Alicia I love this movie so much

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

vincentlynch-moonoi When I was just 12, back in 1961, we had a Cornell University student from Kenya who often stayed at our home for a couple of years; he was actually the first Kenyan long distance runner to make his mark in the U.S. I was too young to join in the conversation, but I remember Stephen talking about the political situation in Kenya and mentioning the Mau Mau crisis of several years before. I wish I could go back now and be a part of that discussion.I thought this was a good film. Not perfect. I'm sure liberties were taken in the writing of the script that probably compromised historical accuracy. But it still, I think, gives you a sense of the time and the tensions, and shows us once again how futile -- and just plain wrong -- the earlier white domination of Africa was. Rock Hudson is very good here...except for one scene which stuck out because he was smiling in a situation where that was not appropriate. Dana Wynter is excellent as Hudson's young wife; not sure why she wasn't a more popular actress. Sidney Poitier has any number of films with a stronger performance, but he's good here. I always enjoy the actress Wendy Hiller, here as a mother.This film is worthwhile watching because it covers a part of history unknown now to most Americans.

t_atzmueller Having spent a good part of my childhood in East-Africa, I read Robert Ruarks novel „Something of Value" (and the semi-follow-up „Uhuru") numerous times while living in Tanzania and for a while it was among my favorite novels. It had elements of Hemingway, Mitchell, being adventurous at times, historically interesting and during many parts extremely violent and shocking. The movie I saw only a few years later and was not too impressed.The story is relatively straight-forward and simple: two African boys, Peter (son of a white settler) and Kimani, a native Kikuyu have grown up together almost like brothers. As time goes back, the friends drift apart. Peter becomes a safari-guide and Kimani, disillusioned by the white rule of Kenya and still bearing a grudge against Peters brother-in-law Jeff joins the Mau-Mau movement, who seek to take control over the country and eject / butcher the Whites. Soon the former best friends become each others mortal enemies and will have to face off in a fight to the death.Some people claimed, that the book is oversimplified and much of the cruelty (generally committed by the Mau-Mau, which are portrayed as a form of terrorist guerrillas, who soon didn't distinguish any longer between butchering their enemies, the Whites, or Kikuyu who opposed to disagreed with their methods. Be that as it may, there has been enough violence and brutalities in more recent years, in Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda etc, should be telling that the Mau-Mau uprising was probably by no means a gentle affair. Quiet the opposite.As for the movie: for the time it must have been slightly more violent than most pictures, but doesn't even get close to the horrors of the book (and reality). Compare to contemporary films, for example, "Blood Diamond", "Something of Value" still feels like it has been produced in a Hollywood studio, despite having been filmed in Africa. Furthermore I was not at all comfortable with the actors, despite me appreciating both Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier. Especially Hudson is way too squeaky clean for the role, the American accent is atrocious (again, it point to "Blood Diamond" and the excellent job Leonardo DiCaprio did with imitating a Rhodesian accent), not for one moment could one imagine Hudson being anything but an American actor put into a safari-suit. Sure, Poitier does a far more convincing job (especially the accent) but again, looks nothing like an African from this part of the continent.It would also be unfair to say that the rest of a crew did a bad job, but one would really wish for a remake (this coming from somebody who has a general dislike for the concept of remakes, reboots, etc), something grittier, more realistic and it's not that there is a shortage of capable African actors of all colors these days. After all, it's not that the novel has lost anything of value and isn't as contemporary as when it was written.6/10

moonspinner55 Rock Hudson stars as the son of a white farmer living in East Africa near Nairobi circa 1950; he's as close as a brother to Sidney Poitier--portraying sort of a slave-cum-porter--until the laws of the domineering British interfere with the black people's superstition-laden ways of living. Poitier becomes part of a bloodthirsty revolt against the oppression of his people, eventually pitting him one-on-one against his friend. Robert C. Ruark's book of racial upheavals and issues (loyalties, betrayals, and injustices) has been adapted well for the screen by writer-director Richard Brooks, although Hudson's character doesn't have many dimensions (and he looks too old to be boyhood pals with Poitier, anyway). The scenes of violence are hard-hitting, yet Brooks' lumpy way of laying out this complicated story occasionally turns the proceedings into high-pitched melodrama. A romance sub-plot between Hudson and pretty-but-piqued Dana Wynter doesn't provide enough substantial release from the horror and strife surrounding them, and Poitier's final scenes are geared towards narrative action and not character motivation. A mixed-bag, but certainly not uninteresting. **1/2 from ****

edwagreen This Rock Hudson, Dana Wynter film deals with the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya in 1952. At least, it attempts to.As the wife, Wynter is completely wasted her. She has few lines to convey.Yes, a racist bigot slapped Sidney Poitier several years before the uprising. During the rebellion, the man's wife is killed. Poitier's father was imprisoned prior to the uprising because he killed a baby that came out feet first. He would have to be defended by a sociologist to get off from this. Poitier turns smoker and militant.Even more ridiculous than the sub-plot is the fact that Wendy Hiller, who really looked her age in 1957, becomes pregnant in this film and gives birth! Along the way, her family is wiped out by the Mau Mau's in a massacre. Mau Maus march along like Margaret Hamilton's army in "The Wizard of Oz." Their supposedly strong leader, who never took the oath, for a ridiculous reason, melts when captured. Some leadership, but some picture!The Mau Maus were a militant band who protested the English colonial policy of exploitation. The movie-goer is certainly exploited when viewing this utterly cliché-worn film.