Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Steineded How sad is this?

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Wuchak Released in 1946 and directed by King Vidor, "Duel in the Sun" stars Gregory Peck and Joseph Cotton as two rival sons of a ranch baron (Lionel Barrymore) in West Texas in the 1880s. When a striking half-breed (Jennifer Jones) comes to live on the ranch, she inspires love in the mild-mannered, educated son (Cotton) and unpredictable lust in the mocking, wild one (Peck). Lillian Gish plays the mother stuck in the middle while Walter Huston appears as a semi-questionable minister known as The Sinkiller. Charles Bickford is on hand as an older man also interested in the drama mama.While the movie runs 2 hours and 24 minutes, a full 16 minutes is opening and ending music, which makes the runtime of the story itself just over 2 hours. Speaking of the opening "Prelude" and "Overture," the music (by Dimitri Tiomkin) is thoroughly passé and goes on way too long at 12 minutes before the credits, which last another 1:35. If you can get past that, though, this is a great old Western where the producers pulled out all the stops to entertain. Producer, writer and (uncredited) director David O. Selznick's ambition was to top "King Kong" (1933) and, particularly, "Gone with the Wind" (1939), two other pictures he produced.Although critics fittingly dubbed it "Lust in the Dust," the movie WAS popular with the masses, no doubt helped by its controversial sexual content (which is tame today) and Selznick's affair with Jones, which broke up both of their marriages. They got married a few years later and it lasted till his death in 1965. Despite its box office success, "Duel" couldn't top "Gone with the Wind" and, being the most expensive film ever made at that point, it only broke even, although it eventually went on to make a profit with a re-release in 1954, etc.Jones is notable as the heavy-breathing babe, but I personally prefer Joan Tetzel as the fiancé of the older son (Cotton). Also, Peck plays the bad son surprisingly well, considering how he's known for playing more noble protagonists, e.g. "The Big Country" (1958) and "Mackenna's Gold" (1969).Bottom line: "Duel in the Sun" was just too big of a production to lose. Its story, while decidedly melodramatic, is compelling from beginning to end and there are highlights spiced throughout, including some stunning cinematography, amusing moments with horses and a couple of almost shocking sequences and story turns (e.g. the shootout in the saloon and, later, on the town street). To be expected, there are also some lowlights, but the movie always quickly recovers and maintains its footing. Lastly, there's a valuable moral hidden within the Western soap operatic shenanigans. The film was shot in Arizona & California (too many places to list). The script was written by David O. Selznick & Oliver H.P. Garrett (and, uncredited, Ben Hecht) suggested by a novel by Niven Busch. ADDITIONAL CAST: Herbert Marshall, Harry Carey, Scott McKay & Butterfly McQueen.GRADE: A

Davalon-Davalon I have scanned the other reviews here of DITS and am flabbergasted as to how anyone in their right mind could vote this a "10." Although "gorgeously photographed," the best thing that can be said about this travesty is that all film students should study it to avoid its litany of mistakes. The first most obvious one is: You cannot remake "Gone With the Wind" -- which DITS producer (and screenwriter and occasional director and ultimate destroyer) David Selznick was obviously trying to do. In GWTW, Scarlett O'Hara had clear-cut goals: to get Ashley, yes, but more importantly, to survive. In DITS, poor "half-breed" Pearl (Jennifer Jones) has apparently nothing else to do but be sex bait for good brother/closeted homosexual Jesse (Joseph Cotten) and bad brother/moron POS Lewt (Gregory Peck). There is no one to root for in this movie because it is unclear what it is about. Is it about the sad life of Pearl, who has no one in her corner, except possibly Laura Belle (Lillian Gish), mother of Jesse and Lewt, and wife of the Senator (Lionel Barrymore)? Is it about the railways making progress across the United States and encroaching upon the self-made kingdom of the Senator? Is it about Jesse and Lewt as Cain and Abel? Is it a comedy with laughs provided by poor Butterfly McQueen as "Vashti" (and why on God's earth did they name her that?! Research it!!), who is phoning in her performance from GWTW? I didn't care about anyone for one second... except I did feel bad for Jennifer Jones. It is clear she was a very attractive woman. Why they felt compelled to cast her as a "half-breed," I don't know. In order to achieve her "look" they had to bathe in her a sort of cocoa powder and constantly light her to make her look like Lupe Velez after a harsh day in the sun. She was obviously directed to lower her voice and have an inner struggle of wanting to please any man who looked at her twice and to hold on to her virginity. But throughout the story, I kept asking myself: What does this woman do? What did she do before she arrived at the Senator's home, what did she do while she was there, and what could she possibly have hoped to have done if she left? Many reviews focus on her "awful" performance. But my take is: She was doing her job. She was treated like "trash" for the entire film, and, in this way, I felt for her. She also kept referring to herself as "trash" -- but... based on what? The idea that she "succumbed" to POS Lewt? Lewt -- what a fine character he was! He would kill anyone he wanted (Charles Bickford, the only person in the film who seemed to have any morals), and blow up trains in some sort of deluded dream that he was going to please his father. He had absolutely no redeeming qualities. He was NOT Rhett Butler, who may have been a gambler, but he was a man with feelings and some level of intelligence. We can see why Scarlett may have ultimately fallen for him. But for Pearl to "give in" to Lewt... it was all so pathetically sad and insulting and degrading. This movie made it crystal clear that women were either mothers (Lillian Gish), virgins (Joan Tetzel), slaves (Butterfly McQueen) or whores (Jennifer Jones). It was a man's world and women were just expected to figure it out on their own. It is really hard to watch this in 2017, for the above reasons, and also because this film is a big, meandering mess. Who cares about the cinematography when everything else is incomprehensible? Also, apparently Selznick argued with composer Dimitri Tiomkin that he wanted "real music"; no, what he wanted was the score to "GWTW" -- and, not to demean Mr. Tiomkin, his score is completely unmemorable, no doubt because he was trying to please Selznick. Finally, since it is impossible to believe for a nanosecond that Pearl could have ever possibly loved Lewt, the entire ending is ludicrous. Some people are lucky to strike gold ONCE; that's what Selznick did with GWTW. He was unable to come close with DITS (which perhaps should be known as DITZ), and was never able to again. All in all, an absolute mistake.

