BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

marcslope Absolutely lovely movie, leisurely, diverting, full of character, in dazzling Technicolor, featuring beautiful Australian locations and a perfect Dmitri Tiomkin score. But first and foremost, a study of an imperfect but very worth-maintaining marriage. Watch how Mitchum and Kerr (who had enjoyed working together on "Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison") react to each other, their body language alone speaking volumes, their eyes speaking more. Their accents are secure, too, and Michael Anderson, Jr., as their son, is no cloying kid actor but a real actor, natural and intuitive and quite believably their progeny. No real villains in this one and not a great deal of story, but a gorgeous series of set pieces, touching and winsome. A full meal.

Robert J. Maxwell We tend to think of Robert Mitchum in black and white. He's wearing a trenchcoat. His eyelids and lower lip droop. He droops all over. He seems to heft his bulk with effort. That's the iconography, but when Mitchum got a good role and sank his teeth into it he could demonstrate considerable range, as he does here.It's the Australian outback in the 1920s and Mitchum is a drover. He and his family -- wife Deborah Kerr and teen-aged son Michael Anderson -- along with friend-of-the-family Peter Ustinov -- drive mobs of sheep from one small, dusty settlement to another, where they are paid off and immediately must begin looking for the next job.They're "sundowners," homeless people who live in tents and keep herds together like the cowboys of yore. Mitchum likes it that way. He doesn't brag about it but he knows his sheep. You can see his pride in the way he smiles, leans back, and pats his belly with self satisfaction. The same can't be said for Deborah Kerr's Ida or for Mitchum's adolescent son. Kerr is looking ahead to the time when they're older and she wants to buy a farm and settle down. Mitchum is adamant. He won't "get stuck." Deborah Kerr gives perhaps the performance of her career as the tough but slightly worn hard-working mate. And you know what? Underneath all that sun tan and dust and the shabby dresses, she still looks elegantly beautiful. She and Mitchum work extremely well together, an enzyme and its substrate. And Anderson, just a kid, does a fine job. Ustinov is always good but his lines are sometimes a little too cute.It's a surprisingly well-made movie. It is to Australia of the 20s what "The Quiet Man" is to Ireland of the 50s, a kind of fairy tale full of comic moments with an undertone of tension that we can be confident will be resolved one way or another at the end.The novel is just as good, although the story is slightly altered. In the book, Mitchum's character, Paddy Carmody, is Irish and blusters constantly against Ustinov's Englishman, calling him a "pommy basterd." Many of the original convicts exiled to Australia were Irish and one wonders if there wasn't some sort of cultural founders' effect. But if you liked the movie, you'll certainly get a kick out of Jon Cleary's novel.There isn't a villainous character in the entire story, although the men have their weaknesses when they're not working their buns off. Their indulgences can be ranked in declining order of importance. (1) Sports. (2) Gambling on sports. (3) Drinking beer while talking about sports. I once had mates who would crack me up with tales involving sports, and I'm not a sports fan.The director, Fred Zimmerman, has captured the ethos of these little communities almost perfectly, although of course it's in part fictional. Well -- I'll give an example of what I mean. A dozen or so men have spent a summer working together on a sheep ranch, gossiping, cheerfully fighting, getting drunk once in a while, and generally forming the kinds of bonds that are difficult to break and equally difficult to talk about. As the families are splitting up to go their separate ways at the end of the season, one of the men approaches Mitchum's son and chats for a minute with him. Nothing special has been established between them. But, like the others, there is a good deal of unspoken friendship and mutual respect. Says the departing shearer, John Mellion, to Mitchum's son, Anderson, "I just wanted to say something, Sean. When my kid grows up, I hope he's like you." Without a word, Anderson looks surprised then is overcome with embarrassment and immediately turns away and busies himself with his task. It captures exquisitely the nature of a male bond. Men don't talk that way very often. If they want to complement another man, they phrase it as an insult: "You didn't do such a bad job -- for an ***hole," or something like that.The divergent desires of Mitchum and Kerr are limned in with equal skill. I will only direct the viewer's attention to the scene in which Mitchum, having gotten drunk, neglected his duties, and given Anderson his first glass of beer, is slapped hard across his smug face by a bitter Kerr.It's hard to imagine someone not being amused and charmed by this very funny and very engaging movie.

