IMDb > Something of Value (1957) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Something of Value (1957) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 12 comments in total 

13 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting period piece, 10 April 2004
8/10
Author: William J. Fickling (wjfickling@earthlink.net) from Columbia, South Carolina, USA

This film is an interesting memento of a period seemingly long ago, but actually in the recent past. It raises some of the same questions brought to mind in "The Battle of Algiers," specifically, what methods is it justifiable to use to further a just cause, especially the cause of an oppressed people. Another question, should all members of the oppressor class, in this case whites of British ancestry and citizenship, be regarded and treated as oppressors, even if they are sympathetic to the cause of the oppressed? To its credit, the film doesn't oversimplify. One character, Matson, is a cardboard villain, but the whites are generally portrayed sympathetically. And, although at the time this film was made Kenyan independence was only six years away, it is clear that, to almost all the whites, independence and black majority rule are still unthinkable. It is clear that many of the whites regard the land as just as much theirs as it is the blacks'; most of them were born there. The film doesn't make a case for independence, just for equality of treatment.

The film moves along and is never boring. It tells a good story and is generally well acted. It's too bad that Rock Hudson didn't, or couldn't, attempt a British accent. Although it's clear that all the whites in the film are British, Hudson just moves right along with his American accent, quite un-self conscious about it all. (Maybe it's just as well; he might have ended up sounding as ridiculous as Marlon Brando in "Mutiny on the Bounty.") This is in stark contrast to Sidney Poitier, who manages an African accent quite well. Poitier is actually superb in his role; this was well before he assumed the persona of the saintly characters so superior to everyone else that he played to excess in the 60s. This film appears not to be available on video, so you'll probably have to wait until it appears on Turner Classic Movies again. 8/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Well-meaning film just misses mark, 9 January 2001
7/10
Author: rollo_tomaso (rollo_tomaso@excite.com) from Houston, TX

Sidney Poitier is excellent in this study of Kenya's fight for independence and backlash against their former oppressors. William Marshall, Michael Pate and Wendy Hiller are superb in poignant supporting performances. But, Rock Hudson is terribly miscast, and his character too good, even beyond sainthood. And the focus on his character ultimately throws the movie off-balance. Still worth watching though, but it's a bit of a shame since the elements of greatness are all here, but the result is thought-provoking but unsatisfying. 7/10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Emerging Africa, 14 August 2009
9/10
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

Thoughtful people around the world have despaired for Africa, the most abused and exploited continent on our globe. The year that the film version of Robert Ruark's novel Something Of Value came out, the first colony of British Africa, the Gold Coast became the independent Republic of Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah. When we see film like Leonardo DiCpario's Blood Diamond come out fifty years later, you have to wonder whether Africa's many problems will ever be solved in the lifetime of most of us.

Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier play childhood friends who grew up side by side in Kenya colony. But race and racial politics have driven them apart as Poitier has joined the nascent Mau Mau movement whose mission it was to kill all the white settlers and drive them from their part of the continent. Hudson who believes the races can peaceful exist together in the Kenya colony and soon to be independent country wants to reconcile with Poitier. The film concerns his attempts to do so.

Some very good supporting performances by Dana Wynter, Wendy Hiller, Ivan Dixon, and William Marshall are in Something Of Value. Best scene in the film other than the final confrontation with Hudson and Poitier is Hudson's father played by Robert Beatty successfully breaking down Mau Mau leader Juano Hernandez into giving up his cohorts. Beatty's knowledge of the Kikuyu tribe culture comes into play here.

The white racist attitudes are exemplified by Michael Pate whose Australian accent makes him sound the most authentically African or the closest to it among the white cast members.

Sad to say this most authentic of African stories is still very relevant today as seen by the critical and popular acclaim that Blood Diamond received in 2006. Hudson, Poitier, and the rest of the cast do some of their best work in Something Of Value.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Yes it is..., 14 October 2004
Author: dbdumonteil

This movie is really something of value.Rock HUdson's character says "we steal their earth and their religion,we 've got to give them something of value instead".Actually,Richard Brookes applied to Africa what he 'd done two years back with "the last hunt" where the white men killed the buffalos and starved the Indians.They even despised their belief by killing even the White animal.

