Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

writers_reign Had the director credit read Ed Wood and not, as it does, William Dieterle, I would have thought it one of Wood's worst efforts. How anyone involved would want to include this debacle on their CV is beyond me. In its favour we do get some film buffs treasures; Basil Sydney, looking as though he wandered onto the wrong soundstage while shooting Hamlet and wondering why he is suddenly in the wrong costume; Cedric Hardwicke, slightly aloof and apart, as if he is being filmed against the blue background that wasn't available at the time; a pair of gorgeous hams in Charles Laughton and Judith Anderson, chewing not only the scenery on their own set but also that on adjacent sound stages, and, of course, Stewart Granger, supercilious as ever, barely managing to conceal his built-in arrogance. This leaves Rita, alone, isolated, getting no help whatsoever from the rest of the cast, still managing to shine and glow in a meaningless cause.

st-shot This Technicolor extravaganza built around "Gilda" Hayworth's big dance number as a watered down Salome is one dishonest and cowardly piece of commerce to behold. With its attractive stars, superb supporting stage and film actors as well as a highly respected director of epics (Wilhelm Dieterle) and a master cinematographer (Charles Lang) Salome stumbles along for the entire duration with two left feet.Taken from the familiar Biblical story of John the Baptist and later spiced up by Oscar Wilde the producer's (Rita being one) tweak it a little by downplaying Salome's culpability and having the rap to pinned on mom (Judith Anderson) allowing Salome a chance to get religion and Stew Granger as the film ends on a highly solemn and spiritual note with the camera tilting to the sky where the words "This was the beginning" are emblazoned. This after the stunning Miss Hayworth finishes her incestuous two step striptease grinding up a marble staircase in front of her step father, besotted Charley Laughton with Dame Judith smirking approval. The marketers must have thought 'something for the whole family'.Where do we begin? Dieterle who directed Laughton in Hunchback as well as the unique fantasy world of a Midsummer's Night Dream fails to engage or create anything of authenticity or sincerity from performers to the cold barren sets and women draped in fabric colors usually reserved for Christmas wrapping. The B&W mastery of Lang ( Ace in the Hole, The Magnificent Seven) is no where evident in garishly lit scenes dripping gold and bleeding red.Hayworth and Grainger are beautiful and brittle with Rita softening Salome; reducing what should be driving vengeance to limpid piety. Cedric Hardwicke isn't around long enough to chew scenery but Alan Badel as a tripped out JtB is. Laughton's Herod is the biggest travesty of all as he monstrously overacts, spending most of his time waving his arms or gripping Roman columns, his utterances unconvincingly peppered with pregnant pauses and hammy anxious expressions. He along with almost anyone else involved in this pitiful production one might well argue deserve the same fate as the Baptist. Salome is an out an out abomination.

Chris I disliked this movie very. There are several reasons why. First of all I didn't expected a historical accurate drama cause we all know most Hollywood Productions round this time are light weighted entertainment. There is no historical accuracy in that movie. Scenery and Equipment are looking like an Aladdin Adventure of 1001 Arabian Nights. Maybe round this time everybody was wearing colorful dresses and also the places where the people lived where full of different colors. To sum it up I don't know how they people lived round that time but I never got the feeling that this was the way I saw here. Maybe in other Movies like Quo Vadis or The Robe weren't also very accurate but I have to say I never cared of something like that in those great Movies. One of the reasons is simple because the actors who played Nero (Peter Ustinov) and Caligula (Jay Robinson) were convincing in their roles. I can not say the same thing about Charles Laughton as King Herod. To see him all the time eye rolling, working with his eye browse and grimacing was annoying. I don't know why he overacted in all his scenes. In a different category is Stewart Granger. He looks like if he were sleepwalking all the time. Hey, wake up you just fall in love with one of the most attractive women ever lived on planet Earth: Rita Hayworth. Oh yes she is beautiful and the camera has all the focus on her. It's her movie and we see for that time some half naked scenes with her. In my Opinion that's one of the problems of the movie. The story and the lines people are talking seemed to be irrelevant all are focusing on the beauty of Rita. Everybody who loves beautiful women can understand King Herod starring at her all the time. For me the movie is boring because in a way you wait the whole movie for the famous (but very irrelevant) scene with Salome.That's a shame cause the Story round John the Baptist is a really interesting one and I don't know why the filmmakers didn't allowed John the Baptist to baptize at least one single person in this movie. He looks like to be an angry agitator and not like a prophet. From one moment to another Stewart Grangers character became an aficionado about the so called new religion. We never find it out through the whole Movie why. His character as Commander Claudius seems so unimportant and boring that the audience not really cares about him .An other negative point about this movie is that they tried to ignore religion. I cannot understand that because this movie is about a story told in the bible and one of the most important prophets ever. The filmmakers also tried to include Jesus somehow in the story. Didn't these people read the bible? What I cannot understand is the denial of Jewry round the period of Herod. I mean it looked like the whole movie if they hadn't any religion or something like a pagan religion round that period. I wouldn't call this movie shows Anti-Semitism but it has tendency to do so.To sum it up: boring characters next to Salome (and her character is annoying too), overacting of Charles Laughton, sleepwalking of Stewart Granger and denying of historical facts and religion for lightweight entertainment. The focus is clearly on the attraction of Rita. She is the best of the movie but that's not enough for 103 Minutes.

