Reviews (59)

Absorbing! Realistic! Riveting! Fantastic!
1961's "The Hustler" is a picture that will truly "suck you in". It totally absorbed my attention throughout. Making this in black-and-white was a wise choice by the movie-makers too. It sets the mood of the drab surroundings we experience during the film.

A perfect cast has been assembled here, with Paul Newman a knockout in the lead role of pool shark "Fast Eddie" Felson. Piper Laurie, George C. Scott, Murray Hamilton, and Myron McCormick give strong support to Newman. And there's a very controlled and somewhat subdued Jackie Gleason as "Minnesota Fats". Jackie doesn't have a huge part here, but he pulls off his role as "Fats" with style.

There are a lot of quiet moments in this picture ... when just visuals propel the story. I like that in movies! Sometimes there's too much dialogue in a film, in places where nothing needs to be said at all. It just seemed to me that the producer/director (Robert Rossen) knew when to keep the actors quiet here.

The Hustler will forever remain a Classic to me!!

Some Hustler stats:
-------------------------------------
Running Time: 135 minutes.
Debut in theatres: September 25, 1961.
Nominated for Best Picture of 1961. (Beaten out by "West Side Story".)
Paul Newman nominated for Best Actor of 1961. (Beaten out by Maximilian Schell--Judgment at Nuremburg.)
Both George C. Scott and Jackie Gleason were nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 1961 for this film. (Both beaten out by George Chakiris--West Side Story.)
Piper Laurie nominated for Best Actress in '61. (Beaten out by Sophia Loren--Two Women.)
Film won two 1961 Oscars --- Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (B&W).
Billiard champ Willie Mosconi, 14-time world champion from 1941-1957, was a key technical adviser on the set of The Hustler, literally teaching Mr. Newman how to play the game of pocket billiards, right down to his grip on the cue stick. Newman became quite proficient by the end of the shooting of the picture.
Newman reprised his role as Fast Eddie in 1986's sequel, "The Color of Money", co-starring Tom Cruise. Newman DID win the Oscar for Best Actor that year.

Newman's Own...
It is a real shame that not one of the actors, nominated for their work in THE HUSTLER, took home the Oscar. Now, a true classic in every sense of the word, the film is still one of the coolest motion pictures ever made. Originally released in 1961, the film is flawless. "Fast" Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) is an arrogant pool hustler, who seems unbeatable, that is until he meets his match. When his desire and ambition for perfection lead him to challenge legendary pool king, "Minnesota Fats" (Jackie Gleason), things heat as Felson may have bitten off more than he can chew. He risks everything good in his life for a shot at glory. Piper Laurie as Sarah Packard, has great chemistry with Newman, and George C. Scott as Bert Gordon is tops too.

Based on the book by Walter S. Tevis, the movie was directed by Robert Rossen, and shows off his real talent as a filmmaker. Desperate to put his "Ralph Kramden" character behind him, Gleason delivers a fine dramatic performance, that is sure to surprise you, if you only know him from "The Honeymooners". The pool room action is put together very well. The fact that the film was shot in black and white, only enhanced the action on screen, and makes it give off an almost cooler aura.

It's great to finally see the movie on DVD. The special features are great. The most interesting of which, is the "picture-in picture" commentary, that explains how all of the trick shots were done in the film. This innovative feature is "way cool" The commentary track is pretty good too. However, I enjoyed the retrospective documentary, "the inside story", a bit more. It was also neat to see the vintage theatrical trailer.

The DVD is Highly Recommended and is a must have in anyone's movie collection

One of the greatest American films ever made. MUST SEE!!!
With or without the Oscar, this is one of the greatest American films ever made in any genre. George C. Scott refused to take part in the Oscar ceremonies when "The Hustler" was nominated, calling them "a self-serving orgy" if my memory serves me right. Perhaps that stand contributed to the movie not being recognized in its own time. Whatever the reason, this film shows you that recognition is unnecessary for true art. The cream always rises to the top.

People may not realize that Paul Newman was an unknown when this movie was made. His youthful brashness and emotion laden performance show him as an actor beyond his years.

One can never say too much about George C. Scott. He's old reliable, in this movie as in his others. He does an excellent job. He's just so good that we are numb to his mastery.

Piper Laurie also turns in an amazing performance. Her acting is subtle but her method is steady.

The real standout in this film is Jackie Gleason. He shows why he was called "The Great One." I personally feel that this movie shows him as the greatest method actor of his generation, and perhaps one of the greatest ever.