dbdumonteil In "Heaven knows ,Mister Allison" ,Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr had a tiny island for themselves ;in "the sundowners " they have the whole Australia.Mrs Carmody wants to settle down ,she wants a home ,she wants her boy to go to school.Mr Carmody registers the same desire ,but always something happens.This family and their friend (Peter Ustinov) are very endearing characters and as you follow them in their two hours + journey ,you never get bored a single minute.And however ,it's not an action-packed story ,all that happens could happen in real life and this simple life is depicted with respect for the audience.The documentary side is very interesting.

Steffi_P Mild-mannered dramas such as this have never been too common, not just because commerce-savvy producers don't like to gamble on them, but also because they are tough to get right. In the late 50s and 60s however director Fred Zinnemann was making a fair few of them, and gaining respect within the industry as he did so. He is perhaps the only Hollywood filmmaker of any generation who could really thrive on this kind of picture. But what really determined whether a Zinnemann picture was going to be a success or a failure was the suitability of the cast.What pictures like this don't need is the passionate, dedicated acting of the young "method" followers - too much power and presence. But neither do they need the likability and restraint of, say, James Stewart or Gary Cooper - not real enough for this world. No, a picture like this is only suited to players who strike that balance between expressiveness and believability. So thank goodness we have Deborah Kerr and Robert Mitchum, performers do not claim to become their characters, but simply play them with sincerity. And thank goodness for Peter Ustinov and Glynis Johns - animated eccentrics, but in a way that seems natural, so you could almost believe they were well-meaning members of the public who wandered onto the set and were given a job out of sympathy. These people are not likable in the manner of familiar screen personalities, but they are likable in the way that real people in our lives could be, and it is this factor that gives their fairly mundane story its appeal.The 1950s had seen Zinnemann's transition from extrovert expressionist to sensitive impressionist. Rather than roughly forcing us to take on the protagonists point-of-view with subjective camera angles and mood-based lighting schemes, he now gently encourages us to see the world the way the characters do. He begins the Sundowners by immersing us in the beauty and harmony of the outdoors, with tiny patterns of movement that are common to almost all of his pictures - trees standing proud in a caressing breeze, horses idly flicking their tails. He devotes an unusual amount of time to shots irrelevant to the narrative, taking time to admire the beauty of a scene or follow creatures scurrying through the bush. This broad focus gives us the feeling that the Carmodys are simply a part of this environment. In the outdoor scenes there are a great deal of pans and sideways tracking shots, keeping up the feel of people always on the move. And some of these are fantastically well-timed, such as the sharp pan as Robert pulls up just after Kerr has been watching a well-to-do woman applying makeup.But even the most mild-mannered drama cannot exist without some conflict. The conflict in the Sundowners is never the subject of a major scene or confrontation; it is played out in quiet, by-the-way moments, and mostly upon the face of Deborah Kerr. Although she and Mitchum are both leads, and in fact Mitchum probably has the more lines and screen time, Kerr's character is at the dramatic heart of the story. Scenes like the fistfight or the sheep-shearing contest are simply diversions - it is Ida's frustration at being torn between loyalty to her husband and her own desire to settle down and have a real home that really drives the plot forward. Isobel Lennart's screenplay cleverly hides her struggle in amongst all the scenes of humour and warmth so as not to unbalance the overall feel of the picture. And Zinnemann is smart enough to draw this strand of the story out, treating Kerr to close-ups at key moments, keeping her held in unbroken takes in the rare moments of stillness. Most of all however we have Kerr's own performance, a little against type but probably closer to the woman she was in real life. In keeping with the character, her words and movements are simply getting on with the business of living, and yet she provides a subtle commentary on proceedings with her face. It is her contribution more than anyone else's that brings together the two threads of the Sundowners - the straightforward depiction of life as it happens and a direct and involving emotional honesty.