davidauth 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.

dglink This 1964 Fred- Zinneman-directed film begins with documentary footage of the Spanish Civil War. However, the verisimilitude is abruptly interrupted when the familiar face of Gregory Peck is glimpsed among a line of partisans who are fleeing across the Pyrenees from Spain into France. While the black-and-white cinematography and location filming among the snow-capped mountains and in the picturesque French city of Pau evoke realism throughout, the questionable star casting of Peck, Anthony Quinn, and Omar Sharif undercuts those efforts. Peck, especially, seems miscast as a crusty Spanish Republican fighter who has gone into exile in Southern France. Quinn as Peck's nemesis, a Franco Loyalist soldier, is on firmer acting ground, and his efforts to trap Peck when he returns to see his dying mother propel the story. Sharif, the third above-the-title star, plays a Spanish priest with a message for Peck, but he has little to do other than flash his doe-like eyes and look appropriately solemn.Unfortunately, "Behold a Pale Horse" which begins well and promises much, tends to unravel and wind down as the plot unfolds. The cat-and-mouse premise that pits the aging partisan against the womanizing soldier is intriguing and holds the viewer's attention for most of the film. However, motivations become vague and coincidences become facile plot devices in the second half. The film seems to end on an abrupt note and leaves the viewer without a satisfying conclusion. Although not completely successful, "Behold a Pale Horse" is a noble effort by expert filmmakers and merits viewing. Despite his miscasting, Peck makes a valiant effort and earns his star salary, while Quinn can always be relied upon to entertain, even if at times he seems to be playing Zorba in a Spanish police uniform. The lesser-known European supporting players are more effective, and the film would have benefited from a full cast of unknowns. Despite the casting quibbles, a disappointing second half, and a tendency to talkiness, "Behold a Pale Horse" offers an often gripping and suspenseful tale that unfolds during a seldom-portrayed period of the Franco era.

Raghavendra Rao I watched this movie, and like most of the people have already expressed it, must say that this is truly a classic. The acting crew is excellent with Peck, Shariff and Quinn giving some very intense performances. But the surprise package is the boy who crosses over to the French part where he goes in search of Manueal to ask him to avenge his father's death at the hands of Vinollas. I often read comments that Peck is stuff or wooden on occasions, but I find him one of the most intense actors because of his ability to convey through his eyes. Like most actors, he is gifted of conveying a lot more through his eyes than his body might suggest. He conveys the frailing Manuel artigez here very well. We know that Manuel is tired and wary of the struggle he has pursued so passionately. Full credit to Peck for portraying that very effectively. Omar Shariff is also brilliant as the confused priest. Quinn is natural and we feel a certain angst against him, I do not know why. The end is excellent which again, conveys the human side of Manuel very well. All in all, an excellent movie worth watching on a calm Sunday afternoon.

hitzzen This excellent film tells the story of a stubborn Spanish republican, Manuel Artiguez, who refused to give up the fight when his side lost the Spanish civil war to the fascists in 1938. The film takes place twenty years later, when after many successful raids, Artiguez has lost the will to continue. However, his adversary, a Spanish police chief called Vinolas, has not yet given up on capturing or killing him and sets a trap for him. The trap and the question of whether Artiguez will fall into it it will keep you on your seat for most of the movie. Three men caught between Artiguez and Vinolas, an informer, a priest, and an idealistic Spanish exile boy, add a rich psychological and moral dimension to the film, following themes of idealism, revenge, and the uses of violence. "Behold" is a great thriller with highly complex characters and a profound moral sensibility. The idealism of Spanish republicans like the boy is on the one hand supported by the oily and hypocritical Vinolas, and on the other hand undercut by the rawness and violence of Artiguez. Neither of the adversaries is vindicated, but neither are they equivalent to one another. The ending will set you thinking for hours, if you're so inclined.Performances by Peck (Artiguez) and Quinn (Vinolas) are great. Peck is less stuffy than usual. I'm not generally a fan of earnest, wet-eyed Sharif (the priest), but his performance here suits the movie quite well. I can still hear his voice saying "Did the informer escape? Is the bandit safe?"My only complaint is that for all of its thematic complexity and richness of character the film is at times somewhat melodramatic and the dialogue is sometimes a little clunky. And for some reason its parts, good characters, good plot, good actors, all excellent, do not quite add up into a perfect whole. Nor is it as good as some of the movies it slightly resembles: Guns of Navarone, Battle of Algiers, Wild Bunch. However, it is definitely worthwhile for fans of 'thoughtful thrillers'.