As a movie El Cid grows on you. At first it is the story of a relatively ordinary man whose trip to his wedding is interrupted by a battle between the Moors and the Christians of 11th century Spain. But this is no ordinary man. Or perhaps he is an ordinary man who is destined to do extraordinary things. Early on he is forced to kill his fiancé's father as a matter of family honor, thus earning the enmity of his fiancé, who nonetheless cannot stop loving him, however hard she tries. And much of the story is devoted to the doomed nature of their love, as historical events continue to overtake the plans they would rather make. And with each new episode El Cid's stature grows, from warrior to hero to legend to mythic figure. Even in exile he has a following. And if the script is not true to history, this film still does a great service to the memory of a great man who put God and country ahead of himself. Something extra must be said about the crowd scenes. There were real people out there, not multiple CGI images made to look like the hordes that are a part of all epics. Over 30,000 costumes were made for this movie and General Franco donated the Spanish army to fill them. The difference is stunning, and sobering. There is a reality to the battle scenes that simply doesn't obtain in later movies such as Gladiator or Lord of the Rings. Now that old films such as this are so readily available in various formats we are presented with the dilemma of deciding which ones should occupy our bookshelves, to return to again, to remember a detail, or to reclaim the feeling that the story may create. In terms of the greatness, the mission and the struggles of the human spirit, this one's a keeper.
128 Reviews
Epic grandeur but also an intimate love story...
Doylenf7 May 2008
EL CID takes its place among the great screen epics that never allow the eye-popping spectacle to dwarf the human characters--just as "Ben-Hur" was able to do. And who else to play the legendary and noble Spanish hero than CHARLTON HESTON. He's magnificent here, playing his central role with an almost Shakespearean grandeur, as do some of the other cast members, including HERBERT LOM, JOHN FRASER and GARY RAYMOND.
So is the epic sweep of the tale and the intimate love story that begins when he is on his way to wed SOPHIA LOREN and finds himself asked to assume the mantle of leadership against the Moors in 11th century Spain. He makes the journey from peace-broker accused of treason to the King's fighting champion and later from exiled hero to legendary martyr.
Aside from the brilliant cinematography, authentic looking locales and colorful costumes, Miklos Rozsa's score adds a great deal to the intensely dramatic intimate scenes as well as the epic battles, all the while suggesting some Spanish motifs amidst the heraldic fanfares and love theme.
CHARLTON HESTON makes an impressive figure of El Cid, especially good in the final moments as the wounded leader who knows what he must ask his wife to do so that his followers do not lose heart after his death. RAF VALLONE as Count Ordonez, GENEVIEVE PAGE as Princess Urraca, JOHN FRASER as Prince Alfonso and GARY RAYMOND as Prince Sancho are all remarkable effective in strong supporting roles. In lesser roles, HURD HATFIELD and FRANK THRING bring their own brand of authority to minor parts.
Anthony Mann and his assistant directors have done an outstanding job on all of the battle scenes and he never falters in telling the tale in strong dramatic terms. There's an intensity in the scenes between Loren and Heston after he has been forced to kill her father for humiliating his own father in front of the court. Whatever friction there was between Heston and Loren on the set, works for them here because her animosity toward him is a chilling thing to watch.
The DVD has been wonderfully mastered and all of the Miklos Rozsa score sounds better than ever with Overture, Intermission and Exit music reminding us all what a treasure he was as a film composer.
So is the epic sweep of the tale and the intimate love story that begins when he is on his way to wed SOPHIA LOREN and finds himself asked to assume the mantle of leadership against the Moors in 11th century Spain. He makes the journey from peace-broker accused of treason to the King's fighting champion and later from exiled hero to legendary martyr.
Aside from the brilliant cinematography, authentic looking locales and colorful costumes, Miklos Rozsa's score adds a great deal to the intensely dramatic intimate scenes as well as the epic battles, all the while suggesting some Spanish motifs amidst the heraldic fanfares and love theme.
CHARLTON HESTON makes an impressive figure of El Cid, especially good in the final moments as the wounded leader who knows what he must ask his wife to do so that his followers do not lose heart after his death. RAF VALLONE as Count Ordonez, GENEVIEVE PAGE as Princess Urraca, JOHN FRASER as Prince Alfonso and GARY RAYMOND as Prince Sancho are all remarkable effective in strong supporting roles. In lesser roles, HURD HATFIELD and FRANK THRING bring their own brand of authority to minor parts.
Anthony Mann and his assistant directors have done an outstanding job on all of the battle scenes and he never falters in telling the tale in strong dramatic terms. There's an intensity in the scenes between Loren and Heston after he has been forced to kill her father for humiliating his own father in front of the court. Whatever friction there was between Heston and Loren on the set, works for them here because her animosity toward him is a chilling thing to watch.
The DVD has been wonderfully mastered and all of the Miklos Rozsa score sounds better than ever with Overture, Intermission and Exit music reminding us all what a treasure he was as a film composer.
A forgotten epic worth seeking out
carlosdev22 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Of dubious historical accuracy (many of the events depicted in the film were taken from the medieval poem "Ley of the Cid," most of which were not corroborated by court records of the time) but gorgeous to look at, Charlton Heston plays Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar (a.k.a. The Cid), the very embodiment of the chivalrous knight. On the way to his wedding to the tempestuous Chemene (played by the never-lovelier Sophia Loren), he captures two Moorish emirs who have been involved with the burning of a Spanish village. Rather than release them to the custody of King Ferdinand for hanging, he spares their lives and is accused of treason. When Rodrigo's father objects, the father of the bride besmirches the honor of the family, and Rodrigo is forced to fight the father of his love and reluctantly kill him. While she plots to gain revenge on her former fiancée, he becomes the King's champion and in the King's favor, demands and receives Chemene's hand in marriage. She can't bring herself to thoroughly hate him - talk about conflicted. Still, things go from bad to worse when Ferdinand dies and he divides his kingdom among his children Sancho, Alfonso and Urraca (in reality, Ferdinand had five children). When Sancho decides he wants all or nothing, he arrests Alfonso and sends him to prison, but El Cid rescues him, believing it morally wrong. As a result, civil war breaks out but before things get really awful, the devious Urraca arranges for Sancho to be assassinated. At Alfonso's coronation, a suspicious Rodrigo forces Alfonso to swear an oath that he had nothing to do with Sancho's death. Enraged, Alfonso takes the oath and then exiles El Cid, but the knight proves to be so popular among the people that an entire army is raised to follow him. When the evil Ben Yussuf (a nearly unrecognizable Herbert Lom) invades Spain, El Cid fights bravely to take Valencia despite Alfonso's tendency towards utter idiocy and it is from there that the knight literally rides into the stuff of legend.
Gorgeously photographed in Spain and Italy with one of the most beautiful scores by Miklos Rosza, this is the kind of epic that has recently made a comeback thanks to CGI. No CGI here, however - there is literally a cast of thousands (and LOTS of horses) in medieval armor whacking away at one another. The story is at times convoluted and the dialog a little over the top, it is nonetheless truly enjoyable, a forgotten epic that in a kinder world would be considered up there with Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur. It is difficult to find nowadays, and the rental copy I saw on DVD had a terrible soundtrack. Still, it is worth seeking out.
Incidentally, on a personal note, I originally was interested in the movie because my family is descended from the great Spanish knight.
Gorgeously photographed in Spain and Italy with one of the most beautiful scores by Miklos Rosza, this is the kind of epic that has recently made a comeback thanks to CGI. No CGI here, however - there is literally a cast of thousands (and LOTS of horses) in medieval armor whacking away at one another. The story is at times convoluted and the dialog a little over the top, it is nonetheless truly enjoyable, a forgotten epic that in a kinder world would be considered up there with Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur. It is difficult to find nowadays, and the rental copy I saw on DVD had a terrible soundtrack. Still, it is worth seeking out.
Incidentally, on a personal note, I originally was interested in the movie because my family is descended from the great Spanish knight.
Grim, Ponderous, Moving, Magnificent
Danusha_Goska30 April 2004
Grim, Ponderous, Moving, Magnificent
I'm a girl and have a girl's taste in movies. If I'm going to watch a movie with a lot of sword fights, oppressed peasants, and corrupt kings, I want it to be a swashbuckler, preferably one starring Errol Flynn. Swashbucklers bring a lot of humor to otherwise unbearable dramatic situations.
