The Angel Wore Red (1960) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Doesn't hang together
blanche-224 August 2008
"The Angel Wore Red" is a 1960 film that takes on the subject of the Spanish Civil War. It stars Dirk Bogarde, Ava Gardner, Joseph Cotten, Vittorio de Sica, and Finlay Currie. The Spanish Civil War is not an easy subject and unfortunately, the film only partially succeeds with Nunnally Johnson's script and under his direction.

A priest, Arturo Carrera (Dirk Bogarde) gives up the priesthood just as the war is starting and finds himself on the run from the Spanish Republicans, who accused the priests of indoctrinating their followers against them. Arturo slips into a cabaret in order to hide and meets Soledad (Gardner), an entertainer. Eventually, he falls for her, and both of them wind up being arrested. Meanwhile, both sides are searching for a sacred relic that is believed to have miraculous powers - it is said to have helped defeat Napoleon. The Bishop entrusted it to someone before the cathedral was destroyed. Each side wants it for its own reasons.

This is a very dark film - darkly photographed, and the sound is strange. I am glad someone else mentioned that it seemed as if it was dubbed. I could easily believe it was in Italian originally and dubbed in English, though that wasn't the case. The acting is excellent. Movie priests always look so darn good - Bogarde makes a handsome, romantic and gentle priest and gives a dynamic performance as a man who hasn't lost his faith in God, only in the church as a way to serve man. Ava Gardner is well cast. Some comments state she was "past it" etc. - though she looks older than Bogarde, which really doesn't make any difference, she also looks appropriate for the role she plays - Spanish, someone who's been around the block more than once, likes the nightlife and is not wealthy. She is not particularly well photographed, and in spots where she is, it's obvious that her beauty hasn't faded. All anyone has to do is see her in 1964's "Night of the Iguana" to realize what great beauty she still had. Vittoria di Sica plays General Clave; it's an odd performance, which is fitting because the man he plays is odd. Joseph Cotten to me is completely wasted as a news journalist in this movie and seems just inserted into the film. He's excellent, but the performance comes from nowhere.

In the end, "The Angel Wore Red" doesn't give us much understanding of the conflict, and the viewer feels almost as if he or she is entering in the middle of something. We're actually entering in the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, but nothing leads us up to it. Props to Johnson, however, for taking on such a weighty subject.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Even handed treatment of the Spanish Civil War
bkoganbing18 August 2019
The Angel Wore Red is one of the few films in the English speaking world that deals with the Spanish Civil War. It takes an even handed approach to the conflict as well.

The military high command in the Spanish Republic withdrew its support from the civil government that came into power after the Spanish monarchy was overthrown in 1931. The Nationalist had disciplined troops and the backing of the Catholic Church. The Republican government cobbled together an army and it fought as best it could from 1936 to 1939.

Dirk Bogarde decides to leave the church at the worst possible time when the city he was posted to is under siege. Those left wing folks occupying the city were very anti-Catholic and they were rounding up priests as spies for the Nationalists. When the Nationalists take the city he's got a problem with them in that they don't quite buy him either. The only one who seems to get him is Ava Gardner playing a bar entertainer who gets by the best she can. When you've been celibate you can imagine how intense it must have been.

There's also a religious relic that the church has, a drop of blood from St.John the Divine. Both sides want to possess it.

This tale is told from neutral correspondent Joseph Cotten who with his eye patch is modeled on Floyd Gibbons. He's quite cynical about the war and is not believing all the fuss about this religious relic. But the phenomenon is there for him to report.

According to Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner, both she and Bogarde were most dissatisfied with how MGM distributed the film. Both felt they did good work and they did and wished more had seen the film.

