Something of Value (1957)

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

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.

Sidney Poitier and Rock Hudson portray two Kenyans, raised as near brothers, who find their paths in life diverging wildly as they enter young manhood. After suffering indignity at the hands of white men and seeing his father imprisoned by the colonial authorities, Poitier's Kimani becomes a freedom fighter/terrorist within the "Mau Mau" insurgency. The film concerns the efforts of Peter (Hudson) to reach a peaceful agreement with Kimani, and with Kimani's own inner struggle with the violence of revolution.It's a solid film, though perhaps not a "great" film for whatever reasons..... one of which is a boring and largely unnecessary romantic subplot with Hudson and the dull Dana Wynter, looking and feeling for all the world like a second-rate Liz Taylor. I thought Hudson's acting was quite powerful for the most part, especially in the scene when he first arrives home from the war. Poitier blows him off the screen, of course, and we wish that the film gave them equal time (where was the romance between Kimani and his wife?), but Hudson isn't the total loss that some of the reviewers here have made him out to be. Indeed, he could have attempted an accent, but that would have been dangerous; surely Poitier mastered his Kenyan accent because he had much more to lose, and to gain, from a film concerning political turmoil in Africa.The film struggles to maintain some kind of balance; it depicts the Mau Mau as thoroughly "savage", yet also reveals the torture and lies of the British colonialists. There are moments of really breathtaking stylized violence that could still shock audiences. It's a difficult line to walk, and a view emerges in which basically no one, except perhaps the next generation, is the winner. It's a respectable viewpoint, considering that the conflict was still ongoing at the time of the film's production. Some parallels between the "equal rights" demanded by Kimani and the situation in America at the time must have made some distributors and audiences nervous, but the film does not try to push these parallels in any obvious way.Before closing, mention should be made of Miklos Rozsa's extraordinary score; indeed, extraordinary even for Rozsa, as it combines the whine of the electronic theramin with "tribal" rhythms and chanting.

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 ****

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 the screenplay of whichshows 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.