"El Cid" presents unbearable dramatic situations, and it is not a laugh riot. I saw the three-hour plus, uncut version and never felt tempted to laugh once. This is the Middle Ages without Monty Python, without the levity of an Errol Flynn - Olivia De Haviland romance or comic relief of a Little John.
Boy oh boy was this grim. And long. You could have almost filmed the entire film with three colors: white, black, and red. Lots of red.
But "El Cid" did to me what it wanted to do. I really believed in Rodrigo and Jimena as star-crossed, larger-than-life lovers. I really believed that the little girl who leads them from her well to her farm house lived a thousand years ago. I really believed that something like the mouth of hell itself was opening up as Ben Yusef invaded. I really believed in Rodrigo's relentless nobility and heroism. Neither Charlton Heston's strangely artificial looking hair nor the obvious non-Arab status of a couple of the "Moors" (Douglas Wilmer, who later played Sherlock Holmes, was one especially unconvincing Arab) interfered with my willing suspension of disbelief. I cried. Several times.
There's a lot to cry about. In almost every scene, someone is either crying, usually Sophia Loren, or gritting his teeth, often Charlton Heston, but others grit their teeth a lot, also. Actually Loren doesn't so much cry, but, rather, huge, luminous tears quiver, poised, on her lower eyelid. In her final scenes, the teardrop dancing on her right eyelid is so huge, black and luminous it begins to look like a second pupil.
If the sound of horse hoof-beats does something for you, you will love this movie. There are many horses. Many, many, many. And they are always thundering off to somewhere, more often than not, over cobblestones. Lots of horse hoof-beats on this soundtrack.
Some viewers found the plot hard to understand; they, perhaps, saw the cut version. Having seen the uncut version, I found the plot entirely comprehensible.
"El Cid" is like a ballad. There is one grim face-off after another, escalating in gravity, in which the hero proves that he is growing into his own heroism, through every choice he makes. Each choice is harder than the last one, until his final choice, which is truly impossible, but which he fulfills anyway. If you like medieval ballads, you may love this movie. It has the same grim beauty and power and inexorability, the same insistence on throwing whatever is divine in naked human character up against the impossible demands of earthly life.
For such a long movie, there is scant dialogue. With few words, people prove their true character through their actions, just as characters in ancient epics did.
One viewer complained that this movie bore no relation to the "real" El Cid legend. If that is true, the movie is all the more remarkable. The filmmakers managed to create, from scratch, a convincing and moving medieval narrative.
I'm a girl and have a girl's taste in movies. If I'm going to watch a movie with a lot of sword fights, oppressed peasants, and corrupt kings, I want it to be a swashbuckler, preferably one starring Errol Flynn. Swashbucklers bring a lot of humor to otherwise unbearable dramatic situations.
"El Cid" presents unbearable dramatic situations, and it is not a laugh riot. I saw the three-hour plus, uncut version and never felt tempted to laugh once. This is the Middle Ages without Monty Python, without the levity of an Errol Flynn - Olivia De Haviland romance or comic relief of a Little John.
Boy oh boy was this grim. And long. You could have almost filmed the entire film with three colors: white, black, and red. Lots of red.
But "El Cid" did to me what it wanted to do. I really believed in Rodrigo and Jimena as star-crossed, larger-than-life lovers. I really believed that the little girl who leads them from her well to her farm house lived a thousand years ago. I really believed that something like the mouth of hell itself was opening up as Ben Yusef invaded. I really believed in Rodrigo's relentless nobility and heroism. Neither Charlton Heston's strangely artificial looking hair nor the obvious non-Arab status of a couple of the "Moors" (Douglas Wilmer, who later played Sherlock Holmes, was one especially unconvincing Arab) interfered with my willing suspension of disbelief. I cried. Several times.
There's a lot to cry about. In almost every scene, someone is either crying, usually Sophia Loren, or gritting his teeth, often Charlton Heston, but others grit their teeth a lot, also. Actually Loren doesn't so much cry, but, rather, huge, luminous tears quiver, poised, on her lower eyelid. In her final scenes, the teardrop dancing on her right eyelid is so huge, black and luminous it begins to look like a second pupil.
If the sound of horse hoof-beats does something for you, you will love this movie. There are many horses. Many, many, many. And they are always thundering off to somewhere, more often than not, over cobblestones. Lots of horse hoof-beats on this soundtrack.
Some viewers found the plot hard to understand; they, perhaps, saw the cut version. Having seen the uncut version, I found the plot entirely comprehensible.
"El Cid" is like a ballad. There is one grim face-off after another, escalating in gravity, in which the hero proves that he is growing into his own heroism, through every choice he makes. Each choice is harder than the last one, until his final choice, which is truly impossible, but which he fulfills anyway. If you like medieval ballads, you may love this movie. It has the same grim beauty and power and inexorability, the same insistence on throwing whatever is divine in naked human character up against the impossible demands of earthly life.
For such a long movie, there is scant dialogue. With few words, people prove their true character through their actions, just as characters in ancient epics did.
One viewer complained that this movie bore no relation to the "real" El Cid legend. If that is true, the movie is all the more remarkable. The filmmakers managed to create, from scratch, a convincing and moving medieval narrative.
Far from perfection and even further away from bad!
damianphelps31 March 2021
El Cid was an interesting film to watch.
It provides some great moments of grandeur and scale during it battle sequences but falls short on characters. I found almost all the characters in the film pretty forgettable and not really worth investing in, they all managed to have something off about them. Yes people are flawed so why shouldn't their characters be? But there was something else slightly intangible going on as well.
The film is an unnecessary 3 hours long, I like a good epic but the story didn't shirt that much nor provide intricacies that required such a long running time.
It is enjoyable to watch but could have been a lot better :)
It provides some great moments of grandeur and scale during it battle sequences but falls short on characters. I found almost all the characters in the film pretty forgettable and not really worth investing in, they all managed to have something off about them. Yes people are flawed so why shouldn't their characters be? But there was something else slightly intangible going on as well.
The film is an unnecessary 3 hours long, I like a good epic but the story didn't shirt that much nor provide intricacies that required such a long running time.
It is enjoyable to watch but could have been a lot better :)
The greatest medieval epic ever made.
Rueiro16 December 2012
This is one of the best epic super-productions of all time, with a beautiful cinematography, a majestic score and a solid and dynamic direction.
Still many people put it down as a folly with no real depth or substance, and others for its historical inaccuracy. Yes, it is not one hundred per cent historically accurate, but then, how much do we really know about an 11th century warrior when very few written documents of the era survive today? We only have a few of the old cantigas (poems to be sung) and the Poema de Mio Cid at the Spanish national archives.
Many Spaniards tend to put this great film down only because it was made by a bunch of American and Italian "philistines" with no knowledge of the legend at all but for the only purpose of creating an epic to rival with "Ben-Hur" and "Spartacus". That is a childish way to see it.
At least we should be grateful that someone came up and took the challenge of making such a film in the first place. That man was Samuel Bronston.
This self-made movie mogul not only had the confidence and charm to persuade other people to lend him huge sums of money but he also got Franco's ultra-Catholic fascist regime to approve the making of a film about their national hero where the main character was to be played by a foreigner who was also a Protestant. Of course, Bronston succeeded easily through bribery in a corrupt country, as well as through the willingness of Franco to allow American business to settle in Spain and help revive its obsolete economy. Franco would use "El Cid" to promote Spain around the world as a touristic destination during the Sixties.
Bronston wanted to make an unique epic, a high quality production with sheer spectacle and credited with some historical veracity. So he hired the best people he could think of: cinematographer Robert Krasker, who used the radical and innovative Technirama70 format that magnified the endless open spaces of the Spanish plateaus, Miklos Rozsa for the score -his last great triumph, which should have won him another Oscar- and Anthony Mann, who had cut his teeth making Westerns with James Stewart. Finally, as technical adviser Bronston hired the illustrious Spanish scholar Ramon Menendez Pidal, the greatest living authority on El Cid at that time. Don Ramon was also of great assistance to Rozsa during the composer's careful and thorough research on Spanish medieval music. Rozsa visited the libraries and archives of old monasteries and was given special access to documents dating back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Not many film composers would have gone through such painstaking research work, but Rozsa was a perfectionist and probably the greatest composer of all.
