MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

nedeljkodjukic88 Good movie, but the point - there are noble American individuals who spend a lot of their money, time and energy just to liberate people around the world and bring them freedom and justice they dream of - is simply stupid. Unfortunately, many prominent intellectuals like Huston believe(d) in this. But what has ever changed for that people and country, after they managed to 'liberate' them? You think people in Afghanistan, Balkan live better now? That Iraqis and Libyans are happier without Husein and Gaddafi now? Whom Americans enabled to rule before that... There were/are Americans who support battles against foreign regimes (not only with words), but they do it all for their own interest in that country, not cause they're humanitarians. They all end up powerful and very reach after they use naive 'revolutionaries' who give their lives to the 'great cause'. The Godfather II puts it much better.

elevenangrymen China is a bank teller living in Cuba in 1933. Her brother is working with a group of revolutionaries who are trying to depose the government. Her brother is caught handing out leaflets for their cause, and he is shot and killed. China grows upset (understandably) and joins the revolutionaries herself. She meets an American named Tony Fenner and he comes up with the plan to blow up all of the heads of government. To do this, they will use China's house as a base. They will tunnel under the ground to a nearby cemetery. Then they will kill a prominent politician and blow everyone at his funeral up.The plan gets complicated when the man who murdered China's brother finds China and begins to suspect she is doing something shady. Also, China and Tony begin to fall for each other, all the while Cuba descends into a totalitarian state.It is hard to watch this film without taking into account the revolution in Cuba in the late 1950s and early 1960s. That revolution, which put Castro into power, makes this film seem very outdated. Even though it is set in 1933, this film still feels heavily dated and unrealistic. That is not the only problem. This film tries to achieve two objectives, to be a political thriller and a romantic drama, and it fails on both accounts. It appears that Huston just couldn't direct a thriller. Both The MacKintosh Man and The List of Adrian Messanger were spectacularly thrill less.It is not as if the film is a mess, but it just had no sense of direction. With a better director, someone who cared more, this could have been a pretty good thriller. But Huston's tepid direction is nothing short of boring. Even the veteran actors on display could not save the film. Jennifer Jones is a great actress, but here she is not good. Her role is so poorly written that it just screams cliché. Her Cuban accent is rough and unbelievable. Her line deliveries are stodgy, and her character is just boring. The revenge plot device runs out of steam quickly, and we are left with people digging a tunnel for an hour.John Garfield is a good actor when given good material, which he is not here. His character is from average from the get go, and it hurts his performance dearly. He is not accomplishing anything new in this film, and his persona wears thin quickly. The one standout in the cast is Pedro Armendariz. His character's scenes are few, but he has one standout scene which he excels in. That scene is also the highlight of the film, due much to Armendariz's talent.The script seems to never know what it wants. It jumps back and forth between political thriller and romance. The romance seems forced, and the political side seems dated. And of course, the thrills are non-existent. The script however could have been improved, and it could have made for a good film. That, unfortunately, was not the case.The cinematography is actually quite good. It is shot like a film Noir, with terrific lighting. However, Huston's camera refuses to be original or move much. It stays completely still, bringing an air of stuffiness to the screen. The score is good enough to listen to, but you forget about it completely after the film ends. It is just like the film, unmemorable.I have talked often about Huston's laid back style of direction. It can definitely work for some kinds of films, but you can not direct in a thriller in a relaxed fashion! The whole point of a thriller is to thrill, not to just show stuff that can be considered thrilling. You have to put your camera into the scene, you have to make audiences feel the stakes. This film does none of that. And of course, the film is so anticlimactic. **SPOILER ALERT** Just after they kill a politician and are having the bomb made, they find out that the funeral is being held somewhere else. All the work they did was for nothing, and that's it. That's the end. Then there is a shootout and the revolutionaries win! **SPOILER ALERT**It feels so false, that it becomes hard to take the film seriously. Perhaps I am bashing this film too hard, but I can't help it. This kind of boring, thrill less exercise feels like a waste of my time. It is not that bad of a film, but it is definitely not as good as it could have been. It left me just as quickly as it came to me, and it is one film I do not think I will see ever again.We Were Strangers, 1949, Starring: Jennifer Jones, John Garfield and Pedro Armendariz, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

wes-connors Cuban-accented Jennifer Jones (as China Valdes) watches as her 19-year-old brother is shot protesting the island's tyrannical government. Vengeful, she joins the revolutionary underground. Accepted in the resistance, Ms. Jones finds romance with Havana-born John Garfield (as Tony Fenner), who returns from the US to becomes a partner. On her first assignment, Jones re-encounters Pedro Armendariz (as Armando Ariete), who shot her brother. They meet organizer Ramon Novarro (the Chief), who plots government overthrow, with a plan developed by Mr. Garfield. Also in the group is Gilbert Roland (as Guillermo), a "silent" movie star along with Mr. Novarro. "We Were Strangers" is tense and involving at times, but it doesn't always seem authentic.****** We Were Strangers (4/27/39) John Huston ~ Jennifer Jones, John Garfield, Pedro Armendariz, Ramon Novarro

