GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

GeoPierpont Initially I was inspired to view Vivian's swan song. However, it appeared too much of a rehash of Blanche for any redeeming merit. She most likely required the cash for medical bills. Very sad to see her deteriorate so quickly, a most ardent beauty.I found it most difficult to comprehend how most every single person had to have a breakdown and some sad sack story that overly dramatized such minor plot lines given the grand Nazi takeover sentiment. It appears that due to lack of material, each storyline was extended beyond boredom and to punch it up EVERYONE had to cry, including Dirty Dozen hero Lee Marvin. It had to have been his double since you really could not see his face. I am certain he defiantly refused to relinquish his bravado image and most likely under duress to even have that scene shown.My favorite couple was the doctor and the contessa. Simone retained her appeal and you could see that she portrayed an awareness of her great beauty, albeit years ago. The doctor was the most sympathetic of characters who did not overplay his role and the subtlety played off in spades.I also appreciated the scene with the 16 year old boy willing to kill his grandfather to provide relief for a modicum of much needed loving. Now that was as close to reality as it got in this terrible script! Overall, overkill on the characters, length of film and uninteresting plot lines.Recommend for Vivien fans and seeing Lee Marvin breakdown. This reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle" when Tom Hanks cries over Trini Lopez dying in the Dirty Dozen. Who would have thought he may have seen this film and was inspired for that scene!!

jcrussous-587-862242 Even though I enjoyed watching the film that tackled "taboo" topics for a 1965 movie, it was annoying to see the clothing and hairstyles, especially in the younger cast members, not reflecting how people dressed in 1933. As was typical in 1960s films--the make-up and hairstyles looked so 60s--when there were supposed to be "period pieces." ("Funny Girl" is a case in point.) That being said, the performances were great! Vivien Leigh sort of did her Blanche DuBois character and she did look older than 46 as did Simone Signoret for 42 (ages both characters were portraying).Has anyone else picked up on these "cosmetic" details? It sort of ruins if for me when the details are not correct. And I supposed if the film were in color, it'd really show up how un-1933 it would have looked!

tforbes-2 I agree with the opinion that "Ship of Fools" is a flawed great film, and it is one of the many movies that made 1965 a most memorable year in cinema. Here, we have Vivien Leigh in her final outing, and she shines, whether by herself, or when she plays opposite up-and-coming Lee Marvin. Marvin would enjoy this year, as he won an Oscar for another movie, "Cat Ballou."So many of the other performers turn in great performances. I personally enjoyed both Henry Calvin and Werner Klemperer, especially because the latter's character showed such depth. Mr. Klemperer, thankfully, was given a role with real dimension, and he holds his own against Ms. Leigh.What really mars this movie for me is the costuming. This is supposed to be 1933, but so many of the styles here scream 1964-65, when the movie was made. This is especially so with many of the supporting players, such as George Segal, Elizabeth Ashley and BarBara Luna, and— sadly—some of the more major players, such as Oskar Werner (his glasses) and even Ms. Leigh. I felt this distracted from the overall production. It was not as if Columbia Pictures had the same difficulties as Fox, which was in terrible shape from "Cleopatra," and which DID manage good costuming with "The Sound of Music."Overall, this is a compelling film, despite its flaws. Well worth watching!

writers_reign Alec Wilder, discussing the songs of Rodgers and Hammerstein said that he felt almost obligated to don Evening Dress before listening to them and the same may be said about the movies of Stanley Kramer; this is a guy who doesn't do confections or soufflé's, only Social Significance. When we speak of the Lubitsch 'touch' we envisage a snowflake fashioned from gossamer, if there were, God forbid, a Kramer 'touch' it would surely be a sledgehammer rampant on a field of moral tracts. Viewers who had read the best-selling novel by Katherine Ann Porter - best known for the short story rather than the novel - would have known what to expect but what of the good burghers of Upper Sandusky or Peoria who might, quite reasonably, take a gander at the title and figure Marx Brothers - Stateroom - on hard-boiled egg. Never fear, Kramer has it covered, step forward Michael Dunn to top-and-tail it via pieces direct to camera. Given that he is, as he is allowed to say himself (AH, those far-off days of non-PC, where are they now) a dwarf, there's an impish part of me that thinks as a Talking Head this is ridiculous given that there's not much else of him. Be that as it may he tells us that this is, indeed, a ship of fools and even manages to make it sound as though it means something. The cruise ship in question is en route from Vera Cruz to Bremerhaven and the passengers are mostly German returning to their homeland (there's a nod somewhere in there to the reverse traffic in 1945 when Nazi war criminals were fleeing to the relative safety of South America but don't reach for it, you'll risk nosebleed. Porter set her novel in 1932 but Kramer moves it forward one year because, wait for it, kiddies, 1933 was the year Hitler became Chancellor, now, how about THAT for SIGNIFICANCE. What we have here, of course, is a Microcosm, a Grand Hotel with a keel, of you will - or even if you won't, and the movie Grand Hotel came out in 1932. You could, of course, do this sort of stuff all day but sooner or later you have to get around to the cast. In what was destined to be her last film Vivien Leigh draws top billing but is blown away by Simone Signoret with second billing and a shade more screen time. In fact with about eighteen minutes tops on screen Signoret leaves everyone dead in the water and you don't know how good it feels to be able to use this phrase in a context that is actually applicable, she even makes Osker Werner look good. Lee Marvin gives the impression he's in another film altogether whilst George Segal and Jose Ferrer phone it it. Ironically for a guy who doesn't do frivolous Kramer throws in an ending right out of musical comedy as the remaining passengers (Signoret disembarked en route) walk down the gangplank in Bremerhaven to the accompaniment of an OOM-PAH Band. You couldn't make it up. Ten out of ten for Signoret, six for everything else.