It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This is a very remarkable film. Don't be misled by my rating of 7/10. I'm a harsh grader. On usual accepted critique methods, this is just about an "ultimate" film. Unlike the "safe" movies that people like to think of as "risk taking", this is an ultimate "risk taking" venture. It's obviously too iconoclastic for most of the rich kids on IMDb, safe in their snug cubicles.And i understand the annoyance one would feel with this film. I feel it, too. I like "cut and dry" stories. This film is full of so many loose ends, that in spite of being set in the scenic Pacific ocean on a beautiful ship, it is the exact opposite of "escapism".This is a very adventurous drama for the lack of violence involved. It is a drama, but it is cleverly handled. Take it off the slowly sinking ship in the ocean, and you have a stage fare. The two leads get most of the attention, but all of the characters are explored. Not only are they all very three dimensional and likable, including the bad guy, but they are almost "four dimensional". Each of these roles are mouth watering to any thespian.Whenever you begin with a ship named "Cannibal", you know you're also dealing with symbolism. The symbolism of the written word, of a book I did not read, is far better depicted in this film than one would expect. Perhaps the character of the reverend is the ultimate symbol of Faith. Don't expect the usual hypocrite you see in most movies. Like I said, this is too iconoclastic for anything that obvious. All of the characters have more to them than meets the eye, with the probable exception of our two macho male shipmen, the young captain and his charismatic older helmsman. The world is seen mostly through their honest eyes of hard working men. The older, wiser one has seen it before. The captain is at a stage in life when he thinks he is a cynic, but is still fairly naive about people.Which may be why Hudson was allowed to play the role. On the surface, he appears a mismatch for a role you'd expect Bogie in, or perhaps cast member Kennedy. However, the contrast of not being what one appears was set in our director's mind. He could easily have added scars, whiskers, and pot marks to our captain, but it was on purpose that we see the glamorous duo of our two gorgeous leads feel like they appear rugged, while all the time being untainted by the world. To their credit, they do a great job of conveying this feeling. One looks and sees Rock Hudson in a role that doesn't become him, but that's because the role doesn't become the character. He is a clean soul being put through the wringer of an unclean world.There is a sad scene which is designed to make strong men cry and women gasp. It is very effective. But then this entire film is very effective.So why do I only rate it 7/10? Honestly, I like the "cut and dry" escapism, and would rather see all the facts be known. But this is a "reality" piece. Perhaps I am not strong enough for complete reality. For instance, our hero is left dangling about the truth over whom to trust, and puts it in Faith to trust the right person. This is very realistic, but it is totally annoying to watch, when we are bursting to have it be known.But that's why it is not revealed to our character. There are many other examples of "loose ends", such as a former airman never confronting a braggart who falsely claims to be an ex-pilot. It is never brought up again.A few loose ends I could handle, but this is stark reality. There are many loose ends. This is a "mature" piece, designed to help us "mature" into serenity.This is why I set it down one notch, out of my own desire for escapism. The film does what it sets out to do. The directing is excellent.I do set it down two notches for the ending, which I did not buy. Our hero makes a huge, needless sacrifice, which is meant to be attributed to his idealism, but which leaves him pretty much penniless, which is a condition he'll stay in while he waits for a date two years later with the heroine. I felt it didn't belong in this realistic piece, and while I could forgive the "letdown" ending as part of realism, this was a Hollywood ending that just added to the annoyance.Still, because of its iconoclastic nature of escapist scenery mixed with realism few could endure, I highly recommend this piece. It is a showcase for directing, writing, and cinema. Viewed alone, or with others, this is a very remarkable work.

I generally concur with the assessments of this movie. I had read "Twilight for the Gods" (It is a great title.) many years ago and enjoyed it immensely. As he had in "The High and the Mighty" and "Island in the Sky," its author, Ernst K. Gann, once again threw together a group of disparate individuals into a life-threatening situation (this time on a leaky old barquentine called the "Cannibal") to see how they would handle themselves. It made for compelling and often suspenseful reading.Alas, even with a surprisingly faithful screen adaptation (Gann himself wrote the screenplay), the final product is generally flat and offers very little in the way of excitement. This may owe to the fact that much of the suspense in the book arises from conflicts and motivations that are internalized. While this works well on the printed page, it is difficult to convey on the screen. Close-ups of contorted faces cannot say enough, while the alternative technique, a steady stream of voice-overs can only confuse, if not annoy, the viewer. What we are left with, then, is a group of people, most of whom have been drawn too sketchily to evoke any sympathy, surviving a crisis through no apparent effort of their own. I tend to agree with the writer who has suggested that Arthur Kennedy would have been a better choice to play Captain Bell. He just seems older and more worldly-wise (and closer in age and appearance to the main character in the book) than Rock Hudson who, though not a bad actor, was just too pretty for a man who had been described as fortyish, balding, scarred down the left cheek, and one who is supposed to have spent most of his life at sea.That said, I can't help but like this movie. The color is gorgeous, particularly noticeable in the island scenes which make you want to retire and move out to an equally beautiful south sea paradise. The long shots, showing the barquentine's majestic profile, silhouetted against a blazing sunset and skimming along the waves as graceful as a swan, beckon you to sign up as first mate. Even the studio shots of the "Cannibal" during the storm are effective enough, showing the ship's rolling and yawing without having the characters standing fully erect on a perfectly horizontal deck during the close-ups, as is sometimes the case in movies of this sort.Best of all, there are the two stars. Rock Hudson, although not the best choice for his the role of the captain, does offer up another generous helping of his on-screen charisma. Then there is Cyd Charisse, one of the loveliest ladies ever to grace the silver screen, as the mysterious Mrs. King. Outside of her "Broadway Melody" number with Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain" and the "Girl Hunt" ballet with Fred Astaire in "The Band Wagon," she has never been sexier. Her movements are like those of a panther, slow, calculated, and deliberate, while her voice is a veritable purr. What red-blooded male could possibly resist a few days on an old rustbucket like the "Cannibal" when you have such beautiful eye candy for company (and in your corner, to boot)?"Twilight for the Gods" is not for all tastes and will let down many viewers. But it's not a bad movie, even if it isn't a very good one either. If your expectations are not too high and you just want to veg out and relax, you could do a lot worse than invest the 120 minutes required to watch it.

Didn't find it to be that terribly bad...my question is...is this film on video tape anywhere...TNT showed it some years back and since they have changed their format, it's not been seen since...I thought Hudson being an arrogant type was a nice change, not that romantic role that he would settle into. Kennedy as usual was good but I wonder if some weren't happy with Hudson in the lead, apart from Kennedy, who would you have picked to play the role of the Captain and the mate? Hudson would be relegated to the role of hero in years to come apart from his role in "Pretty Maids in A Row" but his role in "Twilight for the Gods"? Pretty darn good.

I guess Universal was trying to give their own Rock Hudson (a recent Oscar nominee for GIANT) a bit of a stretch. I've read the Ernest K. Gann book, and the potential was here for a good film. But in fact Arthur Kennedy would have done better as the irascible captain, while Hudson would have been better cast as the first mate. This disastrous swap squanders the promise of a well-written (Gann himself) film with a decent veteran director (Pevney).