At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

John Garfield's penultimate film was a more faithful adaption of Hemingway's minor novel To Have And Have Not yet ironically the original title had to be changed for reasons that elude me as I have always believed that titles cannot be copyrighted. Be that as it may Garfield turns in a fine performance as Harry Morgan, married this time around and sailing out of California rather than Havana. Phyllis Thaxter is excellent as his world-weary wife and Patrica Neal's whore in all but name complements her perfectly and gets the lion's share of the one-liners. Wallace Ford is suitably oily as the architect of all Morgan's troubles and Juan Hernandez lends sterling support as Morgan's crew-cum-friend.

Harry (John Garfield) is a guy who is having a world of trouble. His fishing charter business is having nothing but bad luck and he's having a hard time supporting his family as well as keeping his boat. He's so desperate that he does something he never thought he'd do--work for mobsters to make some quick money. But these people are thugs and the deeper Harry gets, the harder it looks for him to survive. Can he possibly keep his boat, his family AND his head?This film is a more faithful adaptation of the story that was made several times. First, it was a Bogart/Bacall picture, "To Have and Have Not" and later it was remade two more times as well as was the inspiration, in part, for "Islands in the Stream". So, if this all seems familiar, this is probably why.While the Bogart version is very stylish, I think this later John Garfield film is superior. The dialog (like the original) is very snappy but the film seems more realistic and taut. It also features some nice supporting performances by Juano Hernandez and Wallace Ford. In many ways, the film plays like "To Have and Have Not" merged with "The Killing" as well as "Key Largo". Tough, very dark and very well made--one of Garfield's best because it was NOT formulaic and that final shot by Michael Curtiz was amazingly good.By the way, if you watch the film, you might (like me) think that Patricia Neal's character wasn't necessary for the movie. What do you think?

The Breaking Point cannot properly be called a remake of To Have And Have Not as that classic film was altered to make the story relevant for domestic consumption in wartime America. There was also added the legendary chemistry of Bogey and Bacall in their first film together. Ernest Hemingway did not write that for the movie-going public.The Breaking Point is far more Hemingway and far more realistically done. John Garfield makes a perfect Hemingway hero and the locations along the California coast aren't glamorized in any way. This is a working class locale and the black and white cinematography and wind swept look given by same reflects Garfield and the area he is raising his family in. Garfield plays a World War II veteran who wanted to earn a living on the sea and have Phyllis Thaxter raise their daughters in that coastal location. But business comes in cycles and a bad season finds Garfield owing everyone including the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker. Most of all he owes for fuel and that guy is ready to take the boat for payment. When a charter client stiffs him on the bill, Garfield is forced to make some bad choices to pay his bills and support his family. Providing some of those bad choices is Wallace Ford playing a truly sleazebag shyster living on the Mexican side of the Pacific coast who ostensibly will get you a quickie Mexican divorce, but dabbles in all kinds of illegal fields. Actually I'm being unfair, shysters make bad lawyer jokes about Ford.Providing a little temptation for Garfield is Patricia Neal who is trying very hard for the same Lauren Bacall effect. She's the girlfriend of the client who stiffed Garfield in the first place and she has most original and cynical point of view about life and men.The Breaking Point provides John Garfield with one of his best performances in his next to last film. And he far more fits the Hemingway conception as does the overall film itself.

I didn't think there existed such a movie, but I was wrong, though earlier versions of this same story, Key Largo and To Have and Have Not also were pretty good. Nothing else Hemingway wrote really translated well to the big screen, not The Snows of Kilamanjaro, not For Whom the Bell Tolls, not The Old Man and the Sea, not The Sun Also Rises nor A Farewell to Arms. All movies from those novels are terrible bores in my opinion and if you look them up here in the IMDb, the ratings these movies got bear me out. But this movie with John Garfield playing luckless boat captain Harry Morgan with the two female leads played by Patricia Neal as the likable, attractive, world wise, cynical whore and Phylis Thaxter as his loving but insecure plain wife who loves him more than as she says she could love any other man on this earth were both terrific. So you want to see a really good movie with a story written by Ernest Hemingway and like me, you think no such thing exists? See this movie!