Best movie ever!

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

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

Produced and directed by John Farrow, this remake of director Farrow's earlier RKO film Five Came Back (1939) features the same Richard Carroll story, but this one's screenplay was written by Jonathan Latimer instead. It's a slightly above average adventure drama that doesn't quite have the impact (or originality) of the earlier film, but does feature more richly defined characters, including more about their backgrounds than the original did (this one is 25 minutes longer).The story is about a South American bound airliner with passengers from differing backgrounds that is forced by a storm to land in a jungle containing headhunters. The survivors must repair the plane in time to escape a terrible fate, but then learn that it will only carry five "back from eternity", such that a decision has to made. The cast is both recognizable and (in some cases) excellent:Robert Ryan plays the experienced, even legendary pilot Bill Lonagan, who drinks a bit as he nears retirement. Anita Ekberg plays the fallen woman, an unwanted foreign-born close to being deported Las Vegas casino "good time" girl named Rena. Rod Steiger plays Vasquel, who's on his way to death row in South America for a political assassination attempt on a General. Phyllis Kirk plays Louise Melhorn, who's eloping with Jud Ellis (played by Gene Barry) but later has eyes for the young co-pilot Joe Brooks (played by Keith Andes).Departing from the original, Barry's character is not as well defined as Patric Knowles's wealthy businessman and in fact appears only to be a playboy of sorts. In fact, his subsequent "downfall" is barely shown, making Louise's loss of interest in him appear more about her sudden attraction to Joe than her disdain for a lack of demonstrable character on Jud's part. Fred Clark plays the bounty hunter Crimp, who's only strength is derived from the weapon he carries, that's taking Vasquel to justice. Beulah Bondi and Cameron Prud'Homme play the older couple Martha and Professor Henry Spangler, who come to know Vasquel best in the jungle, the two men sharing common interests. Jesse White plays gunman Pete Boswick, who's escorting his mob boss's (Tol Avery, uncredited) six year old son Tommy Malone (Jon Provost). Adele Mara plays the ill-fated stewardess Maria Alvarez. James Burke (uncredited) plays the airline manager Grimsby.Rather than beginning at the airport, as the original does, this one starts in Las Vegas where the background of Anita Ekberg's Rena is much better defined than Lucille Ball's fallen woman Peggy Nolan. Plus, rather than being a one-stop sleeper flight that includes all of the principal cast from the beginning, the characters in this remake are staged to converge onto the same "doomed" plane from a couple of different airports within in the U.S. and then south of the border.Other minor differences (besides just the character's names) in this film when compared to the original include: co-pilot Brooks (the surname of the pilot in the first one) doesn't show a pre-flight interest in Ellis's fiancée, Pete is a more reluctant "nursemaid" for Tommy, almost allowing the boy to fly alone before finding out (by reading the paper vs. hearing it on the radio in flight) that his boss had been killed (plus, Pete is searched and his gun is removed from him before he boards the plane), after the "crash", the possibility of hiking out is never discussed, less screen-time given to how the survivors obtained and prepared their food and "living quarters" (therefore, who does and doesn't do this work is less character revealing), Steiger's "anarchist" is given more time on- screen (naturally), there's a cat-fight between Louise and Rena over Joe in the stream, and this one has a last touching moment between the Spanglers (discussing their quasi-parental feelings) just before the end.

Back from Eternity (1956) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Director Farrow joins a small group of filmmakers who were able to remake one of their earlier pictures and this here is pretty much the same story he told in FIVE CAME BACK. The story is pretty simple as a group of people have their plane crash in a South American jungle where they try to survive not only the elements but the possible threat of attack by some natives. They finally catch a couple breaks to where they might be able to get the plane in working order but then they're confronted with a bigger choice on who will get to leave. I can understand why Farrow decided to remake his earlier picture as he made it clear that he thought the special effects could improve the film. I watched FIVE CAME BACK a few years earlier and thought it was a decent little film but I remember thinking that at just 75-minutes there wasn't enough time devoted to the characters to make us really care about them. That is something changed here because the first forty-five minutes is completely devoted to the characters but I think they go a bit overboard. While the remake gives us a lot of character development the majority of it is just boring melodrama stuff that we've seen in countless other disaster pictures. You have the bad guy (Rod Steiger) on his way to a firing squad. You have the pilot (Robert Ryan) who is hiding a dark secret. You got the sexy blonde (Anita Ekberg) who is running towards a questionable job. You have an elderly couple (Beulah Bondi, Cameron Homme) trying to enjoy their final years. You have a young couple (Phyllis Kirk, Gene Berry) who find themselves constantly fighting. We've seen these characters so many times in so many movies that you really don't feel that connected to them. Another problem is that pretty much nothing happens in terms of suspense until the final ten-minutes. At 100-minutes this film takes a long time getting to the conclusion and when it finally does come there's some nice drama but why they didn't try to have a few threats earlier in the picture is beyond me. Performances are good for the most part as all the actors fit their parts nicely and that includes Steiger and that Spanish accent. Farrow mixes in a few new scenes including two of the women fighting in a lake, which really seems out of place and another silly scene involving a crime boss. This RKO picture was hampered with a low-budget, which prevented the crash from being that good but then again I've seen worse. Both FIVE CAME BACK and BACK TO ETERNITY are interesting films but neither one really rises to a level to where I'd call them good. If I had to pick I'd probably go with the original as being the better movie but I think film buffs will enjoy watching both and seeing what Farrow tried to change and improve nearly twenty-years after his first attempt.

