vincentlynch-moonoi ...for me to see a film starring Sidney Poitier that I didn't like. Of course I have my favorites, as well as others that I just "liked", but never a Poitier film that I didn't like. For me, Poitier was that rare film star that never made a mistake and always lifted us up higher. But tonight, finally, I've seen that one Poitier film that I dislike.I want you to think for a minute about a very different film -- one not starring Poitier and not a drama. The comedy/drama "The Bishop's Wife" starring Cary Grant, Loretta Young, and David Niven. In that film the characters played by Young and Niven don't know exactly what Cary Grant's character is. To them, he's an enigma. But to us the viewer, we know he's an angel. In fact, it's crucial to the movie that we viewers no that. If we don't understand that, then the film doesn't work.Similarly, this film would work so much better if we knew what Sidney Poitier's character is. The other characters in the film can be mystified by him, but we need to understand who and what he is. It really doesn't work for him to be an enigma for the viewer.Having said that, I don't mean that the film is not an interesting film to watch; it is. But it's also a frustrating film. I wonder if this is Will Geer's finest role. I know that I can't imagine anyone else being quite so perfect in the part. I'm frustrated by Sidney Poitier's role in that one of Poitier's strengths is his powerful diction, even when he is speaking quietly; here he has probably the least dialog of any starring role he ever had. I've never cared for Bradford Dillman, but he does his job here. Beverly Todd is good here as the woman who takes a liking to the mysterious (almost) stranger. Ramon Bieri is very good as the rather bad-guy sheriff. Paul Winfield's role is an odd one...for him, so it's interesting. Also interesting to see Zara Cully (Mother Jefferson in "The Jeffersons") in a very different role.Perhaps it's just the print they were showing on cable, but the film seemed rather grainy.So, do I recommend watching this film. No. Nor do I recommend not watching it. I feel very neutral -- and personally disappointed -- in it. And what it comes down to is that I want the story teller to tell me the story. And here, the story teller doesn't fully tell the tale.Don't read any further unless you've already seen the movie. (My opinion is that Poitier's character is a representative of God who is compiling a report card not of individual men and women, but of mankind).

Chase_Witherspoon Heavy handed allegory gets a tick for its ambition and casting, but the momentum and pace is severely soporific with long passages of seemingly endless staring and close-ups of eyeballs where words should be present. Poitier returns to his home town to attend the funeral of his sister, but following a series of evangelical interventions in the town's struggling labour relations, many come to believe that he may be the second coming. Predictably, there are those in the redneck town who want to lynch him for impersonating Christ (potentially an opportunistic charlatan), while others hope he can reverse the disturbing trends and save lives.Local doctor played by Will Geer initially greets Poitier with scepticism but opens his mind to the possibilities; his son played by Bradford Dillman, on the other hand is cynical of Poitier's intentions which local sheriff Ramon Bieri believes are to agitate the local black community into industrial disputation for better treatment and wages. Lincoln Kilpatrick, Richard Ward and Paul Winfield play local oppressed workers who come to trust Poitier and his unconventional wisdom.Grainy colour tones and heavy doses of symbolism create an eerie atmosphere, but I felt the film never quite hit the mark, languishing somewhere between fantasy and melodrama. But then perhaps the low key treatment is what makes it a memorable and original little title (and one that appears now long forgotten). Low key but worth a look.

boblipton I'm going to tell you a lot of key points about this movie, so if you haven't seen it, stop reading now.The story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah is foretold in this movie, with Sidney Poitier as an angel moving among the people of a small Southern town, looking for the righteous. Several pieces right out of Genesis are reproduced in non-religious terms, but it becomes particularly obvious as Richard Ward speaks up to the police to protect Sidney Poitier -- although he does not, like Lot, offer to let the cops have their way with his daughters.Sidney Poitier gives one of his typical graceful performances as 'Brother John', exuding an air of compassionate, disinterested watchfulness in his role. Except, of course, with pretty young women.But I think the strain of playing these superior beings was getting to him. Shortly he would try his hand at raunchy comedies and then disappear behind the camera for more than a decade.

David Edward Martin I only saw the movie once, back when it came out, but it left an impression on me. John is an enigma, one we discover more puzzling things about but never anything that is a solid answer. Like Will Geer's character, we can guess things about John and the reasons for his return, but we will never know the answers.... At least not until John chooses to act.By the way, the film makes an interesting mirror to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. Consider that film as if it were an X-Files episode....