When we think of the leading male stars in Hollywood at that time, Heston had become world famous and highly bankable after the huge success of "Ben-Hur" and the Oscar it won him. So he was the ideal man for the role.
Bronston wanted Loren because of her fast-growing popularity, as well as by the the fact that hiring her would please the Italian investors and that would mean more money into the budget. Then enter the British, and what a fine supporting cast they are: the smoky-voiced Genevieve Page as Urraca(it is the Spanish word for jackdaw, by the way) who always reminds me of Lauren Bacall; the gentlemanly and self-composed Michael Hordern as Rodrigo's father, the handsome blue-eyed John Fraser as the arrogant but vulnerable prince Alfonso, Gary Raymond as prince Sancho, Douglas Wilmer as Rodrigo's Arab ally, and finally the recently deceased, excellent Czeck-born character actor Herbert Lom as the black-clad villain, a role initially offered to Orson Welles and who turned it down when he learnt that audiences wouldn't see his masked face. The great Orson needed the money very much to finance his own projects, but sometimes his ego was bigger than him.
"El Cid" was a huge box-office hit all around the world and made Bronston a very rich man. The profits of the film were used to start preparing "The Fall of the Roman Empire", but then the refusal of Heston to work again with Loren -they detested each other- set in motion the snowball that would sweep the Bronston empire. Although three more epics were made: the exotic and spectacular "55 Days at Peking", the splendid but unjustly failed "The Fall of the Roman Empire" that bankrupted Bronston, and the minor and much cheaper "The Magnificent Showman", which was his swansong, he never again reached the heights of greatness and success he had reached with "El Cid".
And then think that the tournaments and battles you see here were staged for real, with real armours, swords, catapults and everything, and thousands of people taking part -entire companies of the Spanish army and entire villages of civilians were hired as extras. Today you will never get that in a film: too costly and too complicate to coordinate. And of course, all of the Health and Safety rubbish laws that there are nowadays... If you play knights of the Round Table you can cut yourself, mind you. So enter CGI.
But at least we have "El Cid" in all its glory.
And please, let them not make a remake. Let them not destroy the old magic and beauty of cinema.
Still many people put it down as a folly with no real depth or substance, and others for its historical inaccuracy. Yes, it is not one hundred per cent historically accurate, but then, how much do we really know about an 11th century warrior when very few written documents of the era survive today? We only have a few of the old cantigas (poems to be sung) and the Poema de Mio Cid at the Spanish national archives.
Many Spaniards tend to put this great film down only because it was made by a bunch of American and Italian "philistines" with no knowledge of the legend at all but for the only purpose of creating an epic to rival with "Ben-Hur" and "Spartacus". That is a childish way to see it.
At least we should be grateful that someone came up and took the challenge of making such a film in the first place. That man was Samuel Bronston.
This self-made movie mogul not only had the confidence and charm to persuade other people to lend him huge sums of money but he also got Franco's ultra-Catholic fascist regime to approve the making of a film about their national hero where the main character was to be played by a foreigner who was also a Protestant. Of course, Bronston succeeded easily through bribery in a corrupt country, as well as through the willingness of Franco to allow American business to settle in Spain and help revive its obsolete economy. Franco would use "El Cid" to promote Spain around the world as a touristic destination during the Sixties.
Bronston wanted to make an unique epic, a high quality production with sheer spectacle and credited with some historical veracity. So he hired the best people he could think of: cinematographer Robert Krasker, who used the radical and innovative Technirama70 format that magnified the endless open spaces of the Spanish plateaus, Miklos Rozsa for the score -his last great triumph, which should have won him another Oscar- and Anthony Mann, who had cut his teeth making Westerns with James Stewart. Finally, as technical adviser Bronston hired the illustrious Spanish scholar Ramon Menendez Pidal, the greatest living authority on El Cid at that time. Don Ramon was also of great assistance to Rozsa during the composer's careful and thorough research on Spanish medieval music. Rozsa visited the libraries and archives of old monasteries and was given special access to documents dating back to the 13th and 14th centuries. Not many film composers would have gone through such painstaking research work, but Rozsa was a perfectionist and probably the greatest composer of all.
When we think of the leading male stars in Hollywood at that time, Heston had become world famous and highly bankable after the huge success of "Ben-Hur" and the Oscar it won him. So he was the ideal man for the role.
Bronston wanted Loren because of her fast-growing popularity, as well as by the the fact that hiring her would please the Italian investors and that would mean more money into the budget. Then enter the British, and what a fine supporting cast they are: the smoky-voiced Genevieve Page as Urraca(it is the Spanish word for jackdaw, by the way) who always reminds me of Lauren Bacall; the gentlemanly and self-composed Michael Hordern as Rodrigo's father, the handsome blue-eyed John Fraser as the arrogant but vulnerable prince Alfonso, Gary Raymond as prince Sancho, Douglas Wilmer as Rodrigo's Arab ally, and finally the recently deceased, excellent Czeck-born character actor Herbert Lom as the black-clad villain, a role initially offered to Orson Welles and who turned it down when he learnt that audiences wouldn't see his masked face. The great Orson needed the money very much to finance his own projects, but sometimes his ego was bigger than him.
"El Cid" was a huge box-office hit all around the world and made Bronston a very rich man. The profits of the film were used to start preparing "The Fall of the Roman Empire", but then the refusal of Heston to work again with Loren -they detested each other- set in motion the snowball that would sweep the Bronston empire. Although three more epics were made: the exotic and spectacular "55 Days at Peking", the splendid but unjustly failed "The Fall of the Roman Empire" that bankrupted Bronston, and the minor and much cheaper "The Magnificent Showman", which was his swansong, he never again reached the heights of greatness and success he had reached with "El Cid".
And then think that the tournaments and battles you see here were staged for real, with real armours, swords, catapults and everything, and thousands of people taking part -entire companies of the Spanish army and entire villages of civilians were hired as extras. Today you will never get that in a film: too costly and too complicate to coordinate. And of course, all of the Health and Safety rubbish laws that there are nowadays... If you play knights of the Round Table you can cut yourself, mind you. So enter CGI.
But at least we have "El Cid" in all its glory.
And please, let them not make a remake. Let them not destroy the old magic and beauty of cinema.