But unbelievable acting is only one part of this gem. The cinematography is clear and artistic. The script is expertly written and the scenery couldn't be more authentic.

This is the only pool movie I know of that you can enjoy as a pool player. The pool scenes are unbelievable. They used the greatest pool players of the day in shooting and it shows. The Color of Money is a nicely shot movie but there is not really a lot of pool in it. This is a pool movie that transcends pool.

Please do yourself a favor and add this to your collection.

The Hustler is simply amazing.
The Hustler is a 1961 20th Century Fox release about the game of billiards. It features an amazing cast; Paul Newman as Fast Eddie, Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats, Piper Laurie as Sarah Packard, and George C. Scott as Bert Gordon. Robert Rossen directs the 134-minute film, with outstanding cinematography, for which it won an academy award, but it was hard not to just watch the amazing acting displayed.

The most interesting things I found in the movie are the lighting and the camera angles. The pool halls are just as most people picture them, dark, dingy and full of smoke. This is visible at the beginning of the movie when Fast Eddie and Minnesota Fats play their first game of pool. The players are lit when playing at the table, but when the rest of the hall is shown, it is dark with almost no lighting whatsoever. I find it interesting that the actors are kept in the shadows, even when delivering dialogue, until they lean to the table to shoot. I feel this is to emphasize the game played, and the players, but only when they are doing what is important to them. This also pushes the spectators almost out of view, to become the same as the viewers in the theatre and at home. This leads to a somewhat humorous scene. Fast Eddie and Minnesota Fats are playing a marathon set of games for high stakes. The favorite is Fats, but he is down about $10,000. While Fats is making a shot, an employee of the pool hall starts to raise the blinds, and he complains telling the employee to "cut that sunshine out", to accentuate the mood I feel the director was trying to set. After 25 hours of playing, Minnesota Fats wins back $13,000 dollars, leaving Eddie with only $200 in his pocket.

The lighting changes when Eddie is not in the pool hall, and is almost blinding to the viewer. There are many scenes with Eddie and Sarah in her apartment, and it is usually very bright, but when the mood is depressing or dreary, it gets darker, helping to convey the mood displayed. When they travel out of the apartment, the mood is usually light, and the scenery also brightens showing the actors more dramatically.

The camera angles used in the movie are very interesting to the viewer. There are many shots inside of doorways, usually featuring Fast Eddie. Those scenes are usually more personal parts of the movie, away from the pool halls. The actors are almost never featured in the center of the screen, but offset to the side. I feel this is to allow the lighting to enter more into the viewing experience. When scenes are shown featuring two actors, the camera takes a side view, making the space between them seems greater. The camera also often shifts in between characters, even when separated by just a table. This allows the spectator to concentrate more on the speaker, or to view emotion conveyed by the other actors. When the actors are playing pool, the camera often pans up to the character leaning down to the table. I feel this angle allows us to focus more on the action of shooting, and on facial expressions, instead of the actual shot. When at the pool hall, there are also many angled shots from above and over, allowing the background and lighting to display more prominently.

I would rate this movie five stars. While I have not concentrated on the acting, it is tremendous. Paul Newman displays amazing emotion, and mix of desperation and cockiness of Fast Eddie conveys through almost every small thing he does. The story line is unique and builds the characters into people that the viewer can become very interested. However, I find that what the audience usually does not notice is what truly makes this movie great.

A Breath-taking Cinematic Experience...
A small-time pool hustler, Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) also called Fast-Eddie, is feeling that he is on his way up as he wants to take on the reputable Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason). However, Eddie is young and boastful with poor self-control and after several drinks he loses a very large amount of money to Minnesota Fats in a lengthy pool game. Penniless and embarrassed Eddie runs off like a dog with his tail between his legs from his manager and friend. As Eddie leaves he meets Sarah (Piper Laurie) with whom he begins to form a relationship with. As Eddie then attempts to rebound from his financial set back he meets Bert Gordon, a ruthless and wealthy gambler. Gordon offers Eddie a tough deal, but it might be a new beginning for Eddie depending on what price he might have to pay in order to get back on his feet. Hustler is a remarkable film about self-discovery, greed, love, and billiards that captivates the audience through an intriguing story. The story's genuine feeling of how people struggle through difficulties is brought out by a terrific cast as well as cinematography that lends support to the emotions that the characters feel. In the end, Rossen creates a breath-taking cinematic experience. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

In Spite of Flaws, This Political Noir Is Still Powerful
There are certain subjects that films in general and Hollywood in particular never handled very well--and chief among them are politics. But even some fifty years after it first hit theatre screens, ALL THE KING'S MEN still has plenty of power. Filmed in a "noir" style and based on the famous novel which was in turn based loosely on the rise and fall of Louisiana's Huey P. Long, the film offers the story of Willie Stark, a small-town lawyer who is nominated for govenor by a political party seeking to defeat their opponet by dividing the rural vote. When Willie gets wise to the plot he turns on his false benefactors and rockets to political power--but once in power the honest small-town-joe becomes even more corrupt than those who sought to manipulate him for their own gain.

