Purely Joyful Movie!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Throughout most of Sidney Poitier's career as an actor that primarily appeared in race relations dramas, he played African- Americans whereas, in this one, he actually plays an African, a Kenyan in fact, named Kimani Wa Karanja.As children, Peter (Rock Hudson) and Kimani grow up doing everything together. But as adults, the Black East African 'boy' is fit only to carry his White East African 'bwana' friend's rifle for him, something neither of them really understands though (naturally) Peter is slightly more accepting of it. When Kimani's father (Ken Renard) is imprisoned indefinitely for following a custom deemed barbaric by the ruling class of British colonists, he runs away to join a criminal gang (led by Juano Hernandez's character) that later becomes an insurgency group dubbed Mau Mau; read your history if you're unfamiliar with the real back-story.Predictably, Peter and Kimani will inevitably meet again on opposite sides of the law. The movie also features the comely Dana Wynter as Peter's love interest come wife; their relationship parallels that of his aunt Elizabeth (Wendy Hiller) and Uncle Jeff (Robert Beatty).Jeff and two of their children are murdered during the Mau Mau Uprising. Walter Fitzgerald plays Peter's father, who had been a friend of Kimani's dad and whose knowledge and skills help to end the revolt.Michael Pate plays a White settler that reflects the colonists' racism; William Marshall plays the Black leader that organizes the revolution starting with a meeting in Nairobi.Richard Brooks directed and adapted the screenplay from Robert C. Ruark's novel of the same name.

Having spent a good part of my childhood in East-Africa, I read Robert Ruarks novel „Something of Value" (and the semi-follow-up „Uhuru") numerous times while living in Tanzania and for a while it was among my favorite novels. It had elements of Hemingway, Mitchell, being adventurous at times, historically interesting and during many parts extremely violent and shocking. The movie I saw only a few years later and was not too impressed.The story is relatively straight-forward and simple: two African boys, Peter (son of a white settler) and Kimani, a native Kikuyu have grown up together almost like brothers. As time goes back, the friends drift apart. Peter becomes a safari-guide and Kimani, disillusioned by the white rule of Kenya and still bearing a grudge against Peters brother-in-law Jeff joins the Mau-Mau movement, who seek to take control over the country and eject / butcher the Whites. Soon the former best friends become each others mortal enemies and will have to face off in a fight to the death.Some people claimed, that the book is oversimplified and much of the cruelty (generally committed by the Mau-Mau, which are portrayed as a form of terrorist guerrillas, who soon didn't distinguish any longer between butchering their enemies, the Whites, or Kikuyu who opposed to disagreed with their methods. Be that as it may, there has been enough violence and brutalities in more recent years, in Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda etc, should be telling that the Mau-Mau uprising was probably by no means a gentle affair. Quiet the opposite.As for the movie: for the time it must have been slightly more violent than most pictures, but doesn't even get close to the horrors of the book (and reality). Compare to contemporary films, for example, "Blood Diamond", "Something of Value" still feels like it has been produced in a Hollywood studio, despite having been filmed in Africa. Furthermore I was not at all comfortable with the actors, despite me appreciating both Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier. Especially Hudson is way too squeaky clean for the role, the American accent is atrocious (again, it point to "Blood Diamond" and the excellent job Leonardo DiCaprio did with imitating a Rhodesian accent), not for one moment could one imagine Hudson being anything but an American actor put into a safari-suit. Sure, Poitier does a far more convincing job (especially the accent) but again, looks nothing like an African from this part of the continent.It would also be unfair to say that the rest of a crew did a bad job, but one would really wish for a remake (this coming from somebody who has a general dislike for the concept of remakes, reboots, etc), something grittier, more realistic and it's not that there is a shortage of capable African actors of all colors these days. After all, it's not that the novel has lost anything of value and isn't as contemporary as when it was written.6/10

The film is of average Hollywood standard for the day (and I am a Hollywood fan)which is to say; quite good. To do Robert Ruark's novel justice would require about six hours, which I agree is impractical, but 3hr epic length (rare at that time)would have helped. The levels of violence , now commonplace on screen, could not then be screened.I try to keep my comments on this database, which is about (or should be)the art/science/entertainment of the cinema, apolitical. It is, however, perhaps relevant to suggest that the novel and film of 'Some thing of Value' be considered in the light of Ruark's 1962 novel 'Uhuru' which revisits basically the same characters (the names change)after Kenyan independence. The events may not have applied so fully in Kenya but looked at as a prophecy of the tragedy that has happened and continues to happen in independent Zimbabwe it was remarkably prophetic.

This movie is really something of value.Rock HUdson's character says "we steal their earth and their religion,we 've got to give them something of value instead".Actually,Richard Brookes applied to Africa what he 'd done two years back with "the last hunt" where the white men killed the buffalos and starved the Indians.They even despised their belief by killing even the White animal.Preceded by "Simba" an English movie starring Dirk Bogarde the screenplay of whichshows a lot of similarities with "something of value' Brooks 's work seems nevertheless superior ,because it has very strong scenes:Poitier,smashing the mirror with disgust after the killing,the informer killed on the barbed wire by the other prisoners;the old man ,afraid of thunder.This last scene may seem naive ,nay insulting for the natives ,but it was fifty years ago.People who criticize the movie should think about it:in 1957,it was a courageous movie,as "the last hunt" was.