TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

parausted Cinematographically it is a poor, conventional film. Photography is at times excellent but that is not enough to overcome the defects of a mediocre script. The actors repeat their parts without much conviction (except Hawkins and Finch) and the Latin character of Christopher Lee (the future Dracula) deserves to be remembered in the history of cinema as one of the most exhilarating cartoons that have been seen in movies. For all the technical errors that the film contains and for the glamorous presentation of the cruelty of war, this work is disgusting. Not only is the view of war, the supposed chivalry of enemies, questionable, but also the lack of historical truth. The Graf Spee arrived at the coasts of Mar del Plata (south of the city of Buenos Aires) and there many sailors descended freely. This is top secret perhaps because of some unknown agreement between British, Argentines and Nazis. That is understandable in 1939, when the events occurred ... but not in 1956 when the film was made. In addition, to some extent, the no hidden admiration towards the Nazi chivalry shown in several scenes recalls Howard Hugues' "Hell's Angels" ... and Mr. Hugues had a great deal of sympathy for Nazi Germany. I do not know if it's a problem of inferiority complex on the part of Great Britain, but I remember that James Mason proudly incarnated Rommel in another film. It seems that not only several components of the British royal nobility admired the Nazis. In short: forgettable.

Leofwine_draca A straightforward WW2 naval battle flick, designed to show the courage and mettle of British officers in their battle against overwhelming Nazi firepower. THE BATTLE OF THE RIVER PLATE tells the true story of the German warship the Graf Spee, which proved invincible when up against Allied vessels until a bit of trickery and sheer determination saw it finally meet its match in the form of not one, not two, but three British ships off the coast of Uruguay.The film has the distinction of being filmed by Powell and Pressburger, two of the most famous directors in history, and thus it looks fantastic: colourful, full-blooded, with expert attention to detail and battle scenes that really look like the real thing. It's in the cast that this really excels, though; the production team have assembled one of the greatest all-star casts ever, and thus the film is dominated by strong performances from the likes of John Gregson, Anthony Quayle, Peter Finch, Michael Goodliffe, Bernard Lee, and many more besides. There are even smaller parts for future greats like John Le Mesurier, Christopher Lee, and Patrick Macnee.

fred-houpt I very often will read a book first to learn a deeper level of knowledge about a historical event. Before watching this film I read "The Battle of the River Plate" by Dudley Pope (circa 1956) - paperback. I really liked that book as it provides loads of information about the Graf Spe, a German "pocket" battle ship, which was brand new at the outset of WW2 and for its time and size, cutting edge and fearsome. I recommend viewers to that book.The movie was quite enjoyable as an action adventure / historical drama. My version of the film had "extras" including interviews with Christopher Lee and others. We learn that the directors had to capture long distance shots of US Navy boats whenever they could, which was often last minute. In any case, the story is fairly well covered. I have to admit that I am not always a fan of the acting quality of certain eras. I don't want to give the impression that I dislike older films; the exact opposite is usually the case. I am trying to bring out a point and that is often set pieces like this film, done in studios and not on location, like this one, the actors sadly take on a very mannered, somewhat brittle and stiff physicality to their "acting". And this film had such a fine collection of terrific actors, who aged well into their craft as they grew older. Look at Christopher Lee, who has a tiny role in this film, whip thin, you can hardly recognize him. Most of the lead actors were incredibly slim (not that it really matters). I find early Michael Redgrave films troublesome because I find his approach too self conscious and remote. Seeing him as Master and Commander of his small scale and somewhat suicidal fleet, hunting down a far superior ship, chomping away on his pipe, it's a bit too much. I suppose that people actually behaved this way but I find it grating on my nerves.I often compare one film against another and for me one of the top films of the sea, not yet eclipsed, is "Das Boot". Imagine the Graf Spee story as told by Wofgang Petersen? You'd have an anti-romantic, blood and guts story, with the battle see sawing back and forth, no one really knowing who was winning. That was the truth of the matter; the Brits did not know how much damage they were causing and the reason was not a lack of radar. It was because these ships were lobbing shells at each other from many miles separation! The Graf Spee's biggest guns could lob shells so far that it took almost a full 60 seconds for them to hit their target from the moment they were shot out of the cannons.The dialogue was not overly impressive and the loss of life and damage of the Exeter was underplayed: they had the crap smashed out of them and were almost sunk.The Graf Spee was the first ship in history to be outfitted with functional, if weak, radar. The Brits sent up sighter sea planes who could radio sightings back to the ship. Minus radar, the optical sighting of the crew was limited to the strength of small telescopes and hand held binoculars. This was early in the war. The scuttling of the Graf Spee is still discussed today because it seems such a mystery. Although his ship did take a fair amount of damage and his cooking areas (galley) were destroyed, Langsdorf still had the use of his superior guns. Why did he scuttle the ship? We still are not sure but the defeat and scuttling must have really shocked the German Naval Command.Other than somewhat wooden acting and commanders who didn't seem all that worried that shells were hitting the waters just a few feet away from blowing huge holes in their own ships, it's a pretty good film. I think Petersen should remake this film from the German point of view. Now that is something exciting to contemplate.

Lin Black I saw this film as a little boy when it came out in the 50's and thought it was great. I still think it is a good film by war film standards, but certainly not as strong as something like "The Cruel Sea" which is a more harder hitting adult film.The film sticks pretty much to the actual historical events and doesn't wander off the straight and narrow, which many war films sometimes do! The cast is like a who's who of all the well known British actors of the time, and they are all very competent and all work hard to keep their upper lips very stiff and correct.It is good to see that the Germans are dealt with sympathetically and not portrayed as 'villains', as sometimes happens if the film had been made purely in Hollywood.It is also good to see that real ships are used in the general shots, instead of models in a bath tub, and some of the camera shots of the battle are excellent.One very minor gripe is that in some of the shots of the "Graf Spee" the US Navy extras playing the 'German' sailors are still wearing US Navy uniforms! Oh dear! Ah well, it does not detract from what is overall a good film.