Broderick Crawford justly earned an Oscar for his performance as Willie Stark, whose ego and thirst for power grows to horrific proportions--and whose corruption gradually taints even the most honorable people around him. The supporting cast of John Ireland, Joanne Dru, Anne Seymour, and Walter Burke (to name but a few) is also quite good. But the real knockout here is actress Mercedes McCambridge as Willie Stark's hard-edged assistant and sometimes lover; it is an astonishing performance which, in spite of its supporting status, remains locked in mind long after the film ends, a role for which McCambridge won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress.

The script doesn't really do full justice to Warren's novel, the film is a bit slow to start, and the story itself feels a bit dry in the telling--but the performances and numerous memorable scenes carry it through to tremendous effect. ALL THE KING'S MEN is so explicit in its portrait of how corrupt politicians manipulate the public that it should be required viewing for every one of voting age. Recommended.

The political rise and fall of Willie Stark
"All the King's Men" turns Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel into the role of a lifetime for Oscar winning Best Actor Broderick Crawford. The story is inspired, for lack of a better word, by the real life and times of Huey P. Long, the infamous Louisiana politician who seemed intent on adapting fascism to American politics. Director Robert Rossen also wrote the adaptation of the celebrated novel, and ultimately it is Rossen who deserves the credit for the film's power. There is an intensity to the film, beginning with the torchlight processions, campaign barbecues and banners for Stark that we see behind the opening credits. When Stark is finally revealed to us in a rapid-fire sequence showing him at a football stadium, speaking to a crowd at the fair, steamrolling legislators, posing for photographs with his family, there is a vitality that presents the political figure of Stark as an utterly American political figure. The only problem with this film, at least for me, is that the transformation of Willie Stark from the hick lawyer with a sincere concern for the plight of the downtrodden into a drunken, egomaniacal dictator once he has tasted power. The change is too sudden, just like the assassin's bullet that cuts Stark down at the end, so that instead of becoming a tragic figure (a good man gone wrong), we are left wondering who is the real Stark and forced to conclude it is the original naive do-gooder that was the sham. However, once we jettison the character's roots, there is no arguing that this is not a compelling political narrative and the fact that the true story of Huey P. Long again proves that fact is stranger than fiction should not really enter into the equation.

Ordinary
The book is infinitely better. Robert Penn Warren wrote a deep and subtle story about the American dream, morals and desires of early 20th century America. The movie keeps the plot and thats about it. It's well acted but there isn't much here. Won the Oscar for best picture in a weak year.

Never again as good. Brodrick Crawford is another of that
select group of actors who peak early in their career. In his case it is 1949, he won an Oscar, & never again got close. Eventually Crawford moved to the small screen where we,of a certain age, remember him on "Highway Patrol". But his best was better than most. His character, in All the King's Men, is Willie Stark, an idealistic, honest, populist politician bucking the system. He is also ambitious & seeing his opportunity, seizes it. His greed, lust for power & ego run amok & turn him into the very thing he had fought against only worse. He corrodes everything & everybody he touches & comes to a fitting end a 'la Huey Long, the man on which the film & presumably the book were loosely based. Highly recommended for all who like this style of political noir or junkies.

What a disappointment.
What can I say -- I found this film to be so incredibly trite, so simple were its morals and weak its characterization. John Ireland is a lump at the center of the film, Mercedes McCambridge's character arc is severely underdeveloped. As for Willy, we never see his true motivations for an instant, and this is most maddening. I have read a small portion of Warren's book, and it so so vastly superior to the piece of Hollywood pap it's ridiculous. It's hard to imagine a book that is considered the greatest political novel in American history is represented by this connect-the-dots fare. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Highly Recommended On All Levels
Great entertainment and historically correct, for the most part. Richard Burton plays a convincing Alexander. From the start, with the background on Alexander's youth and his relationship with his father Philip and mother Olympias, the movie awesomely captures history. The battle scenes are recreated very well. I especially liked the post-battle scene at Chaeronea with the drunken Philip's singing echoing through the valley. Only minor errors, such as Darius's daughter being called Roxanne (a Bactrian princess) instead of Statira, can easily be overlooked. Alexander in fact, married both women anyway. The Persians are also shown historically correct for the most part, especially Darius' murder and the scene at Persepolis. For an under two-hour movie, what you get is quite spectacular. Of course, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to film everything in Alexander's life.

