I love this movie so much

Such a frustrating disappointment

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Producer: Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Copyright 14 December 1944 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York release at the Rivoli: 29 December 1944. U.S. release: January 1945. U.K. release: 23 April 1945. Australian release: 17 January 1946. Sydney release at the Century, 11 January 1946. U.S. length: 12,375 feet. 137½ minutes. Australian length: 12,408 feet. 138 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Catholic priest ministers in China in the early years of the 19th century.NOTES: Mankiewicz's first film assignment for Fox (after leaving MGM). The script had already been prepared by Nunnally Johnson, but Mankiewicz considerably changed and re-wrote it. Gregory Peck was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor (losing to Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend); Arthur Miller was nominated for Best Cinematography, but the award went to Harry Stradling for The Picture of Dorian Gray; Best Art Direction and Sets were also nominated but lost to A. Roland Fields for Blood on the Sun; while Alfred Newman was passed over for the award for Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture in favor of Spellbound composed by Miklos Rosza.COMMENT: 19th century Hollywood rarely had the guts to stand up to the vested interests of organized religion - particularly that represented by the Roman Catholic Church. The Keys of the Kingdom is an excellent case in point. Doctor Cronin's novel is an outspoken, powerfully-crafted polemic against organized religion in general, the Catholic brand in particular - but none of Cronin's points, not a single one of his arguments or effects, is allowed to find even a shadow of an expression in this screen version. In typical Hollywood fashion, not to be defeated by this considerably watered-down, milksop version of the book, Fox's publicity department hailed the novel as "one of the most excitingly discussed books of our times" - thereby implying that the exact same qualities were to be found on the screen. Not so. What we actually have instead is the usual Hollywood impression of sanctity. The Hollywood saint is a humanitarian, first, last and foremost. He is always humble, always soft-spoken and never pushy - except when his humanitarian principles are threatened. With this proviso, he always respects and kowtows to Authority - whether religious or civil. The Hollywood clergyman is also remarkably ignorant of the dogma and doctrines of his particular church. This enables him to mix ecumenically with both adherents and ministers of different faiths - or even no faith at all (atheists) - without the slightest qualms of conscience. He is in fact a simpleton. He doesn't deny, he is simply completely unaware of the intellectualism of all religions. He has such a vague - even nonexistent - understanding of God that he is sustained through all adversities solely by a peculiar inward faith in the Rightness of all his own actions. Under the guise of humility, he is actually an ignorant, obstinate egotist who believes implicitly that his own amorphous faith in a God he neither understands nor appreciates, will either eventually right all wrongs or transcend all adverse conditions.In fact, he shows such little commitment to those precepts that are peculiar to his particular religion, it is extremely doubtful that he even knows them. As a Catholic, he will light candles regularly, but he will never speak of Indulgences or Transubstantiation or Limbo and Original Sin. If he is aware of these doctrines, he keeps them a secret. His aim is to avoid religious controversy at all costs. For this reason, he will rarely quote from the New Testament, preferring instead a Psalm or some other non-contentious verse from the Old.Such is the Hollywood priest. Within these limits, The Keys of the Kingdom is undoubtedly one of the more compelling films of a very blighted group. Pitched on a note of low intensity - and all the more effective for that - it tells of a missionary in China: his work, his struggle against apathy, his determination to live up to an ideal.Although it is often stylishly (and occasionally even powerfully) directed by John Stahl, Gregory Peck's performance in the pivotal and central role is no more than adequate at best. This was only his second film. Why he was cast in such a plum and difficult role - an untried and inexperienced actor whose debut in RKO's Days of Glory the year before was inauspicious to say the least - is another Hollywood mystery. Fortunately, he was surrounded by a fine supporting cast including Rosa Stradner (Mankiewicz's wife), playing the mother superior of the nuns at the mission, and Vincent Price, slightly out of character as the local bishop.The film is produced in Fox's usual grand epic style, with marvelous sets, beautiful camerawork and lighting - lavish production values all around.Viewed as a Hollywood venture into religion, The Keys of the Kingdom is more entertaining than most (e.g. Joan of Arc, Miracle of the Bells, The Bells of St. Mary's, Come to the Stable), less offensive than many (Jeffrey Hunter's The King of Kings; Change of Habit; A Man For All Seasons).

An earnestness which is not commonly seen today is the hallmark of many of the greatest films of the golden age of cinema. The Keys Of The Kingdom is a humbling expression of stirring earnestness. Father Chisholm is not shown as perfect, but the one constant is his humility and devotion to his calling. This theme has never been expressed more wondrously.This earnestness is also seen in the figures who intersect Father Chisholm's life: Willie, Angus (if you have to look closely at times to see it), the delightful Father McNabb, Reverend Doctor Fiske, Joseph, Mr. Chia, the wonderful Reverend Mother, and even in the end, the most triumphant and stirring realization of all, the at first dubious Monsignor. These parts are all played by fine actors doing some of their best work.The synthesis of wondrous story and inspired acting is ageless, and results in an experience much beloved by just about every viewer.

Although in part this is about missionaries in China and therefore could turn off anyone appalled by either religion or proselytizing (including me), the movie transcends those issues and is one of the great black and white Hollywood films of all time.Its greatness is carried by its variegated and compelling story, by the exquisite characterizations of its excellent actors, and by Gregory Peck's simple, powerful portrayal of a man who remains true to his character.Well-written and well-directed, the film requires only a modest suspension of disbelief for one to become enthralled, excited, and moved by this cross-section of history concentrated on the personal life, from childhood on, of a man whose goodness and idiosyncratic talents never leave one with any sense of sanctimony or piousness. Indeed, this man's capacity for survival and warmth help illuminate much of the hypocrisy and pomposity around him.There are grander, greater movies, of course, but this is a real find, and inspiring whether you are nine, nineteen, or ninety. Watch it alone, or with your family... give yourself to it and you will be rewarded.

So often in older Hollywood films, religious films are cloying or loaded with clichés. While they try to be inspiring, they often leave me feeling a bit embarrassed because they are just so badly written--filled with platitudes and unrealistically "holy" performances. Because of this, I didn't rush to see this film--even though it starred one of my favorite actors, Gregory Peck. I was so pleasantly surprised to see that instead of the near-perfect and bigger than life character, Peck played a very down to earth and decent sort of priest--who was still quite human. Because of this, the film seemed real and very watchable.The film begins with an old Gregory Peck living as a very old priest in Scotland. He is being chastised for his unorthodox ways, though after a minor chewing out, his superior, Cedric Hardwicke happens upon Peck's diary and begins to read about his career. At this point, the film becomes a flashback and we see a younger and more vigorous Peck in his native Scotland (though he never comes close to approximating the accent). From his college days to becoming a missionary in China we see his growth and mistakes and his humility throughout it all.This gentle film manages to pull the viewer in due to its excellent acting, writing and direction. One thing I really liked is that the Chinese roles were actually all played by Asian-Americans--not the more traditional White guys ridiculously made up to look Chinese. There's very little not to like here--give it a look and don't worry--it's very enjoyable and not the least bit preachy.FYI--Although Cedric Hardwicke is reading Gregory Peck's diary in order to know what was occurring, there were a few instances when information took place on the screen in the flashback that Peck could not have known and could not have written in his diary. In other words, how could Hardwicke be reading about things that others did if they never told Peck? Just a minor continuity problem and it doesn't seriously effect the film.