JelenaG890 I saw this movie on TCM a few months ago, and quite honestly find it very hard to believe that it was made by the same man who did "GWTW." I guess David O. Selznick had his eye set on topping "GWTW", and thought this film would do it. Well, he failed in a pretty epic way here. Everything in this movie is such an overblown mess, it's hard to even know where to start with this review. First, the opening overture goes on forever, so the movie itself takes forever to start, and it does not get much better from there. (In fact, I think the music is one of the few high points of the film.)Pearl Chavez is no Scarlett O'Hara, Jennifer Jones was certainly not Vivian Leigh, Lionel Barrymore is such a ham in this film he could have been served at a Christmas dinner, and Gregory Peck (who was so great in other roles) was horribly miscast in this film.To be perfectly honest, I am not a huge fan of Jennifer Jones in general. Although a pretty woman, the only film of hers that I have ever been able to sit through more than once is "Song of Bernadette." In my opinion that is the only film that worked for her whispering, little girl voice, because she was playing a innocent young saint of a girl. With the exception of that one performance, she was extremely limited as an actress.Selznick obviously wanted to change her saintly image from "Song of Bernadette" with this film, but in this case, her involvement with the mega-producer did her more harm than good. She overacts in every scene, trying way too hard to act sultry to the point where her performance just comes off as cringe-worthy. To be fair, though, I'm sure Selznick probably instructed her to act that way. I'm sure her Oscar nomination for this film was more based on studio politics and her then-current popularity than the strength of her actual performance. This film is not supposed to be a comedy, but the acting of Peck, Barrymore and Jones did make me want to laugh. The story itself is also laughable. While GWTW was about the civil war and the struggle to survive in the south, this story of this film really has no purpose other than to have Jones walk around like a sexpot. In my opinion, only Joseph Cotten, Lillian Gish, Butterfly McQueen (scene stealer every time), and the horse came out of this disaster unscathed. The only reason I gave this more than 1 star is the scenery, music, and the performances of those four actors. Yes, I thought even the horse fared better here than Jones or Peck!

jjnxn-1 David O. Selznick's misguided attempt to recreate the success of GWTW in a western setting. The film has pleasures to be sure but also some woefully terrible parts. On the plus side: the cinematography is gorgeous and some of the supporting performances are good, Lillian Gish and Charles Bickford come off best. However there are some fatal flaws: a meager story to pin two and a half hours of film on and an overly earnest tone are two big deficits but what really hurts the film the most is the complete miscasting of the two leads. Gregory Peck was a fine actor but he was also an icon of resolute decency, whereas other actors with that persona like Henry Fonda could occasionally play a villain convincingly Peck could not. His casting alone would not be so bad if it wasn't paired against the absurdity of Jennifer Jones as Pearl. While I'll admit to never being a fan of hers within a limited range she could be an okay actress when the role wasn't too demanding, for instance The Towering Inferno. Pearl Chavez is far outside that scope, the part isn't really that good to begin with, even an actress as skillful as Vivien Leigh would probably been hard pressed to make her real although Ava Gardner with her raw sensuality probably could have made her if not necessarily real at least convincing but Jones mistakes over emphasis with depth and Vidor's florid style of direction doesn't help her. Part of the blame probably rests with Selznick's famed smothering control and that fact he was determined to make Jones the greatest of all stars which resulted often in putting her in material for which she was not suited and away from her strengths as a performer. The film is entertaining in an often campy way but one viewing should be enough.