It's something you should see if you can.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Noble Failure
abooboo-216 May 2001
A fairly potent script with an interesting plot device at its core (both believers and non-believers alike chase after a sacred religious relic during a bloody civil war), undermined by rather bland, pedestrian film-making. Thus, it's not terribly surprising this was the last film directed by the prolific screenwriter Nunnally Johnson. He shoots just about everything in an overly dark and cramped way making it often impossible to determine where a scene is set, let alone what is going on or even who is in it. This may have been intentional, with the absence of light meant to convey the spiritual darkness in which the country of Spain was submerged at the time, but it comes off as crude and makes for rough viewing. There's something strange about the sound as well; there are few if any sufficiently lit close ups and it seems as if some of the actors' voices have been dubbed. Vittorio DeSica's character, for instance, comes across a bit like Truman Capote playing General Patton. Joseph Cotten pops up every now and again, as a cynical, gravel-voiced newsman, (in fact, he also narrates) but you never ever really see his face and there is something disembodied about his entire presence. It's all a bit unsettling.

Nonetheless, if you can endure its flaws, the movie raises some thought provoking questions on the nature of faith and religion in times of strife, and Dirk Bogarde is quite impassioned as the troubled priest. Ava Gardner, however, is noticeably past her prime as Bogarde's love interest, and her character isn't adequately fleshed out.
26 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
People don't lose their faith in God. They lose it in the church.
mark.waltz17 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
The setting here is war time, but with all the quiet moments, you'd think it was an era of peace. Of course, it's a spiritual film in nature with a former priest (Dirk Bogarde) striving to stay safe from the attacks and arrests on priests accused of political crimes. In probably her last leading romantic role before going onto playing supporting, character or matronly parts, Ava Gardner is also playing perhaps her last real gentle, quiet role, a cabaret entertainer who falls in love with Bogarde and risks her life in helping him try to find a holy relic said to have magical powers.

Probably her most beautiful leading man since Robert Taylor, Bogarde is a dreamy presence, quietly brooding over his religious doubts, but always keeping God close to his heart. Gardner underplays beautifully, far from fragile, but very sultry in a ladylike way, and tough without losing her soul. In major supporting roles, Joseph Cotten is the typical bombastic American war correspondent, providing some humor among the tragedy. Vittorio De Sica is the heavy, and Finlay Currie the bishop of Bogarde's order.

An interesting but extremely complex drama, this probably would benefit by some knowledge of the Spanish Civil War which predated World War II and corresponded in the timing of major changes all over Europe. As a romantic drama with a war setting, it's top notch, but did take some time for me to get into it complete. Perhaps there's just too much going on both behind and along side the major drama going on. But the stars are so magnetic that they're mesmerizing, and it's nice to see a movie so consumed by the faith of God that doesn't allow man manipulated theology to declare loyalty to the invisible character whose presence is deeply felt throughout.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Average stuff
HenryHextonEsq16 July 2001
I thought this film was rather lacking in both narrative and film-making technique. The script is far from awful, but also far from interesting in the most part. As the previous reviewer says, the lighting, choice of shots etc. was jarring and obscured characters (Joseph Cotten, who indeed established no presence at all in this film partly due to this). The historical period examined is a curious if comendable choice, and while the general details are correctly conveyed, no attempt is really made to discuss the issues in much depth. Good to see neither of the two sides particularly favoured, although such a commitment might have added at least some drama. Drama is scant in the film, with a few scenes written as exposition, delivered in a way just as stilted.

The film actually has a rather good and eclectic cast for 1960, although the talents are ill used. Finlay Currie, Vittorio De Sica (well, seemingly in the main part a director), Dirk Bogarde (not yet of the stature achieved in films like "The Servant" and "Accident"), Joseph Cotten and Ava Gardner are all of some talent. De Sica's character who does indeed speak in a rather un-Italian, mid-Atlantic accent, which either suggests dubbing or a remarkably odd decision somewhere along the line - the character is portrayed as a Spanish patriot. The character's endless minor disparaging comments about modern warfare are mildly amusing in their frequency. I wouldn't say Ava Gardner is at all "past her prime" in this film, at about 37. Her performance is actually quite good, although lacking some credibility, and there are some pretty reasonable quiet scenes between her and Bogarde. Her beauty seems to have matured well, although the murky, technically below-par direction doesn't help this to show. Bogarde seemed quite good at times, but far from indelible or memorable in this role.

