GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Brendon Jones 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.

HotToastyRag In an attempt to reprise her Academy-Award nominated performance in From Here to Eternity, Deborah Kerr donned a short blonde hairdo and played a soldier's widow assigned to a tropical setting in the Pacific to help soldiers in WW2 in the film The Proud and the Profane. She's very prim and proper, just as she was before succumbing to Burt Lancaster's charms in 1953, but this time around, she goes head-to-head with a stern, mustached William Holden. Given their leading lady and similar settings, it's awfully hard not to compare the two films, and From Here to Eternity is much better. I don't really like William Holden anyway, and in this unlikable role, I found him even more difficult to endure. Thelma Ritter plays a volunteer nurse, and she's exactly the same as she is in every movie: cold, rude, argumentative, and abrasive. I tried to separate her performance from the written words of her character to see which I found objectionable, and as usual, Thelma Ritter's acting was the problem. Another actress could have put a touch of warmth and compassion in the role, and if she had, the underlying emotion would have added a wonderful layer to her character. Deborah Kerr seems to be the only one who tried to act in the film, and while she does do a good job, the story falls short of From Here to Eternity and South Pacific. If you like Deborah Kerr, or classic WW2 movies and you've already seen all the good ones, go ahead and rent The Proud and the Profane. It probably won't end up being your favorite, but not every movie you see has to be excellent, right?

MartinHafer "The Proud and Profane" is an annoying war film. That's because to me, the characters (in particular the two leads) come off as phony and unlikable. Together, they form a relationship that is about as believable as a politician making a promise (of any sot).Deborah Kerr plays a very annoying woman. Her husband was killed at Guadalcanal and, inexplicably, she joins the Red Cross and goes to the Pacific to try to find folks who could tell her about her husband. This is hard to believe but when wounded men arrive and she doesn't want to see them because it bothers her to see hurt men, I just wanted to slap her. What an immature and unlikable lady--more like a débutante going to a cotillion than a lady volunteering to help in the war effort.As for William Holden, he plays a tough 'blood and guts' colonel who is VERY intense and selfish. His way of dealing with things is to tell the men to suck it up. Lost an arm? Suck it up. Paralyzed for life? Stop your whining. He even yells at the Chaplin! This guy makes Attila the Hun seem charming.So, you've got too seriously unlikable characters. And, they seem to have absolutely nothing--NOTHING--in common. So, when they suddenly starts kissing and the music wells up with a romantic strain, I felt like throwing a coffee cup at the TV screen. The dialog simply was some of the worst I'd heard of since my last Ed Wood film! The sticky, gooey, and utterly stupid dialog. The worst might be Holden's 'Indian half-breed' speech--but it's all pretty lame.I've noticed that this film has a respectable overall score and decent reviews. Well, I don't get it. Despite top stars, this is a bad film whose only interesting attributes are the bit characters--where you get to see a very young Marion Ross and David Bagdasarian (the guy who created the Chipmunks) in small parts. Otherwise, a complete waste of time.

secondtake The Proud and Profane (1956)Yes, this movie features William Holden and Deborah Kerr, who do their characteristic best in a lower budget echo of the 1953 blockbuster "From Here to Eternity," also featuring Kerr (but with Lancaster and, for good measure, Montgomery Clift). The comparison is fair, because the similarities are too blatant, and so it's fair to also say that, as ordinary as this movie is, it had potential. There are qualities to the story line that are too moving (wounded soldiers in the Pacific, a widow tracing the last days of her Marine husband's life, a love affair against the rules) and the actors are too fine (add Thelma Ritter as an important third) to just dismiss the whole thing as a mess.The director, George Seaton, is really a screenwriter, and though he directed a dozen features, none of them are especially memorable. His real fame rests on assisting with several great movies (like "The Wizard of Oz") and with a single brilliant coup--the screenplay for the original 1947 as well as the later TV version of "Miracle on 34th St." And it is no surprise that Seaton's own screen writing in "The Proud and Profane," though prosaic, is very good. Ah, but filmmaking is about timing, flow, surprise, drama, light, shadow, and sounds of all kinds. This is the director's blank canvas and Seaton doesn't go anywhere in any of these areas. The light is bright and flat. The camera-work is functional and bland (cameraman John Warren being a newcomer, moving quickly to television, including many Hitchcock episodes). The score is strong (thanks to veteran master Victor Young) but there is no attempt to insert diegetic music or more interesting internal sounds. Even the supporting cast is pigeonholed into clichés (and there is no critical secondary male role, as Clift played in the 1953 movie). Thelma Ritter is at her best, more normalized than in other roles, but believable and superb.I write all this for a routine movie because of Holden, who is an understated and sometimes brilliant actor, and Kerr, who I never warm up to but who is almost designed to be too cold to like. Kerr in particular is up and down here, at times so perfectly cast and so convincing you start to really watch closely, but other times she has to stretch her role a little (when she is dancing, for example, or in the cheesy beach scene early on) and it's awkward. Holden is made to be an enigma, and when he warms up (out of uniform) he's likable, and when he's cold, he's cold, but never admirable, which is what a commander needs to be at least.I enjoyed this movie because I enjoy movies, but also because it has aspects that are terrific. If you really like war films that aren't about battle (as I do), this is a must see. And if you want perspective on "From Here to Eternity" you really will appreciate both films more. For just a fresh, well-made movie, terrific you will need to keep looking.

Robert Ross Several scenes from "The Proud and the Profane" were shot at my parents' home in St Thomas, USVI, at Estate Frenchman's Bay on the island's southern side. The company bought (and left) an additional refrigerator to make & keep ice for the stars' drinks (it gets hot under the lights in the Caribbean!). I also remember seeing a few huge electric bulbs that apparently were blown out or not worth the expense of shipping back to Hollywood. Since I was in elementary school in the States at the time of shooting, I didn't get to watch any of the production, but heard all the stories when I returned for the summer. "The Frogmen", with Richard Widmark, was also shot on the property (in the bay in front of the house).