are exactly the people you expect them to be, based on countless other movies. No great disadvantage, but no real advantage either.Flynn is the main problem, but the problem is not with his looks. He appears older but still fit and handsome. He reads his lines and does his character well enough; his character is bitter and angry and cynical. But something very important is missing. The character is in no way likable. He is without humor, and, except for anger, without any juice, without any elan, without any positive emotion. We don't sympathize with him. We don't care if he repents.Flynn looks unattractive because he plays an unattractive character. The movie has only a modicum of entertainment value primarily for this same reason.
dbdumonteil
Erroll Flynn epitomizes the American dream in his movie.he is the perfect go-getter,uneducated but very smart,who pushes everyone out of his way .Hints at David and Bethsabea are thoroughly relevant and gave the whole movie a timeless side.Stanley is a scientist,an engineer ,but what can he do?Wife Georgia is more reluctant but for her too,it's just a matter of time.The story is parabolic:the rise and fall of a young Turk ,during the "silver rush" .The most important scene is the banquet ,in Mike's desirable property which chic people are quick to leave when a "drunk"PLato has finished his long diatribe against his pal.Those posh people would never accept a nouveau riche in their aristocratic circle anyway.That scene is the central one,cause it contains both McComb's apex and his downfall.This is another great movie by a director who made dozens of gems.
alexandre michel liberman (tmwest)
The idea of bringing the story of King David to a western is not an easy task, and it ends up spoiling this film. Errol Flynn can only play Errol Flynn, and he is good as long as he is the selfish McComb, trying to build an empire, but when comes the time to repent, he is not convincing. You can't help comparing him with Gregory Peck who really makes you feel he is suffering in "David and Bathsheba". Thomas Mitchell is very good as the equivalent of Nathan, the prophet. As for Ann Sheridan, she is no Susan Hayward. If this would have been a standard Errol Flynn western, it had all the elements to be one of the best, specially due to Raoul Walsh, and the music by Max Steiner.
AD
