Leofwine_draca 55 DAYS AT PEKING is one of those all-star Hollywood historical adventure films made during the 1960s. It stars Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner as two of a huge cast of Western characters who are caught up in the 1900 Boxer Rebellion in China. This saw ordinary folk rise up at the behest of the Boxer revolutionaries in a tide of anti-Western sentiment to get rid of all the country's foreigners. The story is distracted by some 'yellow face' make up here and there but otherwise works well in terms of an epic-feeling setting and plenty of lavish action scenes which delight in an old-fashioned way. The ensemble cast contains at least 20 actors of note from the era and most of them give fun, straightforward performances. It's not a classic nor one of Heston's best movies, but at the same time it's not bad at all and I enjoyed it for the spectacle alone.

dglink Samuel Bronston produced three big-budget films at his Madrid studio during the early 1960's. The three films, "El Cid," "The Fall of the Roman Empire," and "55 Days at Peking" all featured well known stars, had casts of thousands, memorable music scores, and budgets that provided production values that splashed across the wide screen. Unfortunately, all three productions received mixed critical reviews and modest box-office returns. "55 Days at Peking" is typical of the three; headed by a trio of big names, Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven, and directed by Nicholas Ray, the lavish production is set in China during the Boxer Rebellion. The historical period and the politics make a fascinating backdrop to a cliché-ridden story.Heston plays an American Major and glides by on his toothy grin and profile, while Niven depends on his innate Britishness to carry him through the role of an English diplomat. Ava Gardner comes off best; her beauty and grace imbue what is an undemanding role as a Russian Baroness with a priceless necklace, a murky secret, and a past littered with men. Similar to "The Good Earth," "Dragon Seed," and other Hollywood films of the 1930's and 40's, the casting of Western actors as Chinese characters persisted. Flora Robson as the Dowager Empress, Leo Genn as General Jung-Lu, and Robert Helpmann as Prince Tuan, are made-up Chinese caricatures, with Robson faring best and Helpmann worst. John Ireland, Harry Andrews, Kurt Kaszner, and Paul Lukas fill out the rest of the noteworthy Western roles.Dong Kingman's colorful watercolors over the opening and closing credits are worthy of mention, as is Dimitri Tiomkin's Oscar-nominated score. Set against a turbulent era, the script by Philip Yordan and Bernard Gordon creaks much like the archaic casting of whites for Chinese; the story links one cliché with another whenever it strays from scenes that depict historical events into a lukewarm romance or sugary domestic drama. A few scenes that involve children have dialog that was possibly cribbed from Hallmark cards and is borderline cringe worthy. This large-scale ode to Western imperialism celebrates the endurance of a group of stubborn Westerners against the Chinese, who resented their intrusion and tried to force them out. The film is told from the perspective of the European diplomats trapped in Peking's foreign compound, who withstood 55 days of siege. Again like vintage films from Hollywood's Golden Age, coiffures and makeup are never mussed, clothing is never soiled, and death is always painless, bloodless, and peaceful. Nicholas Ray's direction of the action scenes is solid, although atmospheric scenes clutter the first third to extend the film's length and justify its importance. "55 Days at Peking" might have been a winner in the 1930's, but for contemporary viewers, politics have changed, and glorifying imperialism is no longer popular. The film is decent viewing for a peek at the past, an introduction to the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, and as an example of flamboyant, spectacular filmmaking of the early 1960's.

arminhage Seeing the movie in 21 century, at first glance the production seems to be very good considering there was no CG at the time so they had to construct the whole stage. They did a good job as other epics of the same period but the positive aspect of the movie ends there.Aside from the fact that we see obvious white actors poorly made up to look like Chinese, the screenplay lacks the slightest dramatic factor to incite any emotion in audience as a result, watching this long movie to the end in one session would be a torture! Obviously Matt Lewis (Heston) is the hero but what's likely about him besides being played by Charlton Heston? Nothing. He is an American marine who is where he shouldn't be and is defending a wrong cause. They are occupational forces who humiliated Chinese and try to extend their influence in their land. So what's likely about about him? What's the difference between him and a WWII Wermacht major in Russia? I guess the difference is winning and losing otherwise there is no difference in action. The loser would be evilized and the winner would be patronized but at the end, there is no difference between them. The support would be Arthur Robertson (Niven) who's rudely after realizing the imperialist agenda of British Government and since the movie is from British point of view, he leads the pack of other diplomats. The love is Baroness Ivanoff (Gardner) which her cheesy affair with Lewis is flat and boring as there is no chemistry between them.It was tried to depict the Boxer Rebellion at the dawn of 20th century on big screen. They failed to deliver an epic valuable work as the story was conceived on grossly arrogant and misleading British point of view. It could be tolerable to some degree if there was a good underlying love story which never was.It was a awful movie, not only it failed to faithfully picture the Boxer Rebellion but it is extremely boring and worst that it is an insult to Chinese people. Where they Killed thousands of Boxers but when a captain got shot, Lewis in the field hospital says "What are we doing here? Was it worth it?" or something like that as all those Chinese were dogs and the lost life of a captain was of great value. Really disgusting movie.

dunsuls-1 Wonderful action epic from 1963 starring Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner and the cast of thousands as they say.Based on a real siege during the"Boxer rebellion"from 1899 to 1901 in which China attempted to force the occupying Imperialist powers out,its a stirring action film that takes great pains not to politicize the time or pass judgement.Rather the film tells the classic old chestnut of love and loss set against the backdrop of war.What makes the film relevant today is the mere mention of historical events that seem long forgotten but shouldn't be.How many youngsters even know Beijing was once known as Peking or that the US had a presence there so many years ago?? Now at that larger than life actor Heston,and well sit back and enjoy.The only flaw is the old Hollywood prejudice against casting Asian's actors in leading roles.A film about China without Asian actors in key roles is laughable at times.