This is the definitive version of Ernest Hemingway's short story put to film, some say. A film noir classic, in every sense of the word, some say.
Up front, I will say I wanted to watch the 1964 version first before re-watching this, (I had not seen this in over 10 years) because I was afraid I would not like the 1964 version, if I had seen this first. So, this review is based upon those circumstances.
This is in fact a good film noir. The biggest asset and the main star and attraction of the whole film is its style. It reeks of atmosphere and shadows and everything a great film noir should look like and feel like. But its main weakness is the lack of development in the characters we should be feeling something for. But we are not made to empathize with really anyone. Burt Lancaster is a great actor, but his "Swede" is essentially "walking dead." And, Ava Gardner, while beautiful, gives very little to humanize her character.
(One aside: Every time I have ever seen Burt in a movie, I always think of the word immaculate. His figure is lean and his appearance neat and perfect. No actor is as immaculate as Burt Lancaster.)
Getting back to the film, the only interesting ongoing character is Albert Dekker as the brains behind the heist, as he is actively keeping the momentum going. Another big weakness is the fact that no one in the movie knows what the other one's doing. Burt never knew Dekker had double-crossed him. The others in the heist never knew Dekker double-crossed them. (There was no fun in the climax or denouement. No ah ha moment!) And, too much was relied on the use of flashbacks, I think.
The 1964 version saw these problems and solved them by stressing the action and another point I have not mentioned: the actual killers, played wonderfully by William Conrad and Charles McGraw. There's more entertainment value in their 10 minutes, than the rest of the picture, with their perfect delivery of simple lines. Conrad and McGraw, you are not forgotten.The viewer is captivated by them and wants to see them again. We do, when they get killed themselves. The makers of the 1964 version saw they were the highlight and developed them and in that way made the whole story more interesting.
I know it sounds like I'm blasting it. It should be seen once. But multiple viewings may tend to show its flaws too much. Unless you want to see just the first ten minutes, which is what the short story covered anyway: the diner scene. Just try ordering the dinner! Just try!
Up front, I will say I wanted to watch the 1964 version first before re-watching this, (I had not seen this in over 10 years) because I was afraid I would not like the 1964 version, if I had seen this first. So, this review is based upon those circumstances.
This is in fact a good film noir. The biggest asset and the main star and attraction of the whole film is its style. It reeks of atmosphere and shadows and everything a great film noir should look like and feel like. But its main weakness is the lack of development in the characters we should be feeling something for. But we are not made to empathize with really anyone. Burt Lancaster is a great actor, but his "Swede" is essentially "walking dead." And, Ava Gardner, while beautiful, gives very little to humanize her character.
(One aside: Every time I have ever seen Burt in a movie, I always think of the word immaculate. His figure is lean and his appearance neat and perfect. No actor is as immaculate as Burt Lancaster.)
Getting back to the film, the only interesting ongoing character is Albert Dekker as the brains behind the heist, as he is actively keeping the momentum going. Another big weakness is the fact that no one in the movie knows what the other one's doing. Burt never knew Dekker had double-crossed him. The others in the heist never knew Dekker double-crossed them. (There was no fun in the climax or denouement. No ah ha moment!) And, too much was relied on the use of flashbacks, I think.
The 1964 version saw these problems and solved them by stressing the action and another point I have not mentioned: the actual killers, played wonderfully by William Conrad and Charles McGraw. There's more entertainment value in their 10 minutes, than the rest of the picture, with their perfect delivery of simple lines. Conrad and McGraw, you are not forgotten.The viewer is captivated by them and wants to see them again. We do, when they get killed themselves. The makers of the 1964 version saw they were the highlight and developed them and in that way made the whole story more interesting.
I know it sounds like I'm blasting it. It should be seen once. But multiple viewings may tend to show its flaws too much. Unless you want to see just the first ten minutes, which is what the short story covered anyway: the diner scene. Just try ordering the dinner! Just try!