Pretty good retelling
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews17 October 2009
I don't know everything about the historical fact, or the legend, of El Cid, but from what I know, I can see that a lot of it did make it into this. The story seems to stick to the truth, as far as we know it, much of the way. This has a great plot that keeps you interested. The characters are well-developed, credible and consistent. The majority of the acting performances are marvelous. This has a grand feel to it, and an epic scope, and the sweeping orchestral score helps establish and maintain it. The writing is top-notch throughout. This has a solid pace, and the three hours hold few, if any, dull moments. The dialog is well-delivered and has some quite memorable lines. This has large-scale battle sequences, and they're well-done. The production values leave nothing to be desired, and everything looks and sounds exactly right. At no point does this feel like they ran out of budget somewhere, or had to use the second-best solution to an issue they faced. They don't make 'em like this anymore. Not the best of its kind, however it is definitely worth your time. I recommend this to anyone interested in this, be it for Rodrigo, Heston, or any other reason. 7/10
Heston embodies a mythical figure of legendary proportions
Nazi_Fighter_David30 March 2008
Aroused by a fanatical Moorish warlord, emir-king attack a Castilian village, where they are captured by Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar
Vigorously brave and compassionate, the noble Rodrigo hates bloodshed and vows to see his country at peace, frees the prisoners on their solemn pledge never again to attack Castile
For this act of courage and mercy, one of the Emirs, Moutamin, calls Rodrigo "El Cid," and pledges eternal friendship to the Cid of Vivar And so, in freeing the Moors, Rodrigo, accidentally, stumbled onto a battle, not to his luscious bride, but to a battle that will change his whole life
In the court of King Ferdinand, Rodrigo's act of clemency is misinterpreted, and he's accused of treason by his rival Don Ordonez for refusing to turn over to him the captures Moors
Unfortunately, Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego, is slapped by the Champion of the king, Count Gormaz, father of his beloved Chimene Rodrigo begs Gormaz an apology; it is refused A duel begins and the champion is badly wounded Before he dies, however, he asks Chimene to avenge his death
Chimene's wish is fulfilled when King Ramiro of Aragon challenges King Ferdinand for the possession of the city of Calahorra by the outcome of a single combat El Cid convinces the king to permit him to fight Don Martin Thus, according to the custom of trial by combat, God would judge Rodrigo's guilt or innocence
"El Cid" is an intense film, lavish and spectacular, bigger than any in terms of cast and impressive as any in visual terms Miklós Rózsa gave a new dimension to the emotion that Anthony Mann was trying to express
Mann gives us a human story with a love story balanced with the most strongly image of a hero the world has ever seen He presented a man of honor who thinks always of his wife, his country, and his king first Even in death, his thoughts are for others and not himself
El Cid insults kings and noblemen in the name of justice and integrity and does what he knows to be right He battles the king's living sword in respect of his father He accepts the challenge of a champion of a king to prove himself innocent of treason and other things He shows a prince how any man can kill and only a king can give life He fights 13 knights, at the same time, to free a prisoner Yet he is in addition to all of this an extremely principled leader He accepts exile for life from the country he loves, and yet he is the only man in Spain who 'could humble a king and would give a leper to drink from his own pouch '
The joust sequence called "The fight for Calahorra," is perhaps the most rousing, exciting, one-to-one combat ever filmed The battle scenes at Valencia are taken on an epic scale But the value of Anthony Mann's movie is the characterization in which Charlton Heston played El Cid's life For this reason alone, the film is of greater value than most any other motion picture experience
Vigorously brave and compassionate, the noble Rodrigo hates bloodshed and vows to see his country at peace, frees the prisoners on their solemn pledge never again to attack Castile
For this act of courage and mercy, one of the Emirs, Moutamin, calls Rodrigo "El Cid," and pledges eternal friendship to the Cid of Vivar And so, in freeing the Moors, Rodrigo, accidentally, stumbled onto a battle, not to his luscious bride, but to a battle that will change his whole life
In the court of King Ferdinand, Rodrigo's act of clemency is misinterpreted, and he's accused of treason by his rival Don Ordonez for refusing to turn over to him the captures Moors
Unfortunately, Rodrigo's aged father, Don Diego, is slapped by the Champion of the king, Count Gormaz, father of his beloved Chimene Rodrigo begs Gormaz an apology; it is refused A duel begins and the champion is badly wounded Before he dies, however, he asks Chimene to avenge his death
Chimene's wish is fulfilled when King Ramiro of Aragon challenges King Ferdinand for the possession of the city of Calahorra by the outcome of a single combat El Cid convinces the king to permit him to fight Don Martin Thus, according to the custom of trial by combat, God would judge Rodrigo's guilt or innocence
"El Cid" is an intense film, lavish and spectacular, bigger than any in terms of cast and impressive as any in visual terms Miklós Rózsa gave a new dimension to the emotion that Anthony Mann was trying to express
Mann gives us a human story with a love story balanced with the most strongly image of a hero the world has ever seen He presented a man of honor who thinks always of his wife, his country, and his king first Even in death, his thoughts are for others and not himself
El Cid insults kings and noblemen in the name of justice and integrity and does what he knows to be right He battles the king's living sword in respect of his father He accepts the challenge of a champion of a king to prove himself innocent of treason and other things He shows a prince how any man can kill and only a king can give life He fights 13 knights, at the same time, to free a prisoner Yet he is in addition to all of this an extremely principled leader He accepts exile for life from the country he loves, and yet he is the only man in Spain who 'could humble a king and would give a leper to drink from his own pouch '
The joust sequence called "The fight for Calahorra," is perhaps the most rousing, exciting, one-to-one combat ever filmed The battle scenes at Valencia are taken on an epic scale But the value of Anthony Mann's movie is the characterization in which Charlton Heston played El Cid's life For this reason alone, the film is of greater value than most any other motion picture experience
Breathtaking and magnificent epic film about a famous Spanish hero , lavishly produced by Samuel Bronston
ma-cortes31 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Rodrigo Diaz Vivar, alias Cid (Charlton Heston) was a Spanish warrior and famous medieval hero , he was born in Burgos (1043) and died in Valencia(1099) . Being dead Fernando I (Ralph Truman), succeeded Sancho of Castilla (Gary Raymond). Then Sancho is killed by Bellido Dolfos (Fausto Tozzi) and Alfonso VI (John Frazer) rules over the kingdom . In the church of Santa Gadea, Cid ordered to king Alfonso swear to haven't murdered his brother Sancho . In punishment Cid is banished out Castilla . Almoravides's invasion of Spain commanded by Ben Yusuff (Herbert Lom) and defeat of Sagrajas made Alfonso VI forgot the humiliation of Cid and asked him the command of troops . Cid vanquished to Moors in Cuarte, Bairen and Valencia that lost and retrieves. Cid is married to Jimena (Sofia Loren) and were born two daughters : Elvira and Sol . El Cid and his wife Jimena Díaz lived peacefully in Valencia for five years until the Almoravids besieged the city . According to legend, El Cid was fighting one of the men when he was shot in the heart with an arrow . Valencia's troops were losing spirit when Jimena thought if she set the corpse of El Cid atop his horse Babieca, the morale of Valencia's troops would soar . Valencia was captured on May 5, 1102 and it did not become a Christian city again for over 125 years . Jimena fled to Burgos with her husband's body .
The movie is very spectacular , it's an excellent film , fitting to historical deeds . Runtime picture is overlong but is neither boring , nor tiring , but entertaining because happen many events . In the film, there are epic , mammoth spectacle , history , a love story , wonderful landscapes and is a pretty enjoyable movie . The final confrontation battle between the Cid and the Muslim enemies is overwhelming and outstanding .
By the time this was released, Allied Artists had ceased production and was only distributing independent productions , as the rights for the Western Hemisphere were acquired from Samuel Bronston ; as he produced a full-blown epic, which was given a roadshow presentation followed by a general release , two years later it distributed Bronston's "55 Days at Peking" . Evocative as well as impressive musical score by the classic Miklos Rozsa , though it wasn't until viewing the finished film at the premiere that he discovered that roughly 20% of his score had been eliminated and he didn't do another score for producer Samuel Bronston . Anthony Mann direction is splendid and Robert Krasker cinematography in Super Technirama 70 is fascinating . The motion picture will appeal to historic story buffs and spectacular film lovers.
The movie is very spectacular , it's an excellent film , fitting to historical deeds . Runtime picture is overlong but is neither boring , nor tiring , but entertaining because happen many events . In the film, there are epic , mammoth spectacle , history , a love story , wonderful landscapes and is a pretty enjoyable movie . The final confrontation battle between the Cid and the Muslim enemies is overwhelming and outstanding .
By the time this was released, Allied Artists had ceased production and was only distributing independent productions , as the rights for the Western Hemisphere were acquired from Samuel Bronston ; as he produced a full-blown epic, which was given a roadshow presentation followed by a general release , two years later it distributed Bronston's "55 Days at Peking" . Evocative as well as impressive musical score by the classic Miklos Rozsa , though it wasn't until viewing the finished film at the premiere that he discovered that roughly 20% of his score had been eliminated and he didn't do another score for producer Samuel Bronston . Anthony Mann direction is splendid and Robert Krasker cinematography in Super Technirama 70 is fascinating . The motion picture will appeal to historic story buffs and spectacular film lovers.
One example of Hollywood at its spectacular best
TheLittleSongbird27 January 2011
I like my fair share of epics, Lawrence of Arabia, The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, all but to name a few. El Cid is one of the best epics I've seen, not the best, but it's up there. While long, it is always compelling with very rare a dull moment. The direction from Anthony Mann is excellent, and when it comes to the acting Charlton Heston is charismatic and powerful and Sophia Loren is stunning. That is not to forget Herbert Lom, Genvieve Page and Michael Hordern who among the great supporting cast are especially outstanding The characters are well-written and noble, and fully justified by one of the most literate scripts I feel ever in an epic. The story is also of exceptional quality, the cinematography and scenery are magnificent and Miklos Rosza's score is superlative. The action sequences also add to its sense of wonder, they are astonishing and the jousting scene is one of the best scenes in a film of this genre. Overall, an outstanding film and one of the best epics in my view. 10/10 Bethany Cox
Glorious....and dull.
planktonrules12 March 2013
"El Cid" is not a bad film at all. The movie clearly is a huge spectacle and compared to most historical films it is rather accurate. But, on the flip side, it also is amazingly dull when the film shifts to the romance between El Cid (Charlton Heston) and Jimena (Sophia Loren)--such that I really cannot wholeheartedly recommend it.
