SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

rdfarnham I had wanted to see this film for a long time since I like Esther Williams, Howard Keel and the Champions. I saw it last night on TCM. What a let down. Not one good, memorable song, no real story and even the dance numbers were uninspired. This could have been a real killer of a movie but it just sort of puttered along on two cylinders, not good enough to be enjoyable but not quite bad enough to say the heck with it and give up. Esther's fantasy swimming number with the living statues is the high point. Howard Keel has no song worthy of his talent and the Champion's dance number with the elephants goes on way too long. The other reviewers have pretty much said it all. The fact that this film is not included in ANY of the Esther Williams DVD collections says a bunch.

Neil Doyle Even a good cast can't quite put this one over the top--elephants and all. The choreography is about as original as the score which includes not a single really memorable tune.Wasted in this nonsensical romp are Esther Williams and Howard Keel in the leads, both given only a few moments to shine. Esther does some interesting underwater swimming with statues that come to life and dives off a cliff with acrobatic skill. Keel struts around as Hannibal with energy and humor and even lifts his voice in song a few times, although the tunes are hardly worthy of his manly baritone.George Sanders, Richard Haydn, Norma Varden, William Demarest and Marge and Gower Champion are largely wasted and cannot overcome a script that is unintentionally funny even in serious moments. Uninspired direction from George Sidney is no help.Summing up: Attempt at originality utterly fails in this unusual Esther Williams film. The Champions have a truly wretched dance number with some elephants that takes up far too much time.

crispy_comments Only for fans of the stars or MGM Musicals completists, like me. I've gotta collect them all! Of course this one was made during the decline, as Dore Schary took over the studio and he was *not* a fan of musicals. So, the songs are weak and there's more emphasis on spectacle & action - mixed in with comedy & romance. But the mixture doesn't blend very well. Each genre/character is underdeveloped and unsatisfying. For instance, if you enjoy action/war movies, you may be disappointed with a few chases, brief hand to hand combat...no epic battle, unless you count a little flame-throwing and battering at Rome's gates. Sorry, no bloodshed! (And I know you were expecting it from a movie with "Darling" in the title.)Marge & Gower Champion are kind of wasted. They have one major number where they parade around with trained elephants. It's lame. I mean, they mostly hop around on one foot (yes, the elephants too) and the Champions are definitely limited by their dancing partners. Not their best choreography. Corny bits like mimicking an elephant's trunk, etc.Esther Williams has one memorable underwater ballet with some statues that come to life, but other than that, her swimming abilities are used in more plot-driven ways than usual. Most unsettling is an extended chase sequence where soldiers chase her off a cliff and swim after her, trying to kill her...with bows and arrows...underwater! Is that even possible? It's *definitely* impossible to hold your breath for that long. (Something we don't normally question when Esther's underwater sequences are more lighthearted.) Why combine an air of "realistic" menace with such a fantastical premise? Let our fantasy be...fun! It was actually disturbing to see Esther menaced this way, in her "natural" habitat. She should always be grinning that big toothy grin at the camera and frolicking in the water happily. Don't mess with the natural laws of Esther Williams movie physics!Howard Keel plays his usual charming brute, but maybe a bit too brutal this time, since he's a conquering warrior. Uncomfortable watching him manhandle Esther Williams, hold a knife to her throat, etc. Aaah, love! Marge & Gower also have this slave/master subplot that's pretty offensive. I suppose it's some consolation that she refuses to "be" an elephant...like all the "other" elephants he has trained to *obey* him. Uhh, love? Not much fun to see George Sanders play an ineffectual mama's boy who can't get the girl. He can be suave and charismatic, but not here. I mean, he does what he's meant to...I just don't enjoy seeing him play a buffoonish sort. Would've been better if he was presented as a charmer with wit and intellect to rival Howard Keel's more robust, earthy qualities. A different, but equally attractive choice, to make Esther's decision less obvious. (But I'm not spoiling anything here by revealing Esther & Howard end up together - c'mon, they're the leads, and we know how these movies work!) Sure, Sanders' speech-making ability is acknowledged, but also ridiculed - and Esther doesn't bother to show up for the speech, so we get the message that Sanders is boring... dangit, some women *like* smart, articulate men! They could've created another supporting character who falls for Sanders, proving him a valid love interest who's just not right for *Esther*, since she and Howard are more physical/less intellectual types. Oh well.Wow, I don't remember how any of the songs go. They really *are* forgettable. So, it's easy to see why this movie failed to please the Box-office Gods and led to the fall of the Great MGM Empire! I'd buy it on DVD anyway, especially if that outtake musical number from the Laserdisc (mentioned by a previous reviewer) is included. Curious to see Marge & Gower's deleted dance...it's got to be better than the Elephant Walk Of Shame.

