Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Executscan Expected more

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

HotToastyRag I guess every decade has their fair share of stupid movies. In the 1952, The World in His Arms was added to that list. Gregory Peck and Anthony Quinn play opposing sea captains, and while Gregory Peck is trying to negotiate a deal to purchase the land of Alaska—this is a period piece—Ann Blythe, a Russian countess, tries to persuade him to sail her and her grandmother to Alaska from San Francisco. She's engaged to someone else, then engaged to Gregory Peck, then engaged to the first man again—it all gets rather confusing, and it's not interesting enough to really care about untangling the mess.There's a famous boat battle scene from this movie, but I can't imagine anyone in modern audiences finding it exciting. The blue-screen is laughable, but maybe in 1952 audiences were fooled by "technology" used in the scene. I was almost put to sleep by this movie, and actually groaned at the corniness of the last line of dialogue. Save your time and watch anything else.

dbdumonteil When you have seen Gregory Peck and Ann Blyth at the helm,you'll know where James Cameron stole his famous Di Caprio/Winslet scene from .Besides ,the two heroes are a man of common birth and an aristocrat .There the comparison ends.The first part may seem talky and is closer to comedy.But after the countess's abduction,adventure and drama reassert themselves .The screenplay is rather derivative-particularly the love story- ,but the way the writers depict the Russians and the Americans is very interesting:the first ones despise those "Nouveaux Riches " ,they call them barbarians, they enslave their fellow men ,they are sadistic brutes .On the other hand ,the Yankees see their enemy as people from the past ,and they are ahead of their time ,for they already understood ,more than one hundred years ago ,that killing too many seals would endanger the ecological balance .

raskimono This insufficient movie was made in the fifties when a flamboyant pretty boy famous for tough, staunch, dramatic parts and deep performances decides to go the matinée idol/swashbuckler route. This movie followed Peck's earlier and similar Captain Horatio Hornblower and the Fox big budget muck, David and Bathsheba. Captain Horatio was a big hit in the United States but the fate of this movie domestically was not as good. But as many big budget productions that struggle at home, they make a killing or reduce the losses overseas as this movie was number six at the UK box office and top 10 in 1952 in many other countries. Peck is actually good in the role of the gregarious pirate - way better than in Captain Horatio where I felt he was miscast - he seems to sink his teeth into the role of a lovable scalawag with a gritty mien. He walks the part, lashes the part, and punches the part. One could only wonder why he did not bring this kind of intensity to his role of the "bad seed" in Duel in the sun. The movie sorely needed it. While this kind of movies are supposed to light and flimsy, I must say that I think this movie is way too light. Fights happen for no apparent reason than to fight. Portugee brilliantly played by the great actor Anthony Quinn is loud and lascivious and is a great counterpart to Peck's ravenous appetite for calamity. The plot so to speak involves a Russian girl who does not want to leave the haven of San Francisco to return to the obviously evil and vile fiancée. So she needs to get on a boat to get her out. Enter Peck, romance and love. But alas, Mr. Vile and Evil shows up, twirling mustache in hand and kidnaps her. The rest of this movie is as follows................... You get the point. Raoul Walsh who was one of Hollywood's most successful directors at the box office with very few flops throughout his career directs the action scenes with unusual zest even for him. The score is rousing and gives the sailing sequences a palpating calumny. Blyth is terrible in this role and I don't even think she is very pretty. She does not even try to do a Russian accent but speaks with a clear mid-western undertone. And last of all, the final line in this movie is surely a contender for one of the corniest lines ever delivered on screen. You have hear it and see the shot that follows and try not to laugh out loud.

dinky-4 While this movie aspires to be one of those brawling, lusty, two-fisted adventures, it never quite takes off. Part of the problem lies in the miscasting of Gregory Peck. He's fine in quiet, thoughtful roles but lacks the swaggering pizazz needed to bring off this part. Burt Lancaster or even Kirk Douglas would have been a better choice. The rest of the production is good-looking, (benefiting from the apt casting of Ann Blyth as a Russian aristocrat), and it offers a mild degree of entertainment but it all seems a bit too mild, a bit too limited.Typical of the movie's lack of flair is the scene in which Peck is flogged. (This does not occur in Rex Beach's novel.) Aha, you think -- beefcake and blood! But rather than ripping off his shirt, Peck's flogger merely tears open its back, and after seven lashes, the only marks visible on Peck are a few discreet red lines which might have been drawn on him with the sharpened tip of a lipstick. And during the flogging, Peck never winces nor groans but simply stands stoically as if he's mentally going over that evening's dinner menu. He should have taken how-to-be-whipped lessons from Alan Ladd. Now, there's an actor who really knew how to writhe!