Preceded by "Simba" an English movie starring Dirk Bogarde whose screenplay shows a lot of similarities with "something of value' Brooks 's work seems nevertheless superior ,because it has very strong scenes:Poitier,smashing the mirror with disgust after the killing,the informer killed on the barbed wire by the other prisoners;the old man ,afraid of thunder.This last scene may seem naive ,nay insulting for the natives ,but it was fifty years ago.People who criticize the movie should think about it:in 1957,it was a courageous movie,as "the last hunt" was.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
For me, this was a nostalgic journey., 8 March 2004
7/10
Author: hoopoe from Chula Vista, CA

I read Robert Ruark's book twice, Once before I went to Kenya in 1968 and once after my return. I had never seen the movie until recently. While in Africa, I was told by the Black Kenyans and the British Kenyans that the story was exaggerated, but this often happens to keep the interest alive. Having visited there, I thoroughly enjoyed the scenery and remembering many places where I had been and the animals running across the plains with Mount Kenya in the background. It was a treat to see young Rock Hudson, beautiful Dana Wynter and the talents of Sidney Poitier and Wendy Hiller. The action and the supporting actors are fine and I think I will watch it again before I return the tape to the video store.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting story of the final years of colonialism in Africa., 22 March 2008
7/10
Author: tynesider from Tyneside, United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This film examines the post-war struggle for Kenyan independence resulting in the State of Emergency set up during the Mau Mau uprising against white settlers and African 'collaborators' in the 1950s, at a time when British Colonialism was in retreat. Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier are childhood friends who become enemies when Poitier joins the violent Kenyan revolt, and Wendy Hiller and Walter Fitzgerald play white settlers trying to come to terms with change, unlike the Robert Beatty and Michael Pate characters who support the status quo and regard the Africans as inferiors. The Mau Mau build-up is handled well, as is Poiter's gradual disillusionment with white rule, while finding it difficult to accept the violence of the Mau Mau. The Juano Hernandez character who administers the Mau Mau oaths is strongly influenced by his tribal religion and this provides the rather unconvincing reason for his change of heart and ultimate betrayal of his fellows. The vulnerability of the British settlers in the bush is evident and the degree of of violence, whether implied or shown, is unusual for the time (the picture was given an X certificate in the UK by the British Board of Film Censors which meant you had to be at least 16 to see it), and the story moves at a steady pace as directed by Richard Brooks. Interesting too for Miklos Rozsa's most unusual music score, using African rhythms and chants. An unusual film and worth seeing.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Gripping, 26 January 2008
7/10
Author: film-collector from Omaha, NE. - United States

I found this film riveting. Hudson was in his prime at this point and Poitier giving his usual brilliant best. The sub players are the best performances however. Wendy Hiller is wonderful, as usual. Such a lady. Ken Renard and Juano Hernandez are nothing less then striking. Robert Beatty is absolutely hateful. He actually makes you root for the uprising. There are some violent moments in this film, even for 1957. My only complaint is why shoot it in black and white. ALL movies taking place in Africa should be in color. Its just too beautiful for black and white. (Unless it takes place in the desert.) Richard Brooks' almost documentary style of direction has been lauded many times elsewhere and needs no more praise from me. I cant understand "edwagreen's" almost racist comments on this film. He obviously didn't see the picture I did. "The man's" wife is NOT killed and the Mau Mau do NOT march at all. (They do, however sing/chant some song).

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Racial tensions in East Africa provide for topical war story with odd casting..., 6 July 2009
6/10
Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

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 ****

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
A great book let down by a film, 17 December 2006
5/10
Author: hogan-pj from United Kingdom

The film is of average Hollywood standard for the day (and I am a Hollywood fan)which is to say; quite good. To do Robert Ruark's novel justice would require about six hours, which I agree is impractical, but 3hr epic length (rare at that time)would have helped. The levels of violence , now commonplace on screen, could not then be screened.

I try to keep my comments on this database, which is about (or should be)the art/science/entertainment of the cinema, apolitical. It is, however, perhaps relevant to suggest that the novel and film of 'Some thing of Value' be considered in the light of Ruark's 1962 novel 'Uhuru' which revisits basically the same characters (the names change)after Kenyan independence. The events may not have applied so fully in Kenya but looked at as a prophecy of the tragedy that has happened and continues to happen in independent Zimbabwe it was remarkably prophetic.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Something of Value Really Isn't **1/2, 21 April 2006
5/10
Author: edwagreen from United States

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history