Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

ThatMOVIENut The film that inspired Steven Spielberg, this grand DeMille drama set against the thrills and spectacle of a 50s circus gives us a behind the scenes peek at the unlikely bunch that put on all sorts of shows for the public. These include the under pressure manager (Heston) his girlfriend/wannabe starlet (Hutton), world class trapeze artist The Great Sebastian (Conrel Wilde) and Buttons, the clown with a mysterious past (Stewart).Corny, melodramatic and cliché though it may be, this circus tale from, fittingly, one of Hollywood's greatest showmen is not without charm or a sense of fun. A game cast all embrace their larger than life roles well, with Stewart shining as both the funny yet poignantly tragic Buttons. And as expected of DeMille, the film offers tons of great, large scale spectacle (including but not limited to elephants, aerial acrobatics and the famous train crash that actually still holds up okay as a tense action scene), all set to some very cheery, smile-inducing songs to create an old fashioned type of charm and warmth that carry the picture over its weaker points.The disdain against the film's win back in 1952 stems from being seen more as an arbitrary honouring of the aging DeMille, and 'Show's' sketchy plot, stretched to over two hours, and stock characters don't do it any favours in trying to defend its title. It's all very routine soap opera that, were it not for all the wonderful sights and osmosis surrounding it, would be really by the numbers and uninspired. Plus, there is some shoddy 'early greenscreen/keying' done for some stunts which stick out painfully, However, in spite of all that, I was left with a smile on my face by the film's end. Films like this define terms like 'feel-good' and 'they just don't make 'em like this anymore'.

mmallon4 The DVD release for The Greatest Show On Earth plays down its Best Picture win. Hang on, isn't this supposed to be the highest accolade in the film world? Why would you downplay that your film won the award? Probably because the Academy Awards are a farce. Yeah, total shocker. I normally have a rule when reviewing movies not to mention the Oscars because I feel it is so redundant to do so. "How did this beat 'x' picture?", "Why didn't 'x' get an Oscar nomination?", such tiring statements. Best Picture winners attract viewers to a film which they would unlikely watch otherwise and because of this many films get a bad reputation as the film which beat such and such for Best Picture.The Greatest Show On Earth is one such film, made out to be worse than it is due to attracting an audience who would otherwise never watch it if it wasn't for its Best Picture win. The Greatest Show On Earth is tons of fun; at times I had a care free feeling that I was at an actual circus, minus the smell of elephant dung. There is even an appearance of people wearing costumes of Disney characters; good luck trying to put that in a non-Disney film nowadays! The acrobatic scenes are suspenseful and you really get a sense of the scope and awe; the whole thing even feels like it has weight to it, so I can forgive the odd jumpy edit. You could look at it cynically and say it's a commercial for Barnum and Bailey, well it's a very entertaining commercial at that and a very informative one offering a documentary like look at how the circus operates. It's not an easy job, therefore someone as commanding as Charlton Heston is perfect for the role as the person who runs the operations and pulls the strings behind the scenes. The movie packs a lot of material into its run time and I felt like I got my money's worth.When your movie stars James Stewart (albeit a supporting performance), isn't any surprise he's the best aspect of the film. I believe his role of Buttons is an underrated performance of his and one of his most tragic. He has a permanent smile on his face (really, his make-up never comes off at any point), yet has a dark, troubled past. OK its obvious symbolism but you can feel his pain throughout thanks to his quiet, subtle performance. As the movie progresses it takes a surprisingly dark turn, not only with the shockingly intense train wreck sequence, but also the implication that Buttons assisted his wife to kill herself, surprising that a mainstream blockbuster would have an assisted suicide subplot in an era controlled by censorship.

gavin6942 The dramatic lives of trapeze artists, a clown, and an elephant trainer against a background of circus spectacle.These days (2015), circuses have fallen out of favor. Kids are not as interested in them as they used to be, and they have taken on a lot of criticism from animal rights groups. (And, you know, some of that criticism is more than fair.) I have to have a little bit of pride in the circus, though, especially the one focused on here: Ringling. These guys came from Baraboo, Wisconsin and until relatively recently have kept that as their headquarters. This is barely more than an hour from home for me, so circus history is something very local.

vincentlynch-moonoi A lot of people seem to have a problem with this film because it won 2 major Academy Awards, including Best Picture of 1952. I think critic Leonard Maltin may have put it best when he said that "like most of DeMille's movies, this may not be art, but it's hugely enjoyable".You have to begin by remembering that the year was 1952, Yes, Milton Berle and Lucy and Martin & Lewis had arrived, but only 34% of the homes in America had television sets. So, for many communities it was still a big deal when the circus came to town, and a big deal when a movie like this came to the local movie theater.Second, I think this film is important. In fact, probably more important today than it was in 1952. What better source do we have for seeing what a circa 1950 big circus was actually like? None. And make no mistake, despite a plot and movie stars, what you see in this film is a lot of real circus acts. Yes, for most you get only glimpses, but this movie still preserves what the mid-1900s circus was like better than any reference book.And what about the plot or plots. Well, you have a love triangle -- Heston, Wilde, and Hutton. You have the sub plot of how the mighty can fall (literally in this case). And you have another sub plot about revenge. Such plots and sub plots are not uncommon in pictures...in fact, they are the most common themes. Here they just happen to take place at a circus.In terms of the actors, this kind of part was perfect for the wacky Betty Hutton. If Lou Grant had known her, he would have said she had spunk! This is probably the only film I really like Cornel Wilde in. I guess the one who comes out pretty bad here is Charlton Heston. Of course, his greatest successes, including Ben-Hur, were a few years off. Frankly, his performance here is rather wooden and he shows his limitations quite profoundly. It's interesting to see James Stewart just clowning around...literally...in perhaps his most unique role. Dorothy Lamour is rather typecast. This may be the only film where Gloria Grahame acted like a normal human being...and did it quite well. Interesting, also, to see the venerable Henry Wilcoxon, her as the FBI agent. And the cameos are fun, including Bob and Bing.This really was quite a Cecil B. DeMille production. But, of course, DeMille was very old school, and it showed. And DeMille had yet one more miracle up his sleeve for a few years hence -- "The Ten Commandments".TO enjoy this film, remember the era which it represented, which was over 60 years ago. From that perspective, it's pretty damn good.