theowinthrop I don't have many of the great MGM musicals of the 1940s and 50s in my video collection, but my interest in history resulted in my acquiring this decidedly minor work. I couldn't pass it up. Ancient history in American cinema tends (heavily) to be biblical history with a handful of glances at Ancient Egypt and Rome. Seriously, think of the best known titles: DeMille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS [second version], SAMSON AND DELILAH, KING OF KINGS, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, CLEOPATRA; THE EGYPTIAN; Joe Mankiewicz's CLEOPATRA; QUO VADIS (with Taylor, Kerr, and Ustinov); THE LAND OF THE PHAROAHS [with Joan Collins]. Films about ancient Greece are even rarer than this: THE FOUR HUNDRED SPARTANS (for the events leading to the defeat of Persia in 480 B.C.); HELEN OF TROY and ULYSSES (the latter actually an Italian film, but starring Kirk Douglas and Anthony Quinn); JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. There are a few I've missed. Foreign cinemas have not been much better.This film is about one of history's great military failures - Hannibal Barca, the Carthagenian tactical genius who is remembered for bringing his army over the alps (including his elephants - a feat of arms that is still marvelled at). He was of Phoenician ancestry, being from the city of Carthage in North Africa (founded by the Phoenicians). He probably was dark skinned, like most North Africans. He probably did not look like Howard Keel, a good actor and singer (KISS ME KATE, CALAMITY JANE - the latter as Wild Bill Hickok, THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS). Since this is a musical comedy the audience will swallow it, but from a historical realistic view the role cried for a singer and actor with a darker skin - someone like Paul Robson. However, for age reasons and political reasons Robson would have been impossible in 1955.The basis of this film is Robert Sherwood's play, THE ROAD TO ROME, which was a comedy against war. Actually beyond this is the fact that Hannibal, having won five great victories against the Romans (capped by the total routs of Roman arms at Lake Transemene and Cannae) had the "road to Rome" open for his army - had he moved he would have destroyed Rome, and history would have been centered in North Africa for quite awhile. His dawdling lost him his chance, and the tactics of the Roman General Fabius Maximus (to snipe at Hannibal's army over a long period of time, until it was tired and demoralized) won the war after a decade. Fabius was killed in a skirmish, but his place was taken by Scipio Africanus, who delivered the knock-out blow at Zama in 202 B.C. Hannibal fled Carthage, to commit suicide in Macedonia a number of years later when he was about to be handed over to the Romans. Carthage was stripped of it's power and wealth, but nearly sixty years later it was purposely destroyed by the Romans (at the prodding of Cato the Elder, a bigotted Senator) in the pointless Third Punic "War". The population was killed or enslaved, and the town levelled - the site ploughed over with salt so nothing would ever grow there. Hence the bitter term: "Carthagenean Peace". But the memory of Rome's close call at the hands of this genius was a constant nightmare even at the height of their empire. In the AENIAD, Vergil has the doomed North African princess Dido die, praying that her descendant (Hannibal) destroys the Romans. Prior to the collapse of the Empire at the hands of "barbarian" tribes Hannibal was Rome's closest call to destruction.This play may have been good in 1927, but it dates now. Moreover, Sherwood, despite some stage credits like IDIOT'S DELIGHT, is best remembered for his dual biography (which is still useful) ROOSEVELT AND HOPKINS, about FDR and his advisor Harry Hopkins. Keeping this in mind, my use of the term "minor" is understandable. It is not like a musical based on, say a play by Eugene O'Neill or Tennessee Williams. [Actually O'Neill plays have been turned into musicals: NEW GIRL IN TOWN is based on ANNA CRISTIE, and AH WILDERNESS! was turned into the musical TAKE ME ALONG.]Williams and Keel are attractive together, but the Burton Lane score is not that good (a number with Marge and Gower Champion about the elephants seems very silly now). George Sanders gives his normally good performance, his Fabius being a mother-dominated type (momma is Norma Varden, who disapproves of his choice of Williams as a wife), but who is an intelligent military leader - witness how he realizes that the best way to fight Hannibal is not to present a pitched battle, but to wear him down. The action of the film is in 217 B.C., when the war was peaking for Hannibal, and Fabius did not die for nearly six years more. Interestingly enough Douglas Dumbrille has a brief part as Scipio, reminding us that the military affairs would remain in highly capable hands at the end. William Demerest is properly flustered a few times, constantly ready to give the signal for the final advance of the Carthageneans on Rome, only to find Hannibal unavailable or unwilling to tell him to do so. One wishes more had been done with Richard Haydn, as a historian named Horatio, but he seems wasted here. A film curiosity - not a great film though.