Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

SnoopyStyle It's the summer of 1900 Peking. The Boxer Rellion explodes attacking foreigners and Christians. The Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi tries to harness the Boxers against the foreigners as differing voices in court argue. China veteran Maj. Matt Lewis (Charlton Heston) leads his US forces into the city. He tries to buy a British missionary captive from the Boxers but he's already dead. Sir Arthur Robinson (David Niven) leads the British mission trying to keep the peace. Lewis becomes romantically involved with Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff (Ava Gardner). Prince Tuan orders the murder of the German minister by the Boxers witnessed by Lewis. The Dowager 'advises' the foreign legations to leave Peking within 24 hours.The politics is a bit simplified. Charlton Heston is impossibly gallant and uncomfortably stiff as the romantic lead. Ava Gardner has the unenviable task of batting googly eyes at him. David Niven does the stiff upper lip very well. He's the superior actor in this one. The main Chinese characters are all played by white actors. It's a missed opportunity but business as usual for Hollywood of that era. The extras are mostly Asians which is an effort considering the filming location is Spain. The sets are impressive. The battles are compelling big actions with lots of Chinese killed as well as the prerequisite foreigners. This is an old fashion war epic with as much racial sensitivity as can be expected.

badajoz-1 I saw this movie in full cinemascope in 1963 - it was part of the epic assembly line through the fifties and sixties, especially form Samuel Bronston made in Spain studio. At the time I did not feel that it climbed the heights of 'El Cid' but that it was an attractive blockbuster with action, sub plots, decent acting and direction. It is a film about 1900 and it was made in the early sixties - so please let us not have the bleeding heart sensibilities of liberal anti-colonialists of modern times excusing Chinese violence but condemning Western atrocities. The story concerns the native Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900 against the West's trading and Christian influence in China - with not too much made of the violent killing of western missionaries and Chinese christians by the rebels - and the subsequent siege by the rebels of the Diplomatic Quarter in Peking for 55 days. The film focuses inwards rather than outwards, as against large odds the Westerners fight off the rebels (this is the truth by the way!). But on seeing it again almost 50 years on, the story and script have a lot more going on than seems at first viewing. There are lots of questions about why the US is on the Asian mainland (cue early Vietnam issues) and historically Western nations fighting each other in proxy wars on foreign soil - very relevant in the early sixties. the film itself allows Charlton Heston to inhabit a rather less than heroic role as he blunders through relationships knowing only how to fight battles as a marine. David Niven gives an old school charm and believability to the leading British diplomat faced with trying to keep rival nations together. Ava Gardner looks good and her part as fallen aristocrat who bedded a Chinese general can be seen as a parallel and touchstone to attitudes to the black struggle for equal rights in the US at the time. The action and script run out of steam towards the end but a satisfying re-watch with so much more to be understood in a very clever script.

MartinHafer I was happy to see this film since it was about the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. To put it in perspective, in the 19th century, various European powers began forcing their way into China--literally threatening the weak Chinese to accept their presence or else! The lowest point was the Opium War where the British forced the Chinese to accept opium into their nation as payment for their goods. The government, for some odd reason, didn't want to see all their people become drug addicts but had to relent when the British massacred the Chinese army and navy. Following this war, EVERYBODY seemed to flood into China--Russians, Germans, Austrians, Americans, Belgians, French and even the Japanese (who'd only recently opened up to the West). All of them carved out sections of China (such as Hong Kong and Macao as well as foreign enclaves in the major cities)--further weakening the Imperial authority. And the Emperor could do nothing or face the further reprisals of these countries.With the Boxer Rebellion, the Chinese government was in an advantageous position. When these peasants rebelled, the Empress claimed that the Chinese army was NOT responsible for this anti-foreigner uprising--it was 'the people'. It was ironic, because since the government had been terribly weakened by these foreign powers, the Empress said she was thereby unable to stop these people--all the while encouraging the rebels on the side. Across the countryside, foreigners (especially missionaries) were slaughtered--and the weak Empire suddenly became stronger. This film finds the foreign section in Peking surrounded by the Boxers--and certain death seems likely. It's based on actual events, though most of the names have been changed.The foreigners represented several nations and are made up of mostly British and American actors (such as Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner and David Niven). Now here is the interesting part. Since Communist China wasn't about to open up to foreign movie companies (especially when the Boxers' views on colonialism were identical with the Peoples Republic's views), the film had to be made somewhere else. And so, this saga about China was actually filmed in Spain! How they were able to get all these Asian-looking extras is pretty funny (see the IMDb trivia)! Although I must admit, the sets were quite impressive--though I wondered why they didn't film it in Taiwan.So is it any good? Well, yes and no. The fight sequences are nice and I loved seeing this war dramatized. But on the other hand, the film does seem to be a bit overly long and had one serious problem--changing times. This film does not age well, as the world's views on colonialism have changed. In 1963, the world was changing--French and British colonies were gaining their independence right and left. But films STILL had a bias towards colonialism and expected audiences to root for countries that were occupying land abroad. Today, however, I would think a very, very high percentage of the viewers would sympathize with and/or root for the Boxers. They wanted their nation back--and an end to enforced contact with the outside world. Unfortunately, killing ALL foreigners (including children) ultimately just brought on significant reprisals.Another thing that doesn't age well is seeing the main Chinese characters all played by folks who clearly AREN'T Asian. Today, the notion of having Brits like Flora Robson and Leo Genn play Chinese people is pretty nasty and paternalistic. Of course, seeing Johnny Depp playing Tonto in the upcoming "The Lone Ranger" isn't exactly enlightened! So, I guess some things never change! Overall, the film is moderately interesting and worth seeing from a historical perspective. However, I'd really love to see it remade in China and showing BOTH sides of the issue and having actors playing the correct ethnic groups! Until this happens, this film is all we've got and is worth a look--provided you think it's worth 156 minutes of your life when the film is only fair to middling.

