HotToastyRag I guess every decade has their fair share of stupid movies. In the 1952, The World in His Arms was added to that list. Gregory Peck and Anthony Quinn play opposing sea captains, and while Gregory Peck is trying to negotiate a deal to purchase the land of Alaska—this is a period piece—Ann Blythe, a Russian countess, tries to persuade him to sail her and her grandmother to Alaska from San Francisco. She's engaged to someone else, then engaged to Gregory Peck, then engaged to the first man again—it all gets rather confusing, and it's not interesting enough to really care about untangling the mess.There's a famous boat battle scene from this movie, but I can't imagine anyone in modern audiences finding it exciting. The blue-screen is laughable, but maybe in 1952 audiences were fooled by "technology" used in the scene. I was almost put to sleep by this movie, and actually groaned at the corniness of the last line of dialogue. Save your time and watch anything else.

MartinHafer THE WORLD IN HIS ARMS is the sort of film Hollywood made in the 1930s and early 40s and might have starred John Wayne, Errol Flynn, James Cagney or Edward G. Robinson--it's very easy to imagine any of these men in such a formulaic programmer. By the 1950s, such adventure films were practically gone--replaced with more realistic films about more contemporary topics. Now I am NOT complaining about this film--I happen to like these old fashioned films. Sure, the characters and situations were unrealistic, but this sort of escapism is something many will enjoy.As for the choice of Gregory Peck, he wasn't bad--even though he isn't generally the "type" to play this sort of macho role. Now this isn't to say that Peck wasn't manly enough, but seeing him as a guy who loves loose women, fighting and chaos is certainly a departure from his typical film! Even such seafaring films as CAPTAIN HORATIO HORNBLOWER and MOBY DICK feature Peck in a much more somber, intellectual and dependable sort of man than the slightly crazy Captain Clark in THE WORLD IN HIS ARMS. Again, I am not complaining--just pointing out that this role is a departure for Peck.Peck's love interest in the film is Ann Blyth, who is quite lovely but also appears too young for Peck. This is due to Blyth looking much younger than she was (24) and because the height difference between them (more than a foot) tended to make her look even younger. She wasn't bad--just an unusual choice.The film begins in San Francisco. Peck and his crew have just arrived with a ship filled with seal furs. They are rich and in a mood to celebrate. However, an envoy from a Russian Princess (Blyth) tries to engage the ship to take her to safety (she is running from an arranged marriage). Peck refuses outright--he just wants to unwind and have fun. In an odd move, Blyth herself meets Peck and doesn't identify who she is. Peck is taken with her and makes plans to marry her--at which point the Russian husband she is supposed to marry shows up to claim his bride--leaving Peck disappointed and furious. Will Peck catch up to this Princess? Will she be able to avoid a loveless marriage? Well, tune in for yourself and see.The film has a lot of pluses. First, the color print and cinematography are just lovely. It's the sort of 1950s color that is bold and prettier than real life but not as bold and garish as early Technicolor. Combined with a rousing musical score, the film has lovely aesthetics. The film also features some excellent actors. In addition to Peck and Blyth, Anthony Quinn in on hand in a not particularly subtle but enjoyable role as Peck's nemesis as is John McIntire--an under-appreciated but excellent supporting actor (who, in parts of this film, looks like the spitting image of General Sherman).Now the film is not without its faults. There is a rather poor use of rear projection in the seal hunting scenes--even by 1950s standards. Also, the story, at times, seems more like comic book or dime novel due to characters who are not exactly believable. It's the sort of film, however, with no pretensions--it's not high art or an Oscar contender and never seemed like it was intended as this.Overall, a great adventure film for you to just turn off your brain and enjoy. Great old time fun.By the way, much of the film revolves around seal hunting, which wasn't considered such a big deal in 1952. Starting in the 1960s, worldwide opposition to seal harvesting became an issue and so today some might hate this movie. Try to keep it in historical context and enjoy the film for what it is.By the way, considering how evil and stupid the Russians are generally shown to be in this film, I wonder if perhaps it was all meant as a metaphor for US-Soviet relations at the time?

bkoganbing Sad to say that the miscast Gregory Peck brings down The World in His Arms down to the level of an ordinary action/adventure film than a classic. I agree with the reviewer who says that Gregory Peck was way too much the gentlemen to be believable as Jonathan Clark the lusty captain of a sealing vessel. I'd agree that Burt or Kirk would have been better. I'd even add John Wayne as a better choice and Universal studios had Jeff Chandler under contract and he would have been better in the part.Adapted from a Rex Beach novel, The World in His Arms has Ann Blyth looking to get to Sitka from San Francisco where she will be safe because uncle Sig Ruman is the Governor of the territory. Why in the world she would be less safe in the USA as opposed to what was Russian territory at the time, I can't figure out. Because she's trying to avoid a match to a no account count played by Carl Esmond. Trouble is that Carl's got the Czar's blessing for the marriage.Ann gets both Gregory Peck and Anthony Quinn who is Peck's rival in the sealing trade in heat over who will take care her. In the end she goes with neither, but Peck and Quinn race to Sitka to pursue her where they fall in the hands of Esmond who has got Ruman by the short Russian hairs so to speak. Go figure why Ann thought she was safer there.The sailing sequences are nice and the best performance in the film is from Anthony Quinn. Come to think of it, he would have been better in the lead. His performance is followed very closely by John McIntire as Peck's first mate and Hans Conreid as a flustered hotel clerk.The World in His Arms also has one of the best action directors around in Raoul Walsh. A better cast leading man might even have made up for some of the deficiencies in the plot. Still everyone in the cast has been in worse films. With a couple of songs, they could have cast Nelson Eddy in the lead.

KyleFurr2 This was only one of two films that Gregory Peck and Raoul Walsh made together, the other being Captain Horatio Hornblower the year before. Gregory Peck plays a sea captain in San Franisco who is basically the top man in town and Anthony Quinn is a sort of friend and rival. In the first scene, Peck goes to rescue his men after being stolen by Quinn. The real villain turns out to be some Russians, whom Peck can't stand. Peck meets Ann Blyth, who is also a Russian, but Peck doesn't know that at first and agrees to marry her. She wants to get to Alaska for some reason and Peck wants to buy Alaska for ten million. Gregory Peck is sort of miscast in this part and you don't buy it when Peck knocks out Quinn with one punch. A pretty good film if you don't expect much.