I would say this film is reasonably watchable and far from abject, but it is largely far from gripping or interesting.

Rating:- **/*****
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This one lost money....and I can see exactly why.
planktonrules7 January 2019
Dirk Bogarde was an amazingly talented actor--so much so that I specifically look for his films. However, despite MANY great films, he occasionally made a stinker...and "The Angel Wore Red" is one of them. The movie lost money and I can see exactly why.

The story is set just before the first days of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Arturo (Bogarde) is a priest serving in Spain and he's disenchanted with the Church. He is so disenchanted that he leaves the priesthood. However, his timing sucks...as the Civil War breaks out and priests are being rounded up and shot! The new Socialist/Communist backed Republicans blame the Church for supporting the Nationalists....and folks are taking retribution of the priests, as they are in a Republican stronghold. Now Arturo has to flee for his life...as folks THINK he's still a priest.

During his time on the run, Arturo is aided by a 'girl of easy virtue' (Ava Gardner) and, inexplicably, the pair fall in love. Now this really does NOT make any sense and it happens way too quickly to be believable. To make it worse, often the film lets the pair just talk and talk and talk....and it's all quite sticky and sappy.

Later, Arturo is caught by the Republicans. They would rather not kill him, since they learned he left the priesthood, but instead of releasing him they force him to work with him. His unenviable task is to take confessions from the priests they are about to execute!! What's next for him and his new main squeeze?

Despite the story seeming rather anti-clerical and having a love affair between an ex-priest and 'good time girl' may seem very anti-clerical, the film actually takes a rather neutral view overall. Unlike many movies of the 1940s that were decidedly pro-Republic, this one shows the Republic a little more realistically...and the film hedges its bets by having Arturo learn to once again love the Church. Considering the Republicans were backed by Stalin and the Nationalists backed by Hitler, it wasn't exactly a war where one side was 'the good guy' and the other 'evil'....and the movie at least gets this part of the story right. Unfortunately, the love affair is unconvincing and the dialog silly and trite. Too bad...as Bogarde was simply better than the material they gave him.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another huge write-off for MGM!
JohnHowardReid25 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It is certainly a change to find a Hollywood-sponsored film espousing the anti-Communist side in a Spanish Civil War film, though the edge is taken off one's initial surprise as the film progresses and the Fascists come in for some criticism too. As it turns out one is not supposed to be rooting for either side, but simply for Mr Bogarde and Miss Gardner who find themselves hunted by both.

Unfortunately, neither writing nor direction conspire to elicit audience identification or sympathy with these characters, and the performances are somewhat below the usual high standard of these two players. Miss Gardner seems particularly hampered by the necessity for post-dubbing and seems quite unable to match her words with her lip movements. Moreover, she reads her lines in a flat, listless voice. M-G-M have seen fit not to use Vittorio De Sica's voice although he can speak English as fluently as you or I. The voice they do use has a very odd accent and is disconcerting to say the least.

Nunnally Johnson's direction is pretty ordinary, though the film does have one outstanding scene with Aldo Fabrizi, lifted from Open City. The abrupt conclusion of the film is one of the most unconvincing I have ever seen.

Rotunno's photography is a considerable comedown after his fine work on On the Beach and Miss Gardner often is made to appear unflatteringly haggard. Some of the sets are impressive and the film has some lavish crowd scenes. The script retains a bit of the bite from Bruce Marshall's novel but not enough to add up to satisfying entertainment.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A flawed masterpiece
hopkinshughes22 August 2008
Though far from perfect, I could watch this movie again, and perhaps even more than that. It's a fascinating movie, for one thing, pairing two of the most beautiful people who ever lived, in a story with real depth, or at least the promise of real depth, which says a lot in a world where 99 movies out of 100 don't even try. Imagine, complaining that at 37, Ava Gardner was "past her prime." It is wonderful to see Bogarde, whose roles usually had him sneering worldly-wise ironies, showing heartfelt passion for the good and the true. It is equally wonderful to see Gardner in a role far more suited for her than the calculating charmer or the tormented playgirl. She never seemed to be really trying until this one, where perhaps the part touched something deep in her. Their chemistry was superlative, their love scene one of the greats of all time, in my view.