El Cid was a title given to Rodrigo de Bivar by the Moorish Muslims. This is because as the movie shows at the beginning, he was a merciful man in war and was very open towards Muslims. However, what the film does not show is that he was so open-minded that he ALSO was employed by the Moors and Christians interchangeably. When the film shows the battles he's in, they are impressive and the costumes are lovely. The film also has LOTS of intrigues--such as the murder of Rodrigo's master and his subsequent expulsion. All this is quite nicely done and it looks great.
Apparently, Heston and Loren didn't like each other in real life. This could easily be. But the biggest problem is the terrible dialog. Too often, it comes off as stuffy and dull--and not believable in the least. And, at well over three hours, this is a serious problem. In other words, is it worth watching the fighting and intrigues when you often are forced to slog through one of the least romantic romances in film history. Good but not great overall.
El Cid was a title given to Rodrigo de Bivar by the Moorish Muslims. This is because as the movie shows at the beginning, he was a merciful man in war and was very open towards Muslims. However, what the film does not show is that he was so open-minded that he ALSO was employed by the Moors and Christians interchangeably. When the film shows the battles he's in, they are impressive and the costumes are lovely. The film also has LOTS of intrigues--such as the murder of Rodrigo's master and his subsequent expulsion. All this is quite nicely done and it looks great.
Apparently, Heston and Loren didn't like each other in real life. This could easily be. But the biggest problem is the terrible dialog. Too often, it comes off as stuffy and dull--and not believable in the least. And, at well over three hours, this is a serious problem. In other words, is it worth watching the fighting and intrigues when you often are forced to slog through one of the least romantic romances in film history. Good but not great overall.
Sweeping medieval drama at its best
talonz5129 August 2004
I was debating how to vote on this one as it is one of my favorite movies of all time, and only if I felt something was missing would I not give it a 10.
Well I couldn't think of a single thing missing or that could've been done better in this movie, so this is the first 10/10 or 5/5 I have given. Seriouslly, its that good.
I am very particular about my movies. There has to be good story, characters, action, cinematography and attention to detail and authenticity.
El Cid has all this and more. The characters are compelling and real, both noble and craven. The story is based on a real person and real location and events, although I am sure some liberties have been taken to dramatize things during this Spanish/moorish conflict. Costumes seem authentic, and there is plenty of action for all so long as you don't mind the long periods of drama between them. And frankly, I give this movie a capitol D for drama!
This is the kind of classic epic that moves you emotionally and draws you in, you feel for the characters and are awed by the events. If you like historical/medieval drama, watch El Cid. It is a classic.
Well I couldn't think of a single thing missing or that could've been done better in this movie, so this is the first 10/10 or 5/5 I have given. Seriouslly, its that good.
I am very particular about my movies. There has to be good story, characters, action, cinematography and attention to detail and authenticity.
El Cid has all this and more. The characters are compelling and real, both noble and craven. The story is based on a real person and real location and events, although I am sure some liberties have been taken to dramatize things during this Spanish/moorish conflict. Costumes seem authentic, and there is plenty of action for all so long as you don't mind the long periods of drama between them. And frankly, I give this movie a capitol D for drama!
This is the kind of classic epic that moves you emotionally and draws you in, you feel for the characters and are awed by the events. If you like historical/medieval drama, watch El Cid. It is a classic.
A Big Epic, That Gets To A Big Sour Dud
denis88820 January 2015
I love Chralton Heston's roles. He was the very essence of a masculine, clever, smart, superb actor who could perform almost every role he got his hands to. He was absolutely mesmerizing as Moses in Ten Commandments, he was good in many other movies. Here he is not bad, to be honest, the thing is he cannot save this plodding dud of a film from mediocrity that it slowly plunges to in a course of endless 3 hours. The plot seems to be very trite and smacks more of a Shazam Orient Fables than that of a real history. Another big (I mean it B/I/G) mistake was Sophia Loren as a main female part. She is a fish out of her element here completely. The poses, the looks, the smiles, the faked sufferings all betray lack of depth and lack of genuine feeling. She is not even that attractive to be cool just for her looks. To sum it up, this is a rather middle-of-the-road effort, with all the mistakes and prolonged scenes that add more to drag and help not to develop.
More spectacle than action
DiscoStu4825 April 2020
Although El Cid purports to be a historical epic, there is very little about it that is true to history beyond the names of the people involved.
Considering it does not attempt to be historically accurate, it should have been more exciting. But while there are some impressive scenes of castles and armies and landscapes, there's surprisingly little action. Rather, there are endless sequences of armies marching, parades, and lavish ceremonies that have no purpose in the plot, get boring quickly and needlessly add an hour to the film. Most of the sword fighting sequences are laughably staged, and there is no memorable set-piece battle or other scene, which is why the movie seems to have been forgotten compared to far-superior epics like Ben Hur.
Considering it does not attempt to be historically accurate, it should have been more exciting. But while there are some impressive scenes of castles and armies and landscapes, there's surprisingly little action. Rather, there are endless sequences of armies marching, parades, and lavish ceremonies that have no purpose in the plot, get boring quickly and needlessly add an hour to the film. Most of the sword fighting sequences are laughably staged, and there is no memorable set-piece battle or other scene, which is why the movie seems to have been forgotten compared to far-superior epics like Ben Hur.
El Cid: not to Charlton Hestons liking!
shinock30 April 2008
For me, El Cid is a wonderful movie, great story, magnificent action scenes and shot very close to where the original saga is believed to have taken place. I'll never forget the image of the dead El CID riding along the beach into eternity on his magnificent white horse. Taking all this into account,I was very surprised to read where Charlton Heston said he was very disappointed with this particular movie and believed the director was not equel to the task of directing such an epic undertaking. This was not obvious to me as I found the battle scenes very exciting and very well executed, but the late MR. Heston stated that had the directing duties been undertaken by David Lean, who was his preferred choice, the movie could have been really great, rather than just "adequate" Hestons own words. Still, it remains for many people a great film and in these days of boring CG effects, it is a great example of movies as they should be made.
A very gentil parfait knight.
rmax3048234 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad historical epic at all, kind of stirring. Charlton Heston is Roderigo Diaz de Vivar, who comes to be known as El Cyd, an honorific derived from Arabic which is still with us in the form of the name "Said". He's inaccurately introduced as "a simple man." In reality, while not necessarily smart, he's pretty complicated. He's a brilliant general, a charismatic leader, and clumsy at court. (He forces his king, Sancho, to take oaths in public several times, strictly a no-no, yet turns down a crown and sacrifices his life for the same flawed king.) He marries Jimen, has several kids, and dies a mythic death at the head of a combined army of Christians and Moors, fighting for Sancho and Spain. This gigantic thing, with a cast of thousands, was directed efficiently by Anthony Mann, and it must have been a horrible job for him and his ADs. Mann makes splendid use of the wide screen. Miklos Rozsa's score doesn't sound much like his usual recycled stuff. It sounds generically Spanish, with maybe overtones of the bull ring for martial scenes and a touch of a different Rodrigo -- Joaquin-- for romance.
Frankly, I was lost at times in the genealogy and geography. I tried checking out who was who in Wikipedia but it didn't help much. King Sancho is Sancho I, meaning there must have been more Sanchos, not even counting Sancho Panza. There were also two Ben Yussufs, one good and one bad, which was more confusing still. And the geography. A couple of maps would have helped. I have only the vaguest memories of Spain, except for half an hour or so when I had a loaded machine gun pointed at me by the Guardia Civil in the Pyrenees who were, I presume, looking for Basque separatists disguised as stupid American tourists. (I wasn't afraid.) Not that this matters much, because we do get a general sense of El Cyd's rise to the top, with a couple of downs in between, and that's the point of the movie. And there's no mistaking the bad guy, the bad Ben Yussuf. He's in the opening scene, dressed all in black like his followers (a novel touch). He exhorts his army to turn all their knowledge to warfare and do nothing but burn and kill the infidels to the north. The scene ends in a freeze frame of him with his arm stretched out in a Hitlerian salute.