Robert J. Maxwell Man, do they blow things up in this movie. If it stands, it gets blown up. Cannon shells tear up the ground and explode in the moat around the enclave of the non-Chinese powers. A ten-story tower with three platforms launches rockets into the compound. A rocket tower goes berserk and starts shooting rockets and shells in all directions. An arsenal erupts into a shattering volcano of fire, sparks, and smoke.A half dozen different countries, along with their military units, are located in the compound near Beijing -- American Marines led by Charlton Heston, a British contingent led by David Niven, and Russians, Italians, French, German, and Japanese soldiers and sailors. Not many all together, perhaps 500, against the might of the savage warriors known as Boxers. The Empress of the Jade Empire alone knows their number.In the opening scene, the half dozen or so different nations are playing their national anthems and running up the flags in the square. Two Chinese guys in rags are trying to protect their ears from the dissonance. What a horrible noise, one remarks, what does it all mean? "It means they want China," replies the other.Well, in brief, the Boxers attack, the occupying powers repel the attacks for fifty-five days, until they are finally spent, out of ammunition, and half dead. Then the cavalry arrives in the form of military contingents from each power. At the end, they are playing their national anthems again and creating a howl of dissonance. "Well," says Heston, "for fifty-five days we managed to play the same tune."The Empress, Flora Robson, ordered them out with a warning near the beginning, yet they chose to stay. But why? Maybe this scene gives us a hint. At a legation ball, a Boxer hands Heston a sword and asks him to try striking an incredibly limber Boxer acrobat. Instead, Heston whirls around and puts the point of the sword against a surprised Boxer assistant. Heston backs him up against a table, then sweeps his feet out from under him and he tumbles to the floor with a crash of plates and crockery. "I think you've made your point, Major," says Niven. Oh, yes? What exactly WAS the point? If that scene doesn't answer the question of why they hung around when they were clearly persona non grata, maybe this exchange does. Heston and Niven are discussing one of the enlisted Marines. Heston: "He's a good man when he knows what he's fighting for." Niven: "Yes. It's different when you're facing a wall or a hill. But how do you explain to a man that he's fighting for a principle?" Okay. They're all fighting for a principle. So what is the principle? It can't be the usual "democracy and freedom" because this is China in 1900, external powers already occupy most of China's provinces, and the only principles anyone is interested in are territory and opium. What else does China have to offer? The entire country lives in grinding poverty and cooks sparse meals on gas stoves that use pig farts for fuel. But the movie doesn't ask why unwanted guests stick around. So it's simply a story of good Europeans against evil Chinese.They must have spent enough money on this production to feed the population of China for ten years. There seem to be thousands of extras running around screaming amid the explosions. Dong Kingman did the paintings behind the credits and he's always just fine, at least for middle-brows like myself. Dmitri Tiompkins' score has its usual flatulent trombones and cow bells. He tries to develop a "Chinese" theme too but it's not nearly as successful as the Attic mood he established in "The Guns of Navarone." At times, it sounds a little Biblical. I half expected Yul Brynner to clap his hands and order, "Bring on the Hebrew dancing girls." The part of the Marine major is well within Charlton Heston's range and he does well with it. He's less impressive when he's strutting around swinging both arms in the same direction and jutting his iron jaw out, than when he's engaged in some thoughtful conversation and is in conflict about something.The rest of the cast hit their marks and say what they have to say, except that Helpmann as Prince Tuan should be sent back to some high school play in Short Hills, New Jersey. He's terrible. Ava Gardner is no longer a spring chicken but still beautiful, without having to wear a mask of Hollywood makeup. Alas, her part sucks. Every movie about people trapped in a limited space and faced with a common goal must have some dilatory moron who skulks and bitches about everything. Here, it's Kurt Kasnar as a Russian Baron. He's always angry. And on top of that he's trying to blackmail Ava Gardner into becoming his mistress. It's 1963 so the Russians could still be underhanded. A bright spot is Lynne Sue Moon as the eleven-year-old orphan of a Marine officer, whom Heston decides to adopt despite his martial distaste for love and affection. The kid has a Brit accent and is beautiful. About the only truly touching moment in the film is when Heston rides back for her, reaches down, says, "Here, take my hand," hoists her up behind his saddle, and rides off with her at the head of the departing detail.The message of the movie, of course, is that we can win if we all pull together towards our superordinate goal. But I'll tell you what I got out of it. We should stay out of China. Not just because of their one billion warriors, but because I wouldn't tangle with Dame Flora Robson. She's been an imperious Queen Elizabeth I twice -- including Errol Flynn's "The Sea Hawk." She's indomitable. If she told me to get out, I'd get out pronto.Tremble and obey.