deickos
Each time I watch a Henry King movie I am trying to find what are the more recent films that were influenced by his work. This should be natural since he has made so many films, but also it is his taste for good literature and his simplicity as well. It is this simplicity, his frankness, his dislike for posture that make his work deeper. There is action, but never plain or shallow - everything is in perfect balance. You cannot just tell this is an action movie or a western or a romance or a historic epic - you say it is a Henry King movie. That is accomplished by his simplicity in style I believe.
oscar-35
The Snows of Kilimanjaro, 1952.*Spoiler/plot- A major 'flash-back' plot about an African white hunter's look at his life to help explain his problems relating to his present day wife. *Special Stars- Gregory Peck, Ava Garner, Susan Hayward.*Theme- The past is past, but can trap you if you don't respect it. *Trivia/location/goofs- Shot in Africa and Spain. This film features two of the great film beauties of the era.*Emotion- A old studio epic in large scope and with casting great stars for this property. Enjoyable but gets too slow in the flash-back sequences. Very introspective about people's life choices over the years.*Based on- Famous Hemingway book.
SnoopyStyle
Writer Harry Street (Gregory Peck) lies injured with an infected wound on his leg in the shadow of Mount Kilamanjaro. He awaits for help with his wife Helen (Susan Hayward) by his side as he recalls his past failings and his first love Cynthia Green (Ava Gardner).This was nominated for Best Cinematography for that year. Certainly the widelife filming looks great. With the great actors involved, I had hoped for better. Peck and Hayward have a tough time establishing chemistry. They are in Africa with Peck dying. He's an angry drunk much in keeping with the Ernest Hemingway type character. It's a little bit against type of his usual nice guy persona. They fight more than they show affection. Peck and Hayward's story all happened in the past. All of it moves very slowly. The movie is very static and stiff. It's lucky for the movie that the characters are played by such giant stars. If they shone less brightly, this would truly be not worthwhile at all. As it is, it's nice to see these 3 stars in one movie no matter how good or bad it is.
Armand
nice adaptation, inspired cast, beautiful images. but after decades, only thing real important is good intention. because the film seems be long story, too long, about nothing. the rhythm is slow, the gestures - ash of snow. and the feelings is to view a kind of Casablanca. Cizen Kane copy. sure, it is difficult to say than it is bad but it is vapid. or only good instrument to remember great names of cinema. but is it enough ? after its end, the impression is strange. a so praised movie and you are unhappy ? a unique adaptation and you expect more ? a so clever story and you do not a brilliant remark ? it is not reasonable. but, this is truth. old lance. and boring moments. and a lot of good intentions. a trip in past. and, sure, slices of a legendary title.
AD