The duels are realistic ones. In the first we see, nobody is dancing on the furniture or lopping off candles. In the second, the two duelists begin with lances, switch to the mace, fight with short Roman-style swords, then wind up with these gigantic two-handed monsters. Clink! WHANG! The dialog is stiff, as befits a medieval epic. I mean, the actors can't sound like they were just dragged in off the streets of Anaheim. Or New York: "Yonder lies da castel of my fodder." So often the contractions are forgone. "I will not," instead of, "I won't." Charlton Heston handles this kind of dialog well, which a lot of performers would not, Sofia Loren included. Heston, asked where in history he belonged, once replied ruefully, "Somewhere between Moses and the Middle Ages." But I don't know what he was complaining about. There aren't that many people who can look comfortable in period costumes. Heston can, just as Errol Flynn did. Heston can act too, whereas it can be said of Robert Taylor, who made similar movies at MGM, that he didn't often get in the way of the scenery. Does anyone see Nicholas Cage or Bruce Willis as El Cyd? It's a gift. Sometimes, though, it must be admitted that the writers stretched a bit much towards poetic speech. "You do not know lovers' time. Tonight is not tonight, but this afternoon. And tomorrow is today." Their joints must have been creaking.
The film is splashed with color and pageantry and is very diverting. There's little left for the viewer to unravel. We know pretty much what all the characters are thinking, even those as complex as El Cyd. For a more challenging look at a mythic figure, try "Lawrence of Arabia," released the year following this.
Frankly, I was lost at times in the genealogy and geography. I tried checking out who was who in Wikipedia but it didn't help much. King Sancho is Sancho I, meaning there must have been more Sanchos, not even counting Sancho Panza. There were also two Ben Yussufs, one good and one bad, which was more confusing still. And the geography. A couple of maps would have helped. I have only the vaguest memories of Spain, except for half an hour or so when I had a loaded machine gun pointed at me by the Guardia Civil in the Pyrenees who were, I presume, looking for Basque separatists disguised as stupid American tourists. (I wasn't afraid.) Not that this matters much, because we do get a general sense of El Cyd's rise to the top, with a couple of downs in between, and that's the point of the movie. And there's no mistaking the bad guy, the bad Ben Yussuf. He's in the opening scene, dressed all in black like his followers (a novel touch). He exhorts his army to turn all their knowledge to warfare and do nothing but burn and kill the infidels to the north. The scene ends in a freeze frame of him with his arm stretched out in a Hitlerian salute.
The duels are realistic ones. In the first we see, nobody is dancing on the furniture or lopping off candles. In the second, the two duelists begin with lances, switch to the mace, fight with short Roman-style swords, then wind up with these gigantic two-handed monsters. Clink! WHANG! The dialog is stiff, as befits a medieval epic. I mean, the actors can't sound like they were just dragged in off the streets of Anaheim. Or New York: "Yonder lies da castel of my fodder." So often the contractions are forgone. "I will not," instead of, "I won't." Charlton Heston handles this kind of dialog well, which a lot of performers would not, Sofia Loren included. Heston, asked where in history he belonged, once replied ruefully, "Somewhere between Moses and the Middle Ages." But I don't know what he was complaining about. There aren't that many people who can look comfortable in period costumes. Heston can, just as Errol Flynn did. Heston can act too, whereas it can be said of Robert Taylor, who made similar movies at MGM, that he didn't often get in the way of the scenery. Does anyone see Nicholas Cage or Bruce Willis as El Cyd? It's a gift. Sometimes, though, it must be admitted that the writers stretched a bit much towards poetic speech. "You do not know lovers' time. Tonight is not tonight, but this afternoon. And tomorrow is today." Their joints must have been creaking.
The film is splashed with color and pageantry and is very diverting. There's little left for the viewer to unravel. We know pretty much what all the characters are thinking, even those as complex as El Cyd. For a more challenging look at a mythic figure, try "Lawrence of Arabia," released the year following this.
Indellible
dbwiii17 February 2004
I watched this on the big screen when I was very very young, but this epic film left an indellible impression on me. I have to consider this to be one of the best films I ever watched.
Heston and Loren made a beautiful pair in this epic. The transformation of Loren's hatred to love for Heston was a highlight of the show.
A few scenes that stood out in my mind was: 1. The jousting scene 2. The scene where Heston catapulted buns into the besieged city and won the heart of the people. 3. The epic fighting scene at the beach where arrows rained upon the shielded soldiers ...and who can forget the famous riding scene at the very end with the already dead Rodrigo tied to the mount riding out of the city that one last time. Combined with the underlying score, that was one of the most moving scenes of all times. Years later, when I happened upon the show on TV again, I still could not help but felt a little misty in my eyes when I watched that last scene.
Heston and Loren made a beautiful pair in this epic. The transformation of Loren's hatred to love for Heston was a highlight of the show.
A few scenes that stood out in my mind was: 1. The jousting scene 2. The scene where Heston catapulted buns into the besieged city and won the heart of the people. 3. The epic fighting scene at the beach where arrows rained upon the shielded soldiers ...and who can forget the famous riding scene at the very end with the already dead Rodrigo tied to the mount riding out of the city that one last time. Combined with the underlying score, that was one of the most moving scenes of all times. Years later, when I happened upon the show on TV again, I still could not help but felt a little misty in my eyes when I watched that last scene.
Solid
Cosmoeticadotcom1 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The film's visuals are occasionally stunning, and, while the screenplay by Philip Yordan, Ben Barzman and Fredric M. Frank, from a story by Frank, is solid, one does wonder how differently a true film master like Michelangelo Antonioni would have handles such a film. We never get inside any of the characters because they act upon such a large stage that what they say and do almost does not matter, as it is dwarfed by the seeming weight of history. In a sense, the film is like a Frederic Edwin Church painting, wherein natural forces marginalize the efforts of man. The music score by Miklós Rózsa, was much lauded, but in retrospect, it does not hold up against the visuals of cinematographer Robert Krasker. Interestingly, perhaps the most important technical aspect that succeeds in this film is the editing by Robert Lawrence. Repeatedly, the scenes end before typical Hollywood reveals that hammer a point home, especially in epic films like this. There are dozens of examples, but note the scene where Cid kills Chimene's father. First, we never see the final deed, as both men are behind the staircase when Cid strikes his deathblow. Second, after getting Chimene to agree to avenge his death, we see her turn, to see Cid in darkness under the stairs, but then we get the fade. We never see the typical confrontation between the lovers That is delayed for a few minutes. What this shows is that Mann was handed an elephant, and did his best to leave some sort of imprint of himself on it.
The film won some awards at the Golden Globes, and Oscars- mostly technical stuff, but it was a smash hit. The film is shown in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio and clocks in at almost three and a quarter hours in length, and comes in 1 three disk DVD package, as part of The Miriam Collection of films. Unfortunately, the film is split at its intermission, and spread across two DVDs. In this day and age, this is a major boner. Even worse is that the audio commentary is also split. The commentary, by Bill Bronston (son of producer Sauel Bronston) and Neal M. Rosendorf, a film historian, is OK, mentioning some of the unfortunate stereotyping that was portrayed, but it's nothing special. Perhaps the most insightful thing mentioned is how the film used Islamic expansion as a metaphor for the Cold War, whereas now it can be read literally, and how Sam Bronston was clueless as to the deeper themes in the film. Disk 1 features radio interviews with Heston and Loren, while Disk 2 has the featurettes. There's a making of featurette, a film on the career of Bronston as a producer, one on Anthony Mann'sd career as a director, one on the music of Miklós Rózsa, a film on film preservation, and a gallery of theatrical trailers. The worst extra feature, though, comes on Disk 3. There is nothing but a lengthy interview with a none too bright evangelist named John Bevere, who spends his whole interview as an apologist for Christianity, as well as spewing bizarre 1950s era ultra-nationalistic tripe, and generally misinterpreting the film. It's an embarrassing feature, and one wonders what connection to the people involved in the DVD this man has, and why he would be featured so prominently in the packaging.
Overall, El Cid is a terrific popcorn movie to watch, but a film of depth and great art it's not. Akira Kurosawa would have really lifted a project like this into the heavens. These days, all of the thousands of extras would simply be added in via CG, so it is quite impressive to see a film that truly was epic in scope. I also prefer the old method of putting all the credits at the start of the film, and, of course, there's Charlton Heston. Simply put, Heston is the quintessential American Alpha Male Movie Star. John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Marlon Brando, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson. No one really compares, except for, perhaps, Gary Cooper. While this film does not test his acting chops the way Major Dundee did, nor is it as iconic as his roles in Planet Of The Apes nor The Ten Commandments, it may be the role Heston was most suited to play, for it seems that he is never straining, and always in his comfort zone. Regardless, watch El Cid if you want an idea of what the filmgoing experience was, at its best, during the middle of last century.
