Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

SimonJack When this movie came out in 1962, I was in training for the U.S. Army. From April 1962 to Oct 1964, I served near Mainz, Germany, with the American airborne portion of the 8th Infantry Division (504, 505 and 509 Airborne units). I first saw this film sometime during 1962. That was during the Cold War – before Vietnam, and right after the Berlin Wall went up. Besides it being a World War II drama film with some action, it made an impression on me at that young age. It was about fighting against an oppressor and aggressor, and a story about a family divided by the war. There I was in Europe, where WWII had concluded just 17 years before. I was serving to defend a divided Germany where it's eastern half and the rest of Eastern Europe were held captive by the Soviet Union. We held maneuvers and trained along the Czech and East German borders. We had exercises with other NATO countries – British, West German and others. We jumped in Germany, Denmark and Turkey. While I was serving my country and a just cause – and was willing to die for both, deep inside I was like most other American patriots of the day. I hoped that I would never have to see battle. I hoped I would never be face- to-face with an enemy soldier when I had to either shoot to kill or be killed. I have since watched "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" three or four more times. Each time I saw a little something else in the film. Most obvious, of course, is the tragedy of war and destruction of a family. With this most recent viewing of the film, another aspect emerged. I think it was always there, but now it loomed large. That was that good people cannot run away or isolate themselves from a world war. Or any abomination or injustice of such a nature. By its scope, it involves the whole world. Maybe not in the direct combat, but it affects the whole of humanity.In this film, the family patriarch, Julio Madariaga, had tried to do just that – isolate his family from war. By leaving his native Spain for Argentina three decades or more earlier, he hoped to raise a family that could hide from the evils of war. Indeed, what father would not want his family to be safe and away from war? But, in striving thus, Madariaga secluded his family from the world and what was going on in it. Had he not done so, his daughters, their husbands and children would likely have grown up better informed and more closely aligned as a family. By paying attention to events taking shape in Europe, they would have known more about Adolf Hitler and the Nazi threat to peace. By watching many years ahead of the Third Reich and the war, and discussing and looking closely at the events in Europe, the family would have become more close knit and understanding. By not discussing, arguing and living their South Americanism, the two sons- in-law never overcame the strong attachments to their native countries. And, that unbroken loyalty is what first drives the German Hartrott's to embrace Nazi Germany. Had the old man not died of a heart attack in Argentina early in the film, he surely would have died of a broken heart by film's end at the death of all of his grandchildren. This still is a good anti-war film, but it's more a film about what happens when people try to ignore evil that is taking place all around them. The person of Julio Desnoyers is the link in bringing out the selfishness of avoiding help for one's fellow man. His part is exaggerated as a hedonistic character, which makes the contrast all the more vivid. The fact that he can fall for and aggressively pursue a married woman to lure her away from her husband attests to his lack of unselfish upbringing all along. Each of the characters of this plot have some interesting aspects that stand out. This is a powerful film with strong messages. It has a superb cast of highly acclaimed actors. Charles Boyer as Marcelo Desnoyers, Paul Lukas as Karl von Hartrott, Paul Henreid as Etienne Laurier, Lee J. Cobb as Madariaga, and Glenn Ford as Julio Desnoyers – all were excellent. Another reviewer couldn't see Ford in an Hispanic role. Well his character was part Spanish, part French and whatever else. I think he was spot on. The rest of the cast were equally good. According to some sources, Vincent Minelli had problems directing this film. He wanted it to be set during World War I, as was the original story and the 1921 silent film based on the book. But, I think it fits perfectly with World War II. Most people would strain to get a connection with Boyer's character failing to serve in the French Army in the previous conflict – before WW I. That would have been the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. By changing the setting to WW II, I think Hollywood made the film more familiar. I don't understand why the movie was a box office flop – unless the public couldn't stand the outcome. This film is quite different than the 1921 movie in characters and plot, especially with the love interest of Julio. And that film veered a great deal from the novel of the same title by Vincente Ibanez. This is a thinking person's film. It is an interesting story with strong anti-war sentiments along with powerful subplots and social commentary. It should be in any serious collection of war films.

Greg Couture When I saw this during its first-run release, I was already an avid Minnelli fan but had been forewarned by the reviews that this was not one of his best. I recall enjoying it, nevertheless, and much of my pleasure was due to Minnelli's always inventive visual style, the expensive mounting in CinemaScope and Metrocolor, the interesting cast (not all of them well-chosen, especially the deadly-dull Glenn Ford, who was being assigned to what seemed like every other big budget M-G-M picture during that period), the astute use of Angela Lansbury to dub Ingrid Thulin's lines (though I'm sure that Miss Thulin's own voice, even if she had learned her lines phonetically, would have been preferable), and Andre Previn's very expressive score. (Mr. Previn came to disown a lot of his Hollywood work once he concentrated on conducting major classical orchestras, but I suspect he wouldn't have included this one among those he would prefer that we forget.) Tony Duquette's Four Horsemen figures are a striking addition to the lavish mounting of this production. It's not available on DVD (yet, anyway) and it's probably a safe bet that the VHS version is (ugh!) "formatted"...don't bother! You'll be missing the greater percentage of this film's achievement.

Jugu Abraham If Vincente Minnelli is to be praised in this film, it his decision to film Ibanez' novel and to cast the fascinating Ingrid Thulin--who has contributed substantially to Bergman's early work and to Swedish theatre. No Hollywood actress could have lent credibility to this role as Ms Thulin did. It is a matter of historical tragedy that Thulin's own voice was not used and Angela Lansbury's voice was used instead.Lee J Cobb as the patriarch and Glenn Ford as Julio were avoidable decisions. However, the casting of Paul Henreid and Charles Boyer enhanced the film.What made the film rise over mediocrity? The story and Thulin. Ibanez' work is world renowned and film is a beautiful medium to capture the image of the four horsemen. Interestingly Minnelli is not able to capture the "pale" and the "red" horse on screen--the most difficult of the four horses in technicolor and decides to use smoke and clouds to distract us. According to "The Book of Revelations," the horsemen carried a bow, a sword, a balance and a great Sword. Ingmar Bergman in "the Seventh Seal" and Minnelli transforms the great sword into a scythe. But for this detail, the art direction throughout the movie was commendable. Erich von Stroheim Jr. was a mere Assistant Director in this work. von Stroheim's body of work in Europe is revered today and one can only speculate about the result had he directed the film instead of Minnelli. Minnelli's film has its moments--Etienne meeting his wife on his return from capture, and Etienne's confrontation with Julio. Yet the film is Hollywood's attempt at presenting a narrative without complexity for audiences who prefer to be spoonfed. Ibanez' novel is still waiting for a good director to film--Minnelli stumbled in his effort to create a masterpiece. One mistake he made was choosing Glenn Ford to play an Argentinan playboy. What a costly mistake!

Wanda Skutnik Although this lavish production of a Hemmingwayesque story tried very hard, the casting of the over 45 year old Glenn Ford was a big mistake. His part of an international playboy should have gone to someone in their early 30's, with a more cavalier, rakish personality. I adore Glenn Ford, but for crying out loud, he's the essence of the stalwart American man. I can only think Jimmy Stewart would have been a worse choice. Two and a half hours didn't help this movie either. With better editing, and a slight change of casting this could have been a very good movie.