Watch Something of Value For Free

Such a frustrating disappointment

good back-story, and good acting

A Masterpiece!

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

It's the age-old "children are color-blind, adults are racist" theme in Something of Value. Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier grew up together as children, and now in their young adulthood, they're still incredibly close. They laugh, play, hunt, and talk together, even though Rock's family doesn't really think it's right. One day, while hunting for sport, Sidney gets a little miffed that he's not allowed to shoot the gun. Rock tries to explain that it's just the way things are, but Robert Beatty, the mean brother-in-law, intervenes. He slaps Sidney's face and orders him to never argue with his superiors again. Rock is heartbroken and Sidney bursts into tears—I actually turned the movie off during that scene, I was so upset.After having a glass of water, taking a walk outside, and giving myself a talking-to, I decided to turn the movie back on and continue watching it. After all, the actors' heart-wrenching performances were benefits of the film, right? If I was so shaken up by that horrible scene, that meant the film was well written and crafted, right? So, I dried my tears and pressed play.The rest of the film follows Sidney as he runs away from home and joins a rebellious group who fight back against their British captors. Rock just wants his friend back, but Sidney is too far gone, and has become angry and full of hate. It's a pretty violent, upsetting film, showing both the creation and sustention of deep-seeded racism on both sides. If that's the type of movie you like, go ahead and watch this, but I wish I'd never given it a second chance. I don't like movies like this; my heart is far too sensitive.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to racially upsetting scenes and violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Throughout most of Sidney Poitier's career as an actor that primarily appeared in race relations dramas, he played African- Americans whereas, in this one, he actually plays an African, a Kenyan in fact, named Kimani Wa Karanja.As children, Peter (Rock Hudson) and Kimani grow up doing everything together. But as adults, the Black East African 'boy' is fit only to carry his White East African 'bwana' friend's rifle for him, something neither of them really understands though (naturally) Peter is slightly more accepting of it. When Kimani's father (Ken Renard) is imprisoned indefinitely for following a custom deemed barbaric by the ruling class of British colonists, he runs away to join a criminal gang (led by Juano Hernandez's character) that later becomes an insurgency group dubbed Mau Mau; read your history if you're unfamiliar with the real back-story.Predictably, Peter and Kimani will inevitably meet again on opposite sides of the law. The movie also features the comely Dana Wynter as Peter's love interest come wife; their relationship parallels that of his aunt Elizabeth (Wendy Hiller) and Uncle Jeff (Robert Beatty).Jeff and two of their children are murdered during the Mau Mau Uprising. Walter Fitzgerald plays Peter's father, who had been a friend of Kimani's dad and whose knowledge and skills help to end the revolt.Michael Pate plays a White settler that reflects the colonists' racism; William Marshall plays the Black leader that organizes the revolution starting with a meeting in Nairobi.Richard Brooks directed and adapted the screenplay from Robert C. Ruark's novel of the same name.

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.

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