Watch 55 Days at Peking For Free

the audience applauded

Really Surprised!

A Major Disappointment

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

As fond as I am of saying "Review the movie on the screen", 55 Days... is very much a movie where I just can't overcome my own prejudices. Specifically, a very negative attitude towards the arrogance of European Imperialism.Don't much care for China's super beehive, patriarchal social system either so combining the two makes, for me, not just an out but banishment from the League.This is why this review is starless. I simply can't rate the movie objectively.That said, 55 Days... is a fine example of its genre: well produced, well acted (good performances by its bevy of stars), great production values, well paced, etc.None of which even begins to override my distaste for its subject matter.But there is one element that does: Heston's demonstration that he can act.During the meaty part of the movie he plays the usual macho (American version) A-type pack leader and selfless hero that was his bread and butter in the 50s and 60s. Then there's a Change.One of his troops had fathered a child with a Chinese working girl who is introduced (the child) early on cheering, with quiet enthusiasm, a company of American soldiers marching into the European compound. Very waif-like, her's is the strongest characterization of the movie.Then her father is killed in a Boxer assault, leaving her orphaned. This is were Heston's proof of acting begins to emerge.At first, like any selfless hero, he commiserates with the girl, inquires about her well-being and prospects, demonstrating his empathy and good character, etc. etc.Then, as the theme progresses, the Change occurs as Heston's character begins to genuinely care, creating a huge problem. What can you do? A bi-racial child who will never fit-in in either culture.What results is an increasing sense of anguish in Heston's character as he tries to come to grips with the insolvable, leading to the only honestly touching scene in the movie as that anguish reaches its climax and Heston makes you believe it. Like shadow and light playing off their surroundings, you can see the conflict at play in Heston's face, hear it in his voice and feel it in his body-language. A once-in-a-career performance.As the two sit, as Heston tries to explain the unexplainable, the waif's all-accepting optimism is the perfect counterpoint to Heston's confused angst.I've witnessed that performance several times over 50 years, drawn to watch the movie solely because of that endearing waif and her story. Each viewing has strengthened the emotional impact of Heston's performance.A huge plus is that the scene ends without resolution - though you know, even if Heston's character doesn't, how it will end.Unfortunately, when that resolution does arrive, Heston's character has returned to his Selfless Hero mode so, when he swings her up onto his saddle, its impact is somewhat muted, like a forced acceptance of fate.Even so, the evolution of the story, and Heston's surprising ability to pull it off, is transcendent.Addendum 11-30-15Had always assumed that all the characters were historical. Turns out Ava Gardner's, Baroness Natalie Ivanoff, wasn't. So she was knocked off simply for dramatic effect. Another reason for me to dislike the movie.

It's the summer of 1900 Peking. The Boxer Rellion explodes attacking foreigners and Christians. The Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi tries to harness the Boxers against the foreigners as differing voices in court argue. China veteran Maj. Matt Lewis (Charlton Heston) leads his US forces into the city. He tries to buy a British missionary captive from the Boxers but he's already dead. Sir Arthur Robinson (David Niven) leads the British mission trying to keep the peace. Lewis becomes romantically involved with Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff (Ava Gardner). Prince Tuan orders the murder of the German minister by the Boxers witnessed by Lewis. The Dowager 'advises' the foreign legations to leave Peking within 24 hours.The politics is a bit simplified. Charlton Heston is impossibly gallant and uncomfortably stiff as the romantic lead. Ava Gardner has the unenviable task of batting googly eyes at him. David Niven does the stiff upper lip very well. He's the superior actor in this one. The main Chinese characters are all played by white actors. It's a missed opportunity but business as usual for Hollywood of that era. The extras are mostly Asians which is an effort considering the filming location is Spain. The sets are impressive. The battles are compelling big actions with lots of Chinese killed as well as the prerequisite foreigners. This is an old fashion war epic with as much racial sensitivity as can be expected.

Seeing the movie in 21 century, at first glance the production seems to be very good considering there was no CG at the time so they had to construct the whole stage. They did a good job as other epics of the same period but the positive aspect of the movie ends there.Aside from the fact that we see obvious white actors poorly made up to look like Chinese, the screenplay lacks the slightest dramatic factor to incite any emotion in audience as a result, watching this long movie to the end in one session would be a torture! Obviously Matt Lewis (Heston) is the hero but what's likely about him besides being played by Charlton Heston? Nothing. He is an American marine who is where he shouldn't be and is defending a wrong cause. They are occupational forces who humiliated Chinese and try to extend their influence in their land. So what's likely about about him? What's the difference between him and a WWII Wermacht major in Russia? I guess the difference is winning and losing otherwise there is no difference in action. The loser would be evilized and the winner would be patronized but at the end, there is no difference between them. The support would be Arthur Robertson (Niven) who's rudely after realizing the imperialist agenda of British Government and since the movie is from British point of view, he leads the pack of other diplomats. The love is Baroness Ivanoff (Gardner) which her cheesy affair with Lewis is flat and boring as there is no chemistry between them.It was tried to depict the Boxer Rebellion at the dawn of 20th century on big screen. They failed to deliver an epic valuable work as the story was conceived on grossly arrogant and misleading British point of view. It could be tolerable to some degree if there was a good underlying love story which never was.It was a awful movie, not only it failed to faithfully picture the Boxer Rebellion but it is extremely boring and worst that it is an insult to Chinese people. Where they Killed thousands of Boxers but when a captain got shot, Lewis in the field hospital says "What are we doing here? Was it worth it?" or something like that as all those Chinese were dogs and the lost life of a captain was of great value. Really disgusting movie.

the Chinese are described a barbarians, the film did make the Chinese (the Boxer who were in fact the nationalist movement) as bad guys. Keep in mind that foreign traders were making money selling opium to Chinese, and you can understand some of the animosity. It would be like Columbian drug cartels using force of arms to demand their right to sell cocaine in the U.S. But putting the political correctness aside, it is a very good film about an event that happened. You might also watch "Khartoum" about the battle between Muslim religious fanatics and British colonialism.Colonists are never popular, To glorify the intruding foreigners' actions in China in the wake of the Opium Wars during the late colonial period is a terrible thing to do. Doing so is along the same lines as glorifying the Nazis' actions in the invasion of Poland and in the Holocaust. To put things into perspective, for those who may not understand just how bad (morally) this movie is, imagine how Jewish people might feel, should a Hollywood movie be released that not only viewed the Holocaust from the Nazi perspective, but went so far as to glorify their actions. Looking at it from the other side's perspective is one thing (the German perspective of WWII and Holocaust, or in the case of this movie the foreigners' perspective). However, glorifying it is something else altogether - and this movie crossed the line in no small measure. To add insult to injury, the Chinese characters were portrayed by white actors, and even caricatured. This is stupid anti Chinese crap !Here's the setup: The foreign imperialists from Europe, America and Russia are the GOOD guys. The Boxers who are trying to defend their nation, their empress and their way of life from the onslaught of expansionists are the BAD guys. Barely anything about this movie is correct. History actually proved that the foreign forces actually suffered huge losses in close quarter combat with the Boxers, but you would never see a western film maker with the balls to acknowledge that, and so the Boxers are treated as just as savage and sloppy as Native Americans where depicted in films of this era.