The film won some awards at the Golden Globes, and Oscars- mostly technical stuff, but it was a smash hit. The film is shown in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio and clocks in at almost three and a quarter hours in length, and comes in 1 three disk DVD package, as part of The Miriam Collection of films. Unfortunately, the film is split at its intermission, and spread across two DVDs. In this day and age, this is a major boner. Even worse is that the audio commentary is also split. The commentary, by Bill Bronston (son of producer Sauel Bronston) and Neal M. Rosendorf, a film historian, is OK, mentioning some of the unfortunate stereotyping that was portrayed, but it's nothing special. Perhaps the most insightful thing mentioned is how the film used Islamic expansion as a metaphor for the Cold War, whereas now it can be read literally, and how Sam Bronston was clueless as to the deeper themes in the film. Disk 1 features radio interviews with Heston and Loren, while Disk 2 has the featurettes. There's a making of featurette, a film on the career of Bronston as a producer, one on Anthony Mann'sd career as a director, one on the music of Miklós Rózsa, a film on film preservation, and a gallery of theatrical trailers. The worst extra feature, though, comes on Disk 3. There is nothing but a lengthy interview with a none too bright evangelist named John Bevere, who spends his whole interview as an apologist for Christianity, as well as spewing bizarre 1950s era ultra-nationalistic tripe, and generally misinterpreting the film. It's an embarrassing feature, and one wonders what connection to the people involved in the DVD this man has, and why he would be featured so prominently in the packaging.
Overall, El Cid is a terrific popcorn movie to watch, but a film of depth and great art it's not. Akira Kurosawa would have really lifted a project like this into the heavens. These days, all of the thousands of extras would simply be added in via CG, so it is quite impressive to see a film that truly was epic in scope. I also prefer the old method of putting all the credits at the start of the film, and, of course, there's Charlton Heston. Simply put, Heston is the quintessential American Alpha Male Movie Star. John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Marlon Brando, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson. No one really compares, except for, perhaps, Gary Cooper. While this film does not test his acting chops the way Major Dundee did, nor is it as iconic as his roles in Planet Of The Apes nor The Ten Commandments, it may be the role Heston was most suited to play, for it seems that he is never straining, and always in his comfort zone. Regardless, watch El Cid if you want an idea of what the filmgoing experience was, at its best, during the middle of last century.
One of the classic epic films of all time
cinemel15 March 1999
In 1961 Anthony Mann's epic tale of the Spanish hero "El Cid" burst across the wide screens of theatres. This was the kind of film that 70mm was made for. Charlton Heston is Rodrigo de Bivar, and Sophia Loren is his legendary love, Chimene. Their course of love will not be a smooth one. When he kills her father as a matter of honor, she vows vengeance and sets in motion the series of events which will forever change their lives. The Christian Spaniards are ruled by local kingdoms each vying for rule of the nation. When one king challenges El Cid's monarch, Heston volunteers to fight to the death to determine the fate of the city of Calahorra, and at the same time vindicate himself of the treason he was accused of by Loren's father. This fight for Calahorra is one of the most memorable action sequences ever committed to film. It opens with Miklos Rozsa's heraldic fanfare as the two knights take their places on the jousting field. The two kings watch from either side. The ensuing duel is brutal with a predictable, but decisive outcome. The lovers are eventually married, but only to be separated again as El Cid is called to protect Spain from the marauding Moors swarming across the Mediterranean from Africa. The Spanish Moors join with the Cid to take the city of Valencia where the enemy will attack. It is here that one of the great battle scenes takes place, actually filmed in the shadow of the walled city of Peniscola on the coast of Spain. The two armies charge eachother in a cacaphony of horses, shouts and Rozsa's rousing musical score. The sky is darkened by the thousands of flying arrows streaking across to the enemy. This is the kind of movie that they just don't make anymore. What a pity! The final sequence shows the eerie onslaught of the Spanish army lead by the fallen El Cid strapped to his steed and causing the Moors to flee in terror at his seeming resurrection. Rozsa's organ music swells as El Cid rides into the sunset along the deserted beach and into immortality. In the mid 90's after many years of not being available, "El Cid" was shown again in its 70mm splendor. It was then released on video. The superb Criterion laserdisc version contains the full Technirama letterboxed image and a restored mult-channel soundtrack in Dolby Digital. An excellent supplementary section has interviews with Charlton Heston and others. Heston says that "El Cid" would have been an even more enduring classic if William Wyler ("Ben-Hur") had directed it. However, Anthony Mann has nothing to be ashamed of. Aside from some wooden acting and some scenery chewing here and there, the richness of the story and the elaborate production design, paired with the fine performance of Heston and Miklos Rozsa's impassioned score, surely place "El Cid" in the Hall of Fame of great film epics.
History with All the Trimmings
richardchatten25 December 2020
Charlton Heston spent much of the shoot worrying about the script and in his diary damned his co-star with faint praise as "a competent actress, and a star". Currently wowing them at 86 in 'La Vita Davanti a Se', producer Samuel Bronston only had Sophia Loren for the first ten weeks of filming and she makes no mention of director Anthony Mann in her memoirs. This is hardly surprising since her role requires little of her but to stand there and look magnificent, along with the rest of the film.
Robert Krasker's photography, (described by Charlton Heston as "one of the outstanding qualities of 'El Cid'") constantly makes the film a pleasure to look at; especially it's startling flashes of red throughout. The supporting cast is enlivened by Herbert Lom hiding behind a cloak as Ben Yussuf, a surprisingly saturnine Andrew Cruickshank as Loren's father. And I should like to have seen much more of lynx-eyed Genevieve Page as the naughty Queen Urraca.
Robert Krasker's photography, (described by Charlton Heston as "one of the outstanding qualities of 'El Cid'") constantly makes the film a pleasure to look at; especially it's startling flashes of red throughout. The supporting cast is enlivened by Herbert Lom hiding behind a cloak as Ben Yussuf, a surprisingly saturnine Andrew Cruickshank as Loren's father. And I should like to have seen much more of lynx-eyed Genevieve Page as the naughty Queen Urraca.
Undoubtedly MAGNIFICENT
grahamvr10 August 2019
An outstanding movie still in 2019. Magnificent in many ways, music score, cinematography, costumes, sets, battles, it's got it all. I watched this on a channel called KANOPY in Australia, but I understand it comes out of San Francisco. It is obtained through ones local library. If you are a library member you can get the app. I saw this back in 1962 and still today it is one of the greatest epics ever made. If it's not historically correct in some ways we must remember most everything these is dramatised. Try to find this to watch for the first time or again. Sophia Loren is beautiful, Charlton Heston doing what he did best and a magnificent cast of British and European actors. I read that Martin Scorsese was one of the people responsible for this beautiful restoration.
A mixed bag
hou-323 May 2014
I'm a medieval historian by profession and I think the feelings of most medievalists about El Cid are bound to be mixed. Of course it's a terrific epic and they make effective use of medieval locations - Peniscola, standing in for Valencia, looks sensational. There's also some excellent, genuinely late 11th-c stone sculpture and bronze doors. But the clothing and armour are late medieval and the depiction of attitudes, whether religious or political, is sadly all over the place. War lord, made a few years later and also starring Heston, gets much closer to the real eleventh century than El Cid manages to do. Quite apart from authenticity, my feelings are ambivalent. The music is gorgeous and the battle scenes - all done with real people - are exciting. But the love story draaags and the plot line is too discursive. Also, El Cid himself just doesn't seem real. The shape of his career is never explained properly. Curiously enough, a much more realistic film could be made in these more cynical times about the adventurer/mercenary soldier that the Cid actually was. It would be a good film too! But it would be very different from this classic, and the thousands of extras wouldn't be there. At the end of the day I can forgive the longeurs of the film for two standout moments that never fail to thrill: the opening of the barn door and the moving acclaim the Cid gets from the hundreds of followers who have been waiting silently for him to appear, and of course the unforgettable last minutes.
