Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

winner55 You have to have like zero sense of Mexican history and culture not to understand the multiple levels of thematic development and narrative going on in this film. And unfortunately some of the reviews on this film evidence just that lack of sense.The Mexican revolution (roughly 1910-1920) was one of the most confusing - and bloodiest - in the annals of national political developments in the West. Perhaps only the Spanish Cuivil War could equal it for ferocity, and that only lasted less than half as long. An entire generation was shaped by the slaughter but also by the struggle to establish a national identity at last committed to some principle of legitimate democratic governance. The legacy - and the problems -continue.The leading male, General Reyes (based loosely on Zapata), is a complex character; he is hardly a saint - he passes judgment on a wealthy businessman (who has raise the prices of necessities to prevent their purchase by the poor) and has him executed. Is he authoritarian murderer and thief? Or is he trying to establish and enforce a new law? Can this be determined in a time of revolution, when the very question of what constitutes legitimacy is at issue? Yet we are given to know that he can love individuals - and also the people as a whole, when an influenza epidemic breaks out and he orders his men to help the stricken, even at the risk of their own lives - and his.The relationship between Reyes and the wealthy landowner's daughter Maria will probably not make much sense unless you understand that Mexican culture is profoundly Romantic in the 19th Century usage of that term. Both Reyes and Maria are fiercely struggling to determine how to maintain their individuality while pursuing a courtship threatening to engulf them both. Their resolution - allowing the revolution to seal their fates together - is pure (Percy) Shellyan. (This is a very tough-minded romance, and only a true Romantic would know what that means. The closest Hollywood came to it is Gone With The Wind which this film resembles, as a rather compressed variant at 80 minutes - and maybe Casablanca.) As to the film-making - it is glorious - absolutely beautiful cinematography, exquisitely taut direction, brilliant performances by the leading actors. The editing is a bit rugged, but it may have to be. I was at first confused by the influenza epidemic sequence - it is all smoke, darkness, sudden jump cuts and time ellipses - until I realized that this was as intended. Director Fernandez knew that his audience wanted a battle to decide the fates of the characters, but also recognized that this would spoil the romance. So the epidemic displace military engagement; nonetheless, it too is a battle, a battle to survive, and so must be both confusing and threatening, involving the loss of life and the definition of the personalities at risk and how they respond to it.That is intuitive film-making, and very risky, and brilliant if pulled off well. And I think it is. The ending, for me, was emotionally staggering, but only Reyes' and Maria's collective endeavors to survive the epidemic - and help others during it - could properly prepare me for it.An absolutely knockdown film. The existing prints - the one at Internet Archive I saw was a Mexican television edit, and I've read of worse - are not great, and maybe lacking episodes. Still what is available makes proper claim that this ought to stand as a (perhaps minor, but necessary) classic of commercial film-making. God knows what was going through RKO's Hollywood brains when they decided to make a Mexican film by a Mexican director (in English, with US actors), but thank god they did.(BTW influence: Undoubtedly seen by Sam Peckinpah who hired Fernandez to play Mapache in the Wild Bunch - note certain character similarities. Probably also seen in Europe, where it would have earned more respect than in the US, I suggest Sergio Leone may very well have been a fan, note similarity of certain shots, certain relationships, certain characters, to those in The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.)

FightingWesterner Revolutionaries led by Pedro Armendariz, blow into a Mexican town and turn it upside down. Disregarding the advice of old friend and priest Gilbert Roland, he falls in love with Paulette Goddard, the daughter of a wealthy man slated for execution. He pursues her, despite the fact that the sassy senorita hates his guts.Armendariz delivers a magnetic performance and his character is an interesting one, with the General showing many sides of his multi-faceted personality.Armendariz's and Roland, as well as the exciting takeover scenes make the first third of the film quite compelling. However, after the General and the girl meet, it all becomes more conventional and sometimes downright silly, with Goddard overacting her part, before turning a bit morbid, as the whole town is stricken with a deadly outbreak of influenza!Overall, it's a fairly interesting film, competently directed by frequent actor Emilio Fernandez and atmospherically photographed on some excellent Mexican locations.

David Someone gave a DVD of this film to a coworker as a "gag" gift, and that coworker took her revenge on the rest of us by showing it on a tour bus en route from a day of wine tasting.Perhaps it was a day of wine tasting that contributed to the group's response, but nearly everyone fell asleep during this film. Although I did watch a bit at the beginning before falling asleep myself, I did notice that the film was rife with stereotypes (politically incorrect by today's standards, but probably not for 1950) and overacting (Goddard wants to be Norma Desmond--bulging eyes and intense stares-- but the part was already taken).Someone joked that this wasn't a "B" movie, but a "B-minus" movie. Like most of my coworkers, I give it an "F."

gloryoaks I saw The Torch when it came out in 1950. It was Thanksgiving weekend at Missouri U. in Columbia, and almost all the students were gone. Perhaps that's why this film was ever so briefly scheduled at the local theater. My friend (who later became my husband) and I were amazed that a movie this bad could be distributed and shown in the USA. Also, we were surprised that a movie star like Paulette Goddard would appear in such a film. It was so terrible that we have not forgotten it in 54 years and still laugh about it. I can still hear Paulette Goddard screeching. I can still see Armendariz swaggering in his huge sombrero. I remember acting so broad that even a teenager couldn't stand it. A "dark comedy/drama" indeed. What a ridiculous movie.