SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Kirpianuscus Kirk Douglas. and Yul Brynner. and a realistic story of survive. the atmosphere is the same from many films of genre from the period. the clear definition of evil does the difference. because it not propose only a black- white conflict. the nuances of gray, the inspired use of clichés, the portrait of pirates- who is far to be an usual one-, a good role for Brynner as more than the bad guy but a strange, cold blood, sadistic leader of a group of savages, the same status of Kirk Douglas as hero with few dark shadows of past, the terrible scene of arrival of pirate ship, the fight scenes are good points of an old fashion adventure film who reminds performances- Fernando Rey, in a short presence -, reimpose names - Renato Salvatori or Samantha Eggar- and the real flavor of genre.

Bob-45 After seeing "The Light at the Edge of the World," over 40 years after its release, I understand why it was a dismal flop in 1971. I remember the billboard advertising highlighting Kirk Douglas and Jules Verne, with small pictures of Yul Brynner and Samantha Eggar. I am certain many a parent dragged her kids screaming from a "Jules Verne/Kirk Douglas pirate movie" featuring mutilations, gang rape and the skinning of one especially beloved character. Those few adult couples likely attracted to the movie were likely put off by the weak pacing, inept direction and abysmal music.However those of us who can look beyond the cheap jack trappings will be rewarded with strong lead performances by Kirk Douglas and, especially, Yul Brynner. Samantha Eggar, who has much less screen time, also impresses, even though most of her scenes are undercut by the weak direction.At 2 hours and 7 minutes, "The Light at the Edge of the World" is at least 20 minutes too long. The flashback exposition regarding Douglas' character is not only unnecessary, it undercuts what little suspense the ineffectual direction could muster. One of these days, I would love to have video editing software to deconstruct and reconstruct this movie, removing unnecessary scenes, tightening camera fields and replacing the awful music. Barring that, "The Light at the Edge of the Word" is worth seeing, if only for Yul Brynner's chilling performance.I give "The Light at the Edge of the World" a "6".

Jonathon Dabell I read the book first, a fairly good novel by the prolific Jules Verne entitled The Lighthouse at the End of the World. I enjoyed the book sufficiently to look forward with a degree of eagerness to the film, but my anticipation was shattered once I saw the actual movie.It's a terribly dreary affair, about lighthouse keepers near to Cape Horn who are attacked by a band of pirates. The pirates seize control of their island, and more importantly their lighthouse, and use it to steer unsuspecting vessels onto the nearby rocks.Kirk Douglas plays the surviving lighthouse keeper, and Yul Brynner plays the main pirate. Both roles are under written and both stars seem ill at ease with the material they've been signed up to work with. The action is littered with distracting embarrassments, such as the scene where Kirk leaps from a cliff into the sea, but it is so obviously a dummy making the fall that it evokes laughter more than excitement.This might have been an enjoyable kids movie if treated better, but every now and then it lapses into brutality which makes it unsuitable even for the juvenile crowd. In particular, there's a savage scene in which a hostage is skinned alive by the pirates, and we see peels of skin being torn off with a hooked pike to reveal blood and raw flesh beneath. This is not the stuff of a childrens' flick. Furthermore, the film frequently turnd up in an incoherent, chopped up 95 minute edition, which has been cut down from the two hour original so badly that it barely makes sense at all. An interesting dilemma for the audience is whether to watch the short, illogical version, or the long, dreary one. Suffice to say, both are awful!

Mellotrn Remove yourself from the Kirk Douglass aspects of the casting. It is essential to your enjoying the film. There is a beautiful young woman playing double roles - and in the photos from the 1800's, I can't believe how smooth and white her skin is. Also, there is an excellent degrading of the film stock which chills the mind if you like faded greys and yellows as I do. This film is played on TNT from time to time so see it.