L. Denis Brown Although other films from the same period might be expected to receive a higher priority because they remain more significant today, it seems amazing that this film has never been released as a DVD. Salome is highly viewable, and anyone simply wanting to pass an evening by watching a light entertaining film without regard to its message or social significance would probably find it an excellent choice. Such films are among the most successful in video rental stores or as casual purchases from store displays - consequently they bring in the greatest returns for companies creating new DVD's from old films and are often selected in preference to much more significant works.What does Salome have going for it?. Firstly a good Technicolor print of the type which provides endlessly enjoyable images of the seas, skies and scenery so plentiful in the Mediterranean. Next a very popular duration of around 100 minutes, a story which is widely known and a one word title equally readily recognised. Thirdly a cast largely composed of great Hollywood stars of the period - a major selling point usually far more important than the filmscript, direction or historical accuracy; and finally an electrifying near striptease performance by a star who has been referred to as the Hollywood love goddess of the period. To set against all this were the very poor reviews by most critics who condemned it for gross overacting, poor dialogue, unimaginative direction and historical inaccuracy - all of which experience suggests is of less importance than the cast for most viewers (even those who study the critics), when they are simply looking for an enjoyable and relaxing evening.Furthermore some of these criticisms are not easily sustained. 'Overacting' is a qualitative term which first became important when the introduction of talkies in the 1930's made the exaggerated actions and gestures of the silent era no longer necessary. Stage actors are trained to overact so the distant members of their audience seated far away 'up in the gods' can better follow what is going on. Done carefully this type of overacting can be very effective in films with rather melodramatic story lines, and is often referred to as 'chewing up the scenery'. There is a lot of this in Salome, not only from John the Baptist but also from both Herod and Herodias. Watching Charles Laughton, as a very lecherous Herod, lasciviously rolling his eyes and drooling at the mouth when Salome dances is one of the great joys of this film. It is true that Rita Hayworth was probably too old to play a character historically believed to have been so much younger, and she certainly did not look the part of a Semitic princess, but she was trained as a dancer from infancy and it is unlikely that the film would have the same appeal today if any other Hollywood star of the period had been given the role. Historical inaccuracies are much more controversial. I take a very strong objection to incorrect representations of what is factually established history unless it is made clear that this is being done. Here however historical records seem to be rather limited and not entirely self consistent, so some judgment is called for. Most of what we believe we know about Salome probably comes from records that are more literary than historical. For hundreds of years much current literature comprised re-writing and fleshing out known stories which might have originated as oral history, legend, myth or pure fiction. In this case an additional complication is that the most widely known contemporary reference come from the Bible rather than from a work solely written as history - something that often leads to public reactions based more on emotion than on fact. Herod, Herodias and Herodias's daughter are well authenticated historical characters, but doubts have even been raised as to whether the latter was actually named Salome (some sources refer to her having the same name as her mother). History points to her age at the time as being 13 or 14 but this is by inference rather than definite records. The account of Salome dancing before Herod occupies about 200 words in each of the gospels of Mark and Matthew in the Bible. There is also a brief historical record of this dance and its outcome written by the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus. The story in this film reverses the biblical story which indicates that Salome had no idea what reward to seek from Herod after dancing for him, but at the request of her mother agreed to ask for John's head. The reversal was demanded by a Columbia Studio head who did not want his star tagged with the label of a very bad girl, but historically it can also be found in Jules Massenet's opera "Herodiade". In a film intended purely as a piece of entertainment this reversal would be justifiable artistic licence so long as the change from the normally accepted story was clearly indicated. Since this was not done, the film has been mercilessly but rather unfairly shredded by critics and viewers ever since. Nobody today would view it to learn the story and for those merely seeking an enjoyable evening's viewing, it is inconsequential. If a similar film had depicted a legend about which little was known historically, there would have been much less controversy and, despite all its faults, the film would probably have remained much more highly regarded right up to today (with copies on DVD readily available in almost every video store). Anyone who wishes to view a more structured reconstruction of this story should watch the fine Ken Russell film based on the play by Oscar Wilde (or even Nazimova's 1923 silent film), but for an evening's light, enjoyable entertainment without heavy psychological musings choose this 1953 film.