ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

utgard14 Surgeon Cary Grant and his wife Paula Raymond are vacationing in some South American country when they are kidnapped by the military police and taken into the mountains. There they are told the country's dictator, José Ferrer, is in need of an operation to remove a tumor. Grant reluctantly agrees but then his wife is kidnapped by revolutionaries who would like to see Ferrer dead.Hollywood types have always had a fascination with the politics of Latin American countries, their dictators and rebels. This was especially true in the 1950s. So I'm not surprised this was made. I'm also not surprised it flopped at the box office. It's the directorial debut of Richard Brooks, a director who I believe made it farther having friends in high places than any appreciable degree of talent. But I suppose that's true of many directors, actors, etc. even to this day. Grant does fine here but the film is so serious and monotone that it removes many chances for Grant's charisma and personality to shine through. There are a couple of quips here and there that stand out against the rest of the movie's drabness. Paula Raymond is pretty but wooden. José Ferrer is very stagy. Signe Hasso, Leon Ames, Gilbert Roland, and Ramon Novarro are all fine in supporting parts. It's not a bad movie of its type, just ordinary and dull. Not the kind of movie a Cary Grant fan will likely expect.

calvinnme Cary Grant stars as a famous neurosurgeon who is vacationing in a South American country with his new bride. The pair are subject to a "friendly abduction" when the current president of that country, Raoul Farrago (Jose Ferrer), learns of his presence. You see, the president has a brain tumor, and due to the fact that his country is on the verge of civil war, he dares not travel to another country for the operation he needs to save his life.Farrago is a tyrant who claims that he must be so because democracy would never work in his country. His people are illiterate children, he says, and wouldn't know what to do with freedom if they had it. However, being a national "father image" doesn't prevent the president from stealing everything in the country that isn't nailed down. The president's wife does a great job of emulating Evita Peron before much was really known about her. Then there is Gilbert Roland as the leader of the opposition. He wants to make his people free, as long as he gets to be the new dictator. Roland does a great job with this role. How far he has progressed here since his early days as an actor at the dawn of sound.So the question is - does Grant owe a service to the dictator by saving his life with a delicate operation only so that patient can go on being a killer and a thief, or would the death of this tyrant better serve mankind? If you throw the safety of his wife into the balance - what decision does the doctor make?

moonspinner55 Renown brain surgeon, vacationing in an unnamed Latin American country with his wife, is stopped from leaving by the president's wife and minions after the savage dictator falls ill. The doctor reluctantly agrees to operate, not knowing that his spouse has been kidnapped by the Revolution, who want the leader's head on a plate. Although he stays in a somber low-key throughout (with the exception of a comic teeth-brushing bit), Cary Grant is just as interesting in a dramatic film as he is in more lighthearted fare--though the lack of offhand humor makes itself felt. Debuting director Richard Brooks, who also adapted the script from George Tabori's story, provides a steady pace which is neither gripping nor dawdling, and he handles his actors efficiently enough. A curious vehicle for its star and studio (MGM), the picture fails to unnerve us with its staged violence (which seems derivative of Fritz Lang) and angry, shouting mobs. What it does do well is present two important men on opposing sides reaching a temporary truce through medicine and illness. In this regard, "Crisis" is unusual and occasionally effective. ** from ****

Arun Vajpey I saw this film again last night after a very long time and could not help comparing it to the similarly themed British film 'State Secret', which was also released in 1950. Whereas State Secret was a fast moving classic full of snappy dialogue and dark wit, CRISIS let itself down by a plodding script, wooden acting and heavy moralising. Grant is unconvincing as the American surgeon caught up in political intrigue while vacationing with his wife in a South American country. The cinematography is poor, making the sequence of events hard to follow and the ending extremely melodramatic. Overall, it is a missed opportunity with such a good storyline to start with and I'd describe it as a badly made rather than a bad film.