Disappointing
Robert Rossen 1950's attempt at writing and directing a film on a character as intriguing and dynamic as Alexander The Great falls flat. The subject itself calls for only the most devoted and skilled masters of film which Rossen was not for purposes of this genre.

Because Alexander The Great accomplished so much within only 13 years of his 33 years of life, it is virtually impossible to make a good movie on that part alone in less than 3 hours. Richard Burton delivers a strong performance as Alexander but also seems too constrained; Butrton fails to deliver the youthful vigor of which Alexander had so much of. Not only was Alexander a king and conqueror, he was a military genius; a philosopher; a bold explorer; and, in his own mind anyway, a god among mortal men. Burton's performance often seems too grave and reserved and fails to reflect Alexander's dynamic personality.

I did like the movie for its focus on Alexander's childhood but that also came short. It seems that, other than for biblical movies, the 1950s and early 1960s was a really bad period for making films dealing with the classical pagan world. All such movies were inevitably constrained by prudish christian values that restricted what subjects such a movie could touch upon and limited the characters depicted. Although a military genius in his own right, Phillip was a debauche and drunkard whose bizzare sexual preferences shocked even his Greek neighbors. For example, after the battle of Charonea, Phillip II swaggered drunk around the corpses of the enemy and, lifting their heads as if seeking an audience, would yell for Demonsthenes (Athenian orator and staunch enemy of Phillip.) Olympias was a conspiring queen and pagan priestess whose incessant scheming were directed at both Alexander and/or Phillip at one point or another. Such characters were poorly presented due to a squeemish 50s audience: unfortunate.

The movie doesn't really cover the campaign or its battles very well either. Looking at the movie, one barely gets any view as to how Alexander refined his father's tactics of the Macedonian phalanx to its peak; a military tactic unmatched until it came against the more fluid ones of the Roman legions almost 200 years later. The same is true as to Alexander's great siege of Tyre in which he built a mile-long jetti into the sea to connect with the City's gates; his hard fought geurilla campaign against Darius' renegade satraps; or his victories against Porus' elephants in India. There are also gross inaccuracies in the film in that Roxanne wasn't Darius III's daughter.

I have heard that Oliver Stone with perhaps the help of Copola is completing a new film on Alexander the Great with Leonardo Di Caprio as Alexander: I look forward to seeing that. In the meantime, we can only look at where others have failed. Roughly paraphrasing Phillip II, I would tell viewers, "Seek a greater movie, for that which Rossen leaves you is too small for thee."

A less than stellar 1956 epic film about Alexander the Great
With films about Alexander the Great directed by Oliver Stone and Baz Luhrmann supposedly being released in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the 1956 film "Alexander the Great" from director Robert Rossen with Richard Burton in the title role is probably going to see renewed interest. However, despite providing a realistic portrayal of a historical legend and being one of the most historically faithful films about the ancient world ever to be made, there is something missing from this would be epic.

"Alexander the Great" was written, produced and directed by Rossen, who had won the Academy Award for "All the King's Men" (1949) and would be nominated gain for "The Hustler" (1961). All three films have in common the realistic portrait of a complex psychological figure. Burton plays Alexander as being both energetic and a visionary, with quicksilver changes in mood. Alexander is both idealistic and practical, intelligent but hot-tempered, courageous but shrewd. Although he conquers the Persian Empire while still basically a boy, this is a conqueror who suffers defeats and almost falls prey to becoming an Oriental potentate just like Darius (Harry Andrews), the Persian king he just conquered. This is a man who can kill a friend in a moment of anger while drunk and weep over the body.

The more you know about the historical Alexander the more impressed you are by the film's fidelity to what appears in Plutarch. Here is the Alexander who worshiped Achilles and loved Homer's "Iliad," who was taught by Aristotle, cut the Gordian knot, destroyed Persepolis, and died a young man at Babylon. The battles sequences, such as the battle at the river Granicus, run rather short, but are not all that bad. The problem is that for all the complexity of Alexander's character and the intensity of Burton's performance, there is no real sense of mission or accomplishment to his conquering the known world. We see what happened, but are curiously unaffected by the film's implicitly explanation for why he did it.