For a film director to remake one of his own movies is a fairly rare occurrence, but that's not to say it hasn't happened down the years. Cecil B DeMille made two versions of The Ten Commandments (1923 and 1956); Alfred Hitchcock made two versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934 and 1956); The Vanishing was also done twice by George Sluizer (1988 and 1993).Back From Eternity marks the turn of John Farrow to join this select band of movie makers who have remade one of their own pictures. In this case, Farrow resurrects his 1939 philosophical jungle adventure Five Came Back, but his purpose in doing so is never particularly clear. Indeed, in most aspects this film is actually INFERIOR to its predecessor. Yes, there are occasional moving and exciting moments…. but on the whole it should have been a lot better.A plane flying across South America runs into difficulties during a freak storm and crash lands in the jungle. The pilot Bill Lonagan (Robert Ryan) and his co-pilot Joe Brooks (Keith Andes) reckon they can fix the damaged aircraft, at least partially, but unfortunately for the passengers it's not just a simple case of sitting around waiting for the plane to be repaired. Gradually they come to realise that they're in cannibal country, with a tribe of headhunters preparing to close in for the kill. Things get even worse when the pilots announce they'll only be able to take five passengers aboard the plane – any more will make it impossible to take off due to the weakened engines. Tensions boil as the group debate and argue over who should go and who should stay to face horrible and certain death…..Back From Eternity definitely has a strong cast, with Ryan doing solid work as the pilot with a booze addiction and Rod Steiger in splendid form as a Death Row criminal among their number. Keith Andes makes a surprisingly big impression too as the co-pilot who gets involved in a love triangle. The plot automatically throws up fascinating philosophical questions about the value of life. How can you say one life is more precious than another? How would YOU persuade your way aboard the makeshift plane if you were in those circumstances? Is there a purely methodical way of choosing five worthy survivors… and would there be any way of avoiding the inevitable emotional implications when making such a choice? Unfortunately, though, these inherent philosophical ideas don't make for as engrossing a picture as you might expect. Maybe it's the wordy and over-extended script, or maybe it's the silly extraneous details (e.g a needless love triangle, an exploitative female swamp-wrestling scene, etc.), but Back From Eternity just never quite fulfils its potential.

Not a bad B movie, but why did they remake it? I suppose because it's cheaper to recycle stories that the studio already owns than to buy new ones. Even the title seems designed by a bricoleur. ("From Here to Eternity" (1953) to "Back From Eternity" (1956).)The director is the same and so is the story but, alas, the pace is slower and heavier. In the original, no time was wasted on padding. The actors spoke their lines quickly, as if rushing through them to save a few frames of expensive film stock. This one carries with it a kind of languid lack of energy, as if everyone involved in the production had caught yellow fever. More time is spent on romance and less on practical matters.Further, we get more emphasis on a few of the characters who must explain their current state of disillusion or develop their growing love for one another. It's less of an ensemble movie than the 1939 version. Just two examples. Robert Ryan gets far more screen time than Chester Morris did in the same role. And Gene Barry's role as the spoiled, cowardly, rich drunk is reduced to a few nasty lines.And the evolution of the group's self consciousness is weakened by the absence of a montage in the original, in which we see everyone working happily away at their tasks, laughing and getting to know each other. There is no such animation here, only fatigue.Robert Ryan's part, the pilot, is given greater emphasis but his specialty is doing an impression of a boiler whose valves are closed and which is just about to explode at the seams. And here he more or less walks through the part, unusual for him because of his inherent dynamism. Rod Steiger is more important than Joseph Callaeia in the original too. The old professor is no longer the expert on Jivaro headhunting. Steiger is now the authority. That's fine for Steiger, but it leaves the elderly professor twisting in the wind. Just exactly what the hell does he TEACH anyway? Nobody seems to care.In some ways this film makes more of an impression than the earlier one. The airplane is bigger, for instance, as are Anita Ekberg's bosoms. And it has one or two unforgettable scenes. The beautiful, wooden Phyllis Kirk helping the guys heave the airplane off the ground, tottering in the middle of the Amazon jungle in her chic outfit and high heels. Kirk and Ekberg having a heck of a good time fighting in a studio-bound pool of jungle water, unable to stop from laughing as they wrestle and bat at each other. Come to think of it, any normal man wouldn't mind joining the fight. How about some mud and bikinis in the NEXT remake?