No amount of black and white art-house tastefulness can hide the fact that "From Here to Eternity" is one big splashy soap opera of a movie. I've not read the James Jones book on which it is based, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that the romantic subplots that dominate the film are only a part of a much larger and intricate narrative in the book. "A Place in the Sun" did much the same thing to "An American Tragedy."
I've grown to like Burt Lancaster as I've seen him in more and more movies, and I think he got better as he got older, but he's at his hammy worst in roles like this. Though he's a big, rugged looking man, I can't take him seriously in these macho, stud roles. He overacts and never once convinces. Montgomery Clift does much better with his role as the sensitive and moony Pruitt; these were exactly the kinds of roles Clift was born to play. Frank Sinatra, again, could be a fine actor, but his role here is boiled down to a couple of aw-shucks moments before he kicks off in a sentimental death scene. Deborah Kerr and Donna Reed are largely wasted; they're definitely women adrift in a male-dominated film.
I don't know about Fred Zinneman. I used to think he was a good director who made socially relevant films at a time when Hollywood would have been content churning out widescreen Technicolor junk, and he did do that. But his films during the 1950s all feel very pompous, like he was aware that he was making ART while everyone else was making MOVIES. I have the same feeling to an extent about George Stevens, though I think overall his films are more fascinating than Zinneman's.
"From Here to Eternity" is certainly no where near the worst that the 1950s had to offer, but it has been overpraised. The fact that Pearl Harbor was still a very distinct memory for so many people probably had much to do with its popular and critical reception at the time, and for its lasting appeal. Watching it now, one kind of wonders what the big deal is.
Grade: B
I've grown to like Burt Lancaster as I've seen him in more and more movies, and I think he got better as he got older, but he's at his hammy worst in roles like this. Though he's a big, rugged looking man, I can't take him seriously in these macho, stud roles. He overacts and never once convinces. Montgomery Clift does much better with his role as the sensitive and moony Pruitt; these were exactly the kinds of roles Clift was born to play. Frank Sinatra, again, could be a fine actor, but his role here is boiled down to a couple of aw-shucks moments before he kicks off in a sentimental death scene. Deborah Kerr and Donna Reed are largely wasted; they're definitely women adrift in a male-dominated film.
I don't know about Fred Zinneman. I used to think he was a good director who made socially relevant films at a time when Hollywood would have been content churning out widescreen Technicolor junk, and he did do that. But his films during the 1950s all feel very pompous, like he was aware that he was making ART while everyone else was making MOVIES. I have the same feeling to an extent about George Stevens, though I think overall his films are more fascinating than Zinneman's.
"From Here to Eternity" is certainly no where near the worst that the 1950s had to offer, but it has been overpraised. The fact that Pearl Harbor was still a very distinct memory for so many people probably had much to do with its popular and critical reception at the time, and for its lasting appeal. Watching it now, one kind of wonders what the big deal is.
Grade: B