The rationale suggested by the film is found in Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia. Played by Fredric March, Philip has a memorable scene after the battle of Chaeronea against the united city-states of Greece when he gets drunk and mocks the Athenian orator Demosthenes for having called him a barbarian. When Philip is assassinated Alexander chases after the assassin and kills him, and even the most basic understanding of Freudian psychology tells us that the son will spend the rest of his life trying to impress his dead father.

In the end the explanation for conquering the world becomes the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's famous quote for why he climbed Mt. Everest. To wit, "Because it was there." When you are on top of the world, there is a certain logic to such a quip. But when the subject is conquering the known world starting with a relatively small kingdom north of Greece, the same idea seems rather hollow. Hopefully Stone and/or Luhrmann can come up with not only better explanations, but much better films.

An Epic That Never Was
Someday, someone is going to make a great film about Alexander. Writer/director Robert Rossen took a crack at it in the mid-1950's, an era of epic films. The result was interesting but ultimately disappointing. Perhaps Rossen tried to squeeze too much into a standard running time. Some scenes, usually the historic ones, seem rushed and truncated while others, the fictionalised ones, seem superfluous. Visually, the film is quite good. In fact, it is one of those films where the stills are more impressive than the actual scenes.

But Rossen obviously wanted to make an "intelligent" epic. Some of the script and casting reflect that. The supporting cast has a number of respected British thesps -Claire Bloom, Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Stanley Baker. But there are also a lot of Italians whose dialogue is dubbed by those same two guys who did all the film dubbing in the 1950's. One can only wonder who chose Fredric March (hammy as ever) as Philip of Macedon or Danielle Darrieux (who apparently had only one facial expression) as his mischievous queen.

But the critical casting was Richard Burton as Alexander. He certainly looks the part, despite the blonde hair. But he frequently suffers from his career-long inability to adapt his stage-acting technique to the more intimate demands of cinema. Or maybe that's how he thought a wannabe god should behave. You sit there praying for him to lighten up - just a little.

For the rest, the many battle scenes tend to be confusing rather than spectacular, the uncertain pace suggests a lot of pre-release cuts were made, and the music not only sounds primitive but seems to have been recorded in somebody's basement. Still, the film is an interesting failure. But you end up admiring its ambitions more than its results.

Alexander the Great
Richard Burton, hair dyed blond, wandering around in a miniskirt. A movie only Liz Taylor could love. Drags ... Read more

Amazon.com

Gary Cooper's forte--the searching, lone figure beleaguered by conflicts over conscience, truth, and ethics--followed him all the way to the ambitious They Came to Cordura, his third-to-last feature. Cooper plays Thomas Thorn, a career officer in America's fading horse Army of the early 20th century. Thorn's alleged cowardice in battle has been papered over by superiors: He is to identify acts of bravery during an attack on Pancho Villa's troops and lead those designated heroes to a Medal of Honor ceremony in Cordura, Texas. Though Thorn tries to extract the secret behind courage from each man, he discovers a battle-hardened, bestial side to them as well. The Cordura journey becomes fraught with mutiny and near-assaults on a Yankee expatriate (Rita Hayworth). Thorn, reputation aside, redefines courage on his own terms. This widescreen drama (the DVD offers full-screen format as well) is suspenseful, morally complex, and visually rich, but Cooper's performance carries the day. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (8)

A Butchered Masterpiece
THEY CAME TO CORDURA was originally 148 minutes. It was hailed by critics who saw this version, including the NY Times, which gave it a rave. But Columbia grew nervous, it was dark, grim, downbeat. The army looked like it was filled with cowards, rapists, murderers. Columbia took the film away from director Robert Rossen and lopped off 35 minutes, then added back in several minutes of exposition. The resulting film is maddening. At times brilliant, at times clumsy; it's pacing is awkward, the editing downright amateurish. The minions at Comubia hadn't a clue what they were doing whgen they butchered and re-editied the film. Even so, it is still a fine, fine film. The writing is spot-on, some of the dialogue scalding; the acting is flawless, and many of the sequences take your breath away. An extraordinary score. And Cooper is heart-breaking in his depiction of the coward. The scene between him and Rita Hayworth, in which he tells of cowering in the ditch, is screen acting of the highest order. Rossen was in the process of buying the film back from Columbia to return it to his original vision when he died. Perhaps it will yet happen. But not by Columbia, which has dropped this DVD onto the market with no extras and no attempt to restore it. Even so, CORDURA is well worth the purchase. Truly, a butchered masterpiece.