Simply, the best
Critical Eye UK13 February 2003
It does, of course, make for very expensive home viewing, to whit; one widescreen television (28 inch minimum); one set of surround-sound speakers; one good quality DVD player. But after that though, just sit down and sit back.
Because every penny that's been invested in a Home Cinema set-up will earn its keep -- just as every dime that went into the making of this movie likewise pays back many times over.
Mann didn't invent the epic. But with 'El Cid', he took it to heights it had rarely reached before. And has never attained since. An astonishing achievement for its era, the passage of time has done little to diminish its scale or its power -- indeed it seems, in a curious way, to have gained in stature, in dignity, and in sheer, blissful watchability.
Heston was never better than this. Nor was Loren. And as for those closing seconds, whilst intimations of legend take wing upon the thunderous organ coda of Miklos Rosza's finest score. . . Words really do fail, now as then.
10 out of 10 -- but remember: this is cinema at its best; watch this at home on a set-up that's anything less than that spelt out at the beginning of this review, and you're not doing yourself, or the film, any favours.
After all, every masterpiece deserves a decent frame.
Because every penny that's been invested in a Home Cinema set-up will earn its keep -- just as every dime that went into the making of this movie likewise pays back many times over.
Mann didn't invent the epic. But with 'El Cid', he took it to heights it had rarely reached before. And has never attained since. An astonishing achievement for its era, the passage of time has done little to diminish its scale or its power -- indeed it seems, in a curious way, to have gained in stature, in dignity, and in sheer, blissful watchability.
Heston was never better than this. Nor was Loren. And as for those closing seconds, whilst intimations of legend take wing upon the thunderous organ coda of Miklos Rosza's finest score. . . Words really do fail, now as then.
10 out of 10 -- but remember: this is cinema at its best; watch this at home on a set-up that's anything less than that spelt out at the beginning of this review, and you're not doing yourself, or the film, any favours.
After all, every masterpiece deserves a decent frame.
old fashion Hollywood epic
SnoopyStyle27 June 2015
Don Rodrigo (Charlton Heston) captures two of the Emirs of Valencia. He releases them and they proclaim him El Cid. Don Rodrigo is accused of treason which leads to a duel with Jimena (Sophia Loren)'s father Count Gormaz. This leads to revenge and backstabbing. King Ferdinand dies. The older Prince Sancho ascends to the throne. The younger Prince Alfonso (John Fraser) and Princess Urraca (Geneviève Page) has Sancho assassinated. Alfonso takes over the throne and El Cid is banished joined by Jimena. General Ibn Yusuf (Herbert Lom) of the Almoravid dynasty is landing from North Africa. Rodrigo does not join the king, but allies with friendly Emirs to conquer Valencia from Yusuf's allie Emir Al-Kadir.
This is without a doubt an old-fashion Hollywood epic. The sets are massive and the cast number in the thousands. The back and forth with the multitude of characters can get confusing. The political intrigue in the first half drags a bit. The second half has more big epic battles. It does get a bit weird with the Almoravids running in fear of El Cid's dead body.
This is without a doubt an old-fashion Hollywood epic. The sets are massive and the cast number in the thousands. The back and forth with the multitude of characters can get confusing. The political intrigue in the first half drags a bit. The second half has more big epic battles. It does get a bit weird with the Almoravids running in fear of El Cid's dead body.
Too Long. And Too Short. And needs mustard (cuz it's a lot of baloney!)
Qanqor9 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I just finished watching this oeuvre, and I am reminded of the immortal words of Leonard Pinth-Garnell: "There, that wasn't so good, was it?" Not exactly magnificent.
I will confess this, though: at one point, I actually was enjoying the picture. You see, I had gotten it on DVD from Netflix, and last week I watched the first disc's worth, which ends at an intermission (I'm not sure if there was originally an intermission there; it seems a little odd for the intermission to be two-thirds of the way through the film). I stopped there and only watched the rest of it tonight. At that two-thirds point where I stopped, I actually rather liked the movie. But now, having seen the rest, my opinion is decidedly lower.
What I liked was the rather interesting love/hate story between the lovers. I found myself trying to apply the situation to my own life: how would I feel if my beloved (who I hope will someday be my wife) killed my father? What would I do? Could I still love her? I couldn't come up with a clear answer to this very difficult question, and so I was quite intrigued to see how the movie would handle it. This whole sub-plot was, by far, the best part of the movie.
But the problem is, it *is* a sub-plot. And after that two-thirds point, it gets pushed aside and ceases to matter. And the main plot is too poorly realized to be of much value.
And this is where I assert that the film is simultaneously too long and too short. Too long, because the pacing is not exactly brisk and the whole thing runs over three hours, and it feels like it. Again, I had to watch it in two sessions to get through the whole thing. Yet too short too! Because the whole story covers such an epic sweep of time and events that the film can't get it all in, and so it hops around sporadically, episodically. Suddenly you have to figure out that, oh wait, it's ten years later now! Wait, what happened to all that stuff that was going on ten years ago? The movie has no answer, it has to move on, because we still have a lot of story to get through! So the film feels simultaneously interminable and rushed. I sat through the whole thing and there's still gaps in the plot that I can't quite figure out.
But the final kiss of death is when the movie is over, and you realize that it's all a huge steaming pile of baloney. Go read the wikipedia article on the real El Cid and you'll discover, as I did, that except for some of the broadest outlines of the story, it's all Hollywood nonsense. The real El Cid wasn't this noble self-sacrificing saint, he was a self-serving conqueror. He didn't desperately take Valencia in a noble quest to save Spain, he did it to gain a principality for himself. He then proceeded to rule over it peacefully for *five years*, until he died peacefully-- the whole heroic ending of the film is a tissue of whoppers. Heck, they couldn't even be bothered to get his children right; he had three children, none of whom were named Elvira or Sol.
Well, still, I gave it four stars. The scenery was nice, especially some of the authentic medieval castles. The battle scenes were suitably epic. And again, I did like the sub-plot.
But on the whole, feh. And the ending is just laughable nonsense.
I will confess this, though: at one point, I actually was enjoying the picture. You see, I had gotten it on DVD from Netflix, and last week I watched the first disc's worth, which ends at an intermission (I'm not sure if there was originally an intermission there; it seems a little odd for the intermission to be two-thirds of the way through the film). I stopped there and only watched the rest of it tonight. At that two-thirds point where I stopped, I actually rather liked the movie. But now, having seen the rest, my opinion is decidedly lower.
What I liked was the rather interesting love/hate story between the lovers. I found myself trying to apply the situation to my own life: how would I feel if my beloved (who I hope will someday be my wife) killed my father? What would I do? Could I still love her? I couldn't come up with a clear answer to this very difficult question, and so I was quite intrigued to see how the movie would handle it. This whole sub-plot was, by far, the best part of the movie.
But the problem is, it *is* a sub-plot. And after that two-thirds point, it gets pushed aside and ceases to matter. And the main plot is too poorly realized to be of much value.
And this is where I assert that the film is simultaneously too long and too short. Too long, because the pacing is not exactly brisk and the whole thing runs over three hours, and it feels like it. Again, I had to watch it in two sessions to get through the whole thing. Yet too short too! Because the whole story covers such an epic sweep of time and events that the film can't get it all in, and so it hops around sporadically, episodically. Suddenly you have to figure out that, oh wait, it's ten years later now! Wait, what happened to all that stuff that was going on ten years ago? The movie has no answer, it has to move on, because we still have a lot of story to get through! So the film feels simultaneously interminable and rushed. I sat through the whole thing and there's still gaps in the plot that I can't quite figure out.
But the final kiss of death is when the movie is over, and you realize that it's all a huge steaming pile of baloney. Go read the wikipedia article on the real El Cid and you'll discover, as I did, that except for some of the broadest outlines of the story, it's all Hollywood nonsense. The real El Cid wasn't this noble self-sacrificing saint, he was a self-serving conqueror. He didn't desperately take Valencia in a noble quest to save Spain, he did it to gain a principality for himself. He then proceeded to rule over it peacefully for *five years*, until he died peacefully-- the whole heroic ending of the film is a tissue of whoppers. Heck, they couldn't even be bothered to get his children right; he had three children, none of whom were named Elvira or Sol.
Well, still, I gave it four stars. The scenery was nice, especially some of the authentic medieval castles. The battle scenes were suitably epic. And again, I did like the sub-plot.
But on the whole, feh. And the ending is just laughable nonsense.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