imogensara_smith As the bombastic credit music fades, a prologue rolls across the screen, laying out the historical situation in black and white: evil government, heroic rebels. The opening scene presents the Cuban Senate passing a bill to outlaw all public assemblies. Just as your heart is sinking at the prospect of a heavy-handed and simple-minded pageant, the style of the scene changes. The senators are told to stand if they are in favor of the bill, and a few rise immediately. Then, one by one, in a series of close-ups, the senators glance around nervously, feeling the pressure to conform, look craven or embarrassed or merely indifferent, and stand. I've never seen a more subtly scathing attack on politicians, and it works because it's visual, not verbal. Instead of lecturing us, it lets us see for ourselves.WE WERE STRANGERS is exceptionally well-directed by John Huston, shot not just with flair but with moments of disorienting originality, and inkier shadows than many a film noir (the actors' faces often half-obliterated by darkness.) The script is even more surprising, and it's hard to believe this film was made in Hollywood during the McCarthy era, or indeed any era, since it condones not only assassination but the murder of innocent bystanders for political ends. It stars John Garfield and Jennifer Jones as Cuban revolutionaries and features lame Hispanic accents and some atrocious back-projection scenes in which the actors appear to be walking in place in front of a movie screen. It could be a disaster, but instead it's gripping and fascinating; not a complete success, but both unexpected and unforgettable.Set in Havana, the story centers on China Valdez (Jones), a proper young woman whose brother, a member of the revolutionary underground, is shot down in front of her eyes after passing out leaflets. Bitter and burning for revenge, China joins the underground and volunteers for a project headed by an American, Tony Fenner (Garfield) to wipe out the entire government by assassinating a high-ranking politician and then bombing his funeral. The small band of rebels moves into China's house, digging a tunnel from the basement to the family mausoleum of the intended victim. The group includes a relaxed, rumba-singing dock-worker (Gilbert Roland) and a wealthy university student who goes crazy with guilt because the man they plan to murder is a family friend. Meanwhile China is shadowed by Ariete, the secret police man who killed her brother: an oily, menacing villain whose suspicions of China are heightened by his lust for her and obsessive jealousy of Fenner.Granted, Jennifer Jones looks ridiculously glamorous; even after she has joined in digging through the rotting corpses of the graveyard she appears in every scene with flawless eye makeup, crisp sexy blouse and upswept hairdo. Granted, her accent is on a par with Natalie Wood's in WEST SIDE STORY (all of the "Cubans" speak accented English; Garfield, thank heavens, speaks in his usual Bronx-bred tones) But Jones is good, wearing a hardened, mask-like face that barely conceals her terror whenever Ariete pops up. They have a terrific if obvious scene together, in which China sits rigid with mounting disgust and panic as Ariete messily devours a crab, pounding and crunching and slurping, gulping rum and getting drunker and sweatier as he tells her that he's really a man of sentiment and honor.Garfield's performance is not at all what you'd expect; he's so restrained, in his early scenes he seems almost drugged. We never learn much about his character, a ruthless, efficient mastermind. Once he trades his light tropical suit for a grimy t-shirt, he becomes a more familiar Garfield: skin glistening with mud and sweat as he digs, he exudes grit and sex appeal and lets his façade crack to show vulnerability. With little build-up, he and Jones fall into a predictable clinch, in a scene unforgettably shot in pitch blackness with spare flashes of lightning. The triumph of his performance is that he never tries to make Fenner likable, charming or heroic; the irresistible Garfield grin is nowhere in sight. He's callous, laconic and impassive, yet somehow his charisma is overpowering. Because he was so intense and unafraid of emotion, I've never thought of John Garfield as an under-actor, but in his late performances it's remarkable how little he actually does. He gets tremendous effects out of stillness, often just watching and listening to his busier co-stars. You feel what he feels, almost physically; he has no need for pantomime.*********SPOILERS BELOW****************WE WERE STRANGERS is a blend of stark honesty and Hollywood clichés, brilliant direction and cheesy effects. Unfortunately, at the end, Hollywood wins. Garfield gets to go out in style, holed up with his true love, blasting away with a machine gun, lighting sticks of dynamite from his cigarette and lobbing them like hand grenades at the police. Jennifer Jones makes a hokey speech over his corpse—and then the revolution breaks out and in five minutes the government topples! The film never really comes to terms with its endorsement of mass murder (Gilbert Roland insouciantly sings, "What is wrong and what is right / Will be decided by dynamite"), and it's hard to say whether it shows honorable ambivalence or shameful woolly-mindedness. But I came away from this strange, flawed, feverish movie electrified. How did it ever sneak out of 1940s Hollywood?