TOTALLY BORING MOVIE !
This movie is a failure in every way - I do not know what the
other reviewers are talking about...
This movie is about a bunch of people wandering around in the desert through the whole movie until the end.
Cooper is too old and one does not like him playing a coward.
Hayworth is the only good thing about it. She plays great
and looks great. This was her last A-movie for Columbia.
Afterwards her big career was over in 1959.

At What Price Courage
This 1959 film from director Robert Rossen sets out to define the meaning of courage. Set in 1916 Mexico during General Pershing's Expedition to capture Poncho Villa in revenge for his raid into New Mexico, the US Army sets out to find soldiers worthy of the Medal of Honor. Ironically, a branded coward Gary Cooper is given the task. This is a slow and deliberate movie. It is noteworthy not for its script but for its depth of well constructed characters and their motivations. By the end of the film you may ask yourself if cowards and heroes walk the same thin line. Van Heflin gives a standout performance and he is the real catalist behind Cooper's internal struggle that manifests itself visually on the screen.

The last great cavalry charge
This fictitous dramatisation based around the last cavalry campaign and the heroic exploits of some troopers at the almost last mounted pistol charge(the last mounted pistol charge was lead by Ed Ramsey in charge of G troop,26th Cavalry regiment(P.S)against Japanese during the defense of the Phillipines during WW2) shines on despite the rough as guts editing . The real charge at Ojos Azules was lead by Apache scouts serving alongside the 11th Cavalry regiment.The regiment in this movie is the 28th Cavalry(the real 28th didnt exist until 1943 and when it did it was a negro regiment).The charge is an action milestone,over 300 horses where used. Cooper plays an officer who has officialy been shamed for cowardice in the face of the enemy,he is given a"deskjob" for his cowardice and must escort a mixed group of citation winning heroes back to base at Cordura.This rag tag detachment are ambushed on route and are forced to surrender there horses,and it is after this that the real nature of the "heroes" becomes apparant. The real star of the movie is Van Heflin,he steals the show and runs rings around the other actors.The editing is abrupt and obtrusive at some moments(much of the film is reversed and to a uniform collector like myself it becomes very distracting)but the A-list cast peform beyond these shortcomings. This movie has more in common with Treasure of the Sierra Madre than it does with The Wild Bunch but somehow seems at home between the two. A great movie that could only be improved by a DVD release. Thanks for your time Golpeo Rapidamente

They Came to Cordura
This film is set in 1916 Mexico during General Pershing's Punitive Expedition to capture Poncho Villa. Gary Cooper plays Maj. Thomas Thorn, an Army officer accused of cowardice, sent to observe and deliver five men (Van Heflin, Tab Hunter, Richard Conte, Michael Callan and Dick York) for consideration to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. Rita Hayworth is an American accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The film is rather tedious as it ever so slowly tries to discern the meaning of courage. Its greatest assets are the beautiful color cinematography by Burnett Guffey and an underrated and powerful performance by Van Heflin. I have never seen Heflin better, as he remains a constant thorn in the side of Cooper. Heflin plays one of the crudest and potentially violent characters I have ever seen. He physically looks the part and plays it with incredibly subdued menace. The film was directed by Robert Rossen and co-written by Rossen and Ivan Moffat. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Few actresses are adored by the camera as much as Jean Seberg is in the brooding, 1964 psychodrama Lilith. The legendary American and European star (Godard's Breathless), playing Lilith Arthur, fixes one's attention on her every nuance in Robert Rossen's tale of a beautiful, sexual omnivore and psychotic patient at a New England mental hospital. Withdrawn into her small world of dolls and fantasies, Lilith responds to the attention of a laconic, Korean War veteran, Vincent Bruce (Warren Beatty), who is trying to find himself by working as an occupational therapist. Burdened by a murky, guilt-ridden past (involving his mentally ill mother), Vincent gradually falls into an unnervingly passionate affair with Lilith--much less a romance than a shared journey toward mutual implosion. Rossen's severe, sincere, stark black-and-white drama is sometimes lost in a muddle of undefined character motivations, but it's quite a ride toward the film's last-minute epiphany. Watch for Gene Hackman in a small role. --Tom Keogh ... Read more