That this portrayal of a love that goes beyond time and place occurs in the context of one of the most astonishingly wicked and absurd wars of all time is another sublimity that seems to have whizzed right by all but one of the previous reviewers. Hemingway showed only that Robert Jordan thought the war was absurd, he didn't show its absurdity, which director Nunnally Johnson managed to do here in both direction and dialog, and against great odds. Like another of my favorites, Viva Zapata, this movie is a flawed masterpiece, better by far than 100 polished banalities. Blame its flaws on the trials of filming in 1960 (still stuck in the 50s), on sloppy editing, on the meaningless title, and the inevitable hurdles that writers and directors have to overcome in the complicated and difficult art of film-making, truly daunting in the case of this film. (Imagine attempting to film a love story between a priest and a prostitute in 50s Sicily?!) Don't blame the the actors, the director, or the beautiful and poignant story.
45 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Historical drama struggled to hit its stride
buonoart16 December 2022
There's an interesting story here on a number of levels but at roughly 1:40 minutes there's not enough time to tell them all well, which it tries to do. Really didn't understand the point of Joseph Cotten's journalist, even as an expository device. I'll leave criticisms or praise of the treatment of the civil war to others with more than the passing knowledge I have. Someone noted the cramped and dark cinematography, which worked for some scenes but not what might have been some of the more grand-scale scenes, which looked like they were cropped or framed so as not to admit incongruous sites or things into the shots. The lovers are a bit too aware of their fate it seems for them to have a realistic relationship. This one's OK for a watch but for characters bound up in a tragic relationship during revolution and civil war, it is no Dr. Zhivago.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
angel wore red
mossgrymk26 January 2021
One feels, while watching this too talky/slow movie (screenwriter Nunnally Johnson shoulda outsourced the directing to Aldrich or Frankenheimer), trapped between Bogarde's over acting and Gardner's non acting. I gave it a half hour and then, having satiated myself on Ava eye candy, pulled the plug. C minus.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
This perfidious revisionist pack of lies upset Papa . . .
pixrox129 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
. . . Hemingway so much that he blew his brains out with a shotgun right after seeing it at the Ketchum Kaleidoscope. If you haven't yet suffered through THE ANGEL WORE RED, you'll probably want to know if you can survive it better than Papa H. did. If wooden acting, frigid "love" scenes, bogus "battles," one-dimensional "bad" guys, murky motivations, mindless mobs wielding torches and maudlin sob stories put you to sleep, this snooze fest is unlikely to shake your foundations. However, if you possess any knowledge of world history or even rudimentary critical thinking skills, better avoid this Scarlet Seraphim like the Devil!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Civil War muddle
SnoopyStyle24 March 2021
It's 1936 Spain and one-eyed American reporter Hawthorne (Joseph Cotten) is eager for the impending civil war. Father Arturo Carrera (Dirk Bogarde) has a crisis of faith over the church. They are in a struggle against the Republican government. He leaves the church for civilian life. The war starts and the city comes under bombardment. He finds shelter with Soledad (Ava Gardner) who helps him even after discovering that he's a former priest. Priests are being denounced by the government as the cause of the bombing and are being hunted by the militia. A holy relic has gone missing and whoever controls it is believed to be undefeatable.

