Anyone acquainted with many of my reviews notices my background as a history major. Frequently I lament the fact that in pursuit of movie making that will turn into box office gold the studios (especially American ones) will ignore historical events or places. This is true about Ancient Greek History (pace the two films about Themopylae, and the two films about Alexander the Great - where is a decent films about Pericles?). It is also true about 18th-19th Century Spanish history. In particular, Napoleon's first major military goof: his invasion of the Iberian Peninsular in 1808 (four years before his better remembered goof, his invasion of Russia). "War And Peace" is such a classic novel that it has been made and remade as film and television series several times, so we know what happened in Russia pretty well. But the events in what Napoleon's "chancre sore" in Spain and Portugal are barely noted. I recall the Jeannette MacDonald - Allan Jones operetta film "The Firefly". There is a degree of involvement in the plot of "Anthony Adverse"(toward the end). Later there was that film with Tony Franciosa about Goya at the royal court, which dealt a little bit with the inept Count Godoy. But the actual events of the rise and fall of French involvement in the Peninsula are never mentioned. Not even (as far as I know - please tell me if I'm wrong) a movie about Sir John Moore (Wellington's model as a commander) and his death in the retreat from Corunna (it would have been a great film for British morale after Dunkirk).

I don't know how "The Pride And The Passion" got started as a project. It is based on a minor novel of C. S. Forester, and that can be the reason. Forester struck Hollywood gold twice, first with his short novel "The African Queen" (about events in British and German colonies in Africa in 1914),and then with "Captain Horatio Hornblower", the film with Gregory Peck about the adventures of Forester's fictional British Captain in the Napoleonic Wars. I suspect since Peck and his film did well in the movie houses, it was thought a land based Forester tale would do just as well. So they chose this idiocy.

The plot deals with Anglo-Spanish cooperation in moving a heavy siege gun to a fortified town in order to breach the walls. The officer sent in command is played by Cary Grant. If his attempt to do American Revolutionary History, "The Howards Of Virginia", showed to be less than his fans expected, this film demonstrated he should not do British military history. His performance is dominated by his costume and the scenery. He is supposed to have a romance with the Spanish woman played by Sophia Loren (and an actual romance between them began in the course of the film) but the visual record does not excite viewers passions. Frank Sinatra played an ex-priest, also interested in Loren (she is supposed to have split feelings here). He resuscitates his hesitant and mediocre performance as a priest from "The Miracle Of The Bells".

If the three leads are fumbling about in the film it is doomed. That, plus the boring details of how to bring that huge siege gun over mountains and through valleys is just not the stuff for this film (although the later movie, "Fitzcarraldo", demonstrated that a madman's attempts to push an ocean liner through the Amazon jungle to Manaosh shows a great film might be made from a similar story). Looking back, the only thing I liked was that the story showed the French as well as the Anglo-Spanish sides, so we watched as the French General (Theodore Bikel, in the one competent performance in the film) tries to keep tabs on the progress and make preparations to thwart its effects.

I give it a "3"...and that's for a side issue which I liked. Marty Feldman had a funny television show in the 1970s that was briefly shown in the U.S. He did a take off on "The Pride And The Passion", about two inept soldiers ordered to deliver a cannon to a particular spot, who constantly get fired at by the French. In the end the cannon is delivered by the wounded pair (they have casts on their arms and legs) and they arm it, aim it, and pull the lanyard. Nothing happens. The idiots go in front of the cannon to check it, and it blows up killing them. A voice over (suitably basso in tone),states, "They died because they could not live....They live in the clouds forever, where stupid heroes die at the ends of movies like this!!" For allowing Feldman and his writers to come up with that, the movie did have a little redeeming feature to it...albeit one not planned by the production.

This is a super-mediocre film. On one hand, the money spent hiring thousands of extras, building a prop cannon, uniforms, etc. resulted in a movie that was spectacular and pretty to look at, but on the other, the film was so poorly made that the overall result is extremely forgettable. The biggest problem you'll probably notice is the casting. Why Frank Sinatra was chosen to be the leader of a guerrilla band in early 19th century Spain is bewildering. While he isn't horrible, he certainly isn't at all convincing physically or in regard to his accent. To make matters worse, the film is exceptionally poorly written when it comes to dialog, so Frank and the other leads are given clichéd and silly lines throughout the film. It was like the writers said to themselves "when in doubt, have the leads argue with each other". So the "dramatic dialog" often just consisted of arguing or Sophia Loren and Cary Grant in a romantic clinch (though NOTHING was done to make this totally improbable plot device probable). The final serious problem was that the plot really was paper-thin and the film was drug out for over two hours by showing scene after scene after scene of the partisans dragging the cannon across the Spanish countryside. The result is dull and forgettable as well as a complete waste of acting talents.

The film is slow sometimes and some of the dialogue is wooden and clichéd, but I liked the Pride and the Passion for its sincerity. And also for its luscious filming and scenery and stirring and dramatic music. The story is epic and satisfying in many ways, and the whole film is wonderfully directed by Stanley Kramer.

I think the acting is fine. Frank Sinatra for me is the weakest of the leads, not because he is bad, in fact on the whole he convinced me, but his accent is dodgy sometimes. Cary Grant however is as charming and as urbane as ever, and Sophia Loren oozes glamour and sex appeal. All in all, satisfying and beautiful, once you get past the pace, accent and some of the dialogue. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox