Nice effects though.

Absolutely the worst movie.

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This movie reminded me a bit of "The Third Man," where there are a lot of street scenes that lead you places you do not expect. It is not nearly as brilliant or satisfying as "The Third Man," but it is interesting and surprising. The biggest surprise is the intensity of Gregory Peck as guerrilla leader Manuel Artiguez. He is a defeated Spanish Partisan who has continued to fight for twenty years after the Spanish Civil War ended. Peck slowly realizes that his importance as a symbol of resistance is more important than his life, and his only chance for victory.Omar Sheriff and Anthony Quinn are fine as a priest and police chief, but their characters are pretty straightforward. It was interesting to watch Quinn prayer to God to help him catch Artiquez. Usually antagonists get to kick a dog so that the audience knows that hes the bad guy. Here the director Fred Zinnemann doesn't stack the deck and allows the audience to decide who is morally right or wrong. A director who treats his audience with respect and assumes they are intelligent, is quite unusual and should be treasured.The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the cinematography. It was sometimes underexposed and muddy. Back in the film days, there would be a final timed print, with each scene getting its own exposure based on its density. It seems as if the print was not timed, or not timed well.Also, the viewer should be warned that there is very little action in the film. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters, so don't expect "the Guns of Navarone."

I first saw this black and white movie when I was only 19, and it made a big impression on me. I have always rooted from the underdog, as for example, the role Gregory Peck plays to perfection. Although Anthony Quinn is supposedly the enemy, Peck is really still fighting a lost war, which is a much bigger issue for him than one police chief. This, of course, is why he kills the informer, formerly his close and trusted friend, rather than Anthony Quinn, the police chief. The greater enemy for Peck is the Catholic Church, which sided with Franco and the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War, just as it did in Nazi Germany, against the Jews. The pivotal revelation and internal conflict for Peck's role is that a simple parish priest has obviously come to his personal aid (the role played by Omar Sharif), rather than that his friend has turned informer. With the Catholic Church on the side of the Republicans, the civil war may have had a different outcome. Of course, under Franco, the dictator-church bond continued and even got stronger. This is why the Franco Government got upset with Columbia Pictures, not because Anthony Quinn has a mistress in the movie! What this shows is that most movie critics know nothing about the Spanish Civil War. This reflects badly on them, rather than on the movie, a great and beautifully filmed example of never giving in to defeat in the face of tyranny.

When the Spanish War was finished, winners devoted to go after anybody who reflected the red light of the communism or any other color they dislike. On the other hand, few guerilla fighter continued his actions against the winners. But their strength was lower every time. One of this guerrilla was Valentin González "el campesino", which figure is portrayed in this film in a free form (not in an historical form).Twenty years after the Civil war conclusion, the Spanish police has a good option to capture one of these ex-combatants, who was in exile in France. The description of the methods and day-to-day life of the Spanish police could be the reason which explains that the Spanish Government forbade any more Columbia's film in Spain.You need no knowledge about the twenty Century Spain's history to understand the film, although you can enjoy more it if you know something. In fact, the film put in a specific political situation the psychological confrontation between two men. It could be a good exercise to understand the motives which impulse his actions.

I saw this film years ago and it made a deep impression (even if my interest in the Spanish War does bias me in its favour); it's on my short list of works to locate and see again. Its treatment of generations and of legacies is as relevant as ever, now that the number of people living who witnessed that upheaval is shrinking fast. The film will move boys (who can identify with one of the main characters) and will not deprave them with violence, the little violence (if I remember correctly) being more suggestive than explicit. A psychological film with some intensely aesthetic moments.