"55 Days at Peking" is one of those historical epics so common in the late 50's and early 60's. It deals with the Boxers revolt against the occidental most powerful nations domination in 1900's imperial China.
The film looks as an epic, has good moments, lots of extras, great settings, expensive gowns, impressive action sequences and doesn't lack big spectacle. But at the same time it has too many weaknesses that hurt the final product badly.
First of all it is too long and it becomes boring at times; it looks as if director Nicholas Ray felt forced to add time to the running just because epics are expected to last long. Caucasian actors playing Chinese characters -though usual in the 50's and 60's- don't seem to fit here; in fact some of them don't even look Chinese after make up. The final sequence when armies of all nations involved reach the surrounded legacies in Peking and enter the city in each one's marching style looks more appropriate for a musical comedy act.
The cast is uneven. Ava Gardner is no more than correct as a mysterious Russian Countess with a past in a part that gave more chances; Charlton Heston as American Mayor Lewis looks no different at all from other of his tough hero roles. Robert Helpmann as Chinese Prince Tuan looks more like a James Bond archenemy. Leo Genn as a Chinese General is one of those that doesn't even look Chinese. On the other side, David Niven shows his undeniable acting class as the British Ambassador who leads the resistance and Flora Robson is convincing as the Chinese empress who knows all the time and deep inside her dynasty is over. Harry Andrews plays one of his usual accurate supporting roles as a catholic priest.
All in all, the film is watchable if you enjoy action spectaculars, but not much more than that.
One final thought: I've always wondered on this movie who are the good guys and who the bad guys here. Foreigners who refuse to live China for strictly economic and political interests ot natives who fight to free their country and just want to be left alone in their own land and with their ancient culture?
The film looks as an epic, has good moments, lots of extras, great settings, expensive gowns, impressive action sequences and doesn't lack big spectacle. But at the same time it has too many weaknesses that hurt the final product badly.
First of all it is too long and it becomes boring at times; it looks as if director Nicholas Ray felt forced to add time to the running just because epics are expected to last long. Caucasian actors playing Chinese characters -though usual in the 50's and 60's- don't seem to fit here; in fact some of them don't even look Chinese after make up. The final sequence when armies of all nations involved reach the surrounded legacies in Peking and enter the city in each one's marching style looks more appropriate for a musical comedy act.
The cast is uneven. Ava Gardner is no more than correct as a mysterious Russian Countess with a past in a part that gave more chances; Charlton Heston as American Mayor Lewis looks no different at all from other of his tough hero roles. Robert Helpmann as Chinese Prince Tuan looks more like a James Bond archenemy. Leo Genn as a Chinese General is one of those that doesn't even look Chinese. On the other side, David Niven shows his undeniable acting class as the British Ambassador who leads the resistance and Flora Robson is convincing as the Chinese empress who knows all the time and deep inside her dynasty is over. Harry Andrews plays one of his usual accurate supporting roles as a catholic priest.
All in all, the film is watchable if you enjoy action spectaculars, but not much more than that.
One final thought: I've always wondered on this movie who are the good guys and who the bad guys here. Foreigners who refuse to live China for strictly economic and political interests ot natives who fight to free their country and just want to be left alone in their own land and with their ancient culture?