This is an anti-communist Italian film. The production is fine but some of this is too melodramatic. The movie sets up the battle between communists against priests. It's a little disingenuous to skip over the fascists and their Nazi friends with the start. It's also too simplistic to depict the government as a monolith. It may make the church a more innocent victim if it isn't being denounced by the protagonist Arturo right at the beginning. That leaves the war a murky muddle with no one to root for. Even the two leads are not completely compelling while the movie tries to force-feed a romance. It's both too simplistic and to complicated. It's trying to be both sides especially when the fascists do show up and they're not good either. I think the melodramatic romance is still the least likeable part.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Dirk Bogarde with Ava Gardner in the Spanish civil war and making more of it than Hemingway.
clanciai29 October 2017
This is a fascinating story with many aspects and undertones of fathomless depth and a very different view of the Spanish civil war than what is usually represented. The drama grips you at once, as the young priest leaves the church demonstratively in protest, which immediately throws you into an interesting development of character and events, as the civil war breaks out. Joseph Cotten is an American journalist who gives the drama a form, but Ava Gardner is the central figure, 'the angel in red', a prostitute in a night club which the unfrocked priest finds himself at home in. Another character is Aldo Fabrizi, who here repeats his martyrdom from "Rome, open city" as the carrier of the one holy thing still remaining as a hope for the people, a relic with a drop of a saint's blood with apparently tremendous national meaning to both believers and non-believers. On top of it all there is Vittorio de Sica as the general who better than anyone else sees through the utter absurdity and madness of this civil war.

It is possibly the best film of the Spanish civil war that has been made, in spite of its foibles, as it presents a fairer and broader insight into the war than any other film I have seen on this bloody mess, which almost went on from 1936 until the year of the second world war, as an introduction. The love story is totally convincing and 'organic', as Polanski would have said, but the pathos of the film is tremendous, almost giving a documentary presentation of the war but from below, from the view of common people, a prostitute, a defrocked priest and innocent victims. It's like one of Graham Greene's best novels, but the music adds an extra dimension of beauty and infinite suffering and sorrow as well, like to the shocking war pictures of Goya. It's a great film, it can't be denied, and its lacks and wants are not enough to reduce anything of its deeply human and fascinating greatness.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Spiritual and worldly love during the Spanish Civil War
vespatian7522 August 2008
Despite some obvious flaws I regard this film as a major achievement. The first obvious problem is the dubbing. Vittorio De Sica, a great actor is dubbed in English by a run of the mill voice over technician. The film suffers from being a joint Anglo/American- Italian production.

But it is one of the most mature treatments of a political historical theme that I have ever seen. Neither the loyalists nor the Franco led rebels are spared. Both are essentially brutal totalitarians. The Catholic Church is not spared either. Churchmen are showed to be so out of touch with their flock as to be almost comical, and yet when finally knocked off their pedestal they recover their Christianity. Dirk Bogard gives a subtle and brilliant performance as the tortured young priest. Ava Gardner is perfect as the cynical and yet innocent prostitute. It is actually to her advantage that she played this role at 37 rather than ten years earlier. She would simply been too overpoweringly beautiful to have been fully creditable in the part. Aldo Frabrizzi's part may be too reminiscent of his role in Open City especially at the end. Vittorio De Sica seems to have been doing an imitation of Claude Raines in Casablanca. It would have been good to have heard those two great actors in their native Italian. Joseph Cotton as the one eyed jaded reporter gives a broad yet compelling interpretation. The films failings pale in comparison to its overriding importance.
28 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Politically Daring
alanrhobson26 October 2007
This film has an abiding place in my film canon, for one very good reason.

It isn't a great film, as both the other IMDb reviewers have gone out of their way to stress (although some of their criticisms were a little unfair. I thought, for example, that Joseph Cotten fared better than they say). However, it is virtually the only entertainment vehicle I have ever seen - including film, TV, radio, newspaper, magazine - that dares to show the truth about the left-wing Republicans/anti-Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish Republicans have been lionised for decades for their allegedly heroic struggle against fascism (although it is actually a moot point to what extent Franco's Nationalists were fascist). However, this film is brave enough to show the truth - that the Spanish Republicans singled out religious targets and many harmless middle class targets and killed or persecuted them. It also dares to show the truth that the Republicans ran the areas they controlled along Stalinist lines. Which is not surprising, given the links with Communists and Stalinist Russia that some of them had.

The file deserves enormous credit for showing this, and it is a shame that no-one has pointed this out on IMDb - until now.
59 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed