This film has been in the public domain for years and every copy I've seen on video or DVD as well as the ones I've seen on TV all feature a pretty lousy print. Perhaps there is a clean one out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. And, after watching the film all the way through (something I have attempted unsuccessfully before on several occasions), I could see why no one bothered to protect the copyright on this film. While it isn't exactly bad, it's so dull and uninspired that I am sure nobody even cared to worry about royalties! Now think about it,...the film stars Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Susan Hayward and is based on the tumultuous life of Ernest Hemmingway and it still is very dull in places and at best an ordinary film (though I won't be that generous).
So why is it such a disappointment? Well, the biggest problem was just how cheap the film looked. The location scenes clearly look like they were filmed by a second unit without the stars and the close-up scenes appear as if they were poorly staged in front of filmed footage. While I might expect this sort of sloppiness from an old one-reel comedy, I don't expect it from a big-budget film with top Hollywood talent. It really looked as if they spent too much on the stars and had nothing left to make the film! The other problem was that although Hemingway led a very adventurous life and traveled the world, once you dig beneath the exterior, you are left with a pretty rotten person who isn't exactly cuddly and endearing. While his devoted friends and fans probably will care whether Peck survives his injury, I found I just didn't particularly care--as the character Peck played didn't care--nor did I. And what you are left with are a long series of mildly interesting of flashbacks that tell about the author. The only way the film really works is as a psychological study--not as entertainment.
So why is it such a disappointment? Well, the biggest problem was just how cheap the film looked. The location scenes clearly look like they were filmed by a second unit without the stars and the close-up scenes appear as if they were poorly staged in front of filmed footage. While I might expect this sort of sloppiness from an old one-reel comedy, I don't expect it from a big-budget film with top Hollywood talent. It really looked as if they spent too much on the stars and had nothing left to make the film! The other problem was that although Hemingway led a very adventurous life and traveled the world, once you dig beneath the exterior, you are left with a pretty rotten person who isn't exactly cuddly and endearing. While his devoted friends and fans probably will care whether Peck survives his injury, I found I just didn't particularly care--as the character Peck played didn't care--nor did I. And what you are left with are a long series of mildly interesting of flashbacks that tell about the author. The only way the film really works is as a psychological study--not as entertainment.