MovieChat Forums > El Cid (1961) Discussion > Why isn't this film more well known/reme...

Why isn't this film more well known/remembered?

posted 11 years ago by IndianaMcClane
17 replies | jump to latest

I've been in an epic film mood lately, and while watching this again I showed it to my father who while a big fan of the genre (he's the one who introduced me to all of the other films I bring up in this post) and Charlton Heston as an actor had actually never seen it before. And it just got me to wondering on why this hasn't become considered a big well known classic to many up to now like "The Ten Commandments", "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus", "Lawrence of Arabia", and "Doctor Zhivago" that all came out around the same time period. (Mid 50's - Mid 60's, Hollywood's Golden Age of large scale epic films) It's strange because I thought I had heard it was a hit in theaters, it has a very famous and popular lead, and to most who I have encountered who have actually seen it (usually in the online community) seem to love it. (I and many others I have talked with about the film have all even held it in the same esteem as those other films. Even Director Martin Scorcese considers it one of his favorite films.) What's kept it so obscure? I mean even compare the number of votes all these films have gotten on IMDB, not even half (heck, not even a quarter) as many votes as any of them.

El Cid: 7,033

The Ten Commandments: 34,063
Ben-Hur: 102,124
Spartacus: 74,799
Lawrence of Arabia: 125,564
Doctor Zhivago: 45,637

I'm just curious as to what others think of this, and to speculate (unless they ouright know) why they figure this occurs. I'm just pretty disappointed with how underrated this film is.

[–] turtletommy 11 years ago

I think one reason may be that for years until a restoration in 1993 led by Martin Scorsese the film didn't look good, the music track was in mono and was restored to its original 6-track stereo, and I recall reading that some missing scenes or parts of scenes were reinserted which gave better clarity to the storyline. I saw it in 70mm in Seattle in 1993. Here's a preview write-up about it at the time by Seattle Times film critic John Hartl: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930822&; slug=1717098.

I've read that noted film archivist Robert Harris wasn't too thrilled with the 2008 2-disc DVD "restoration" but I think it's fine.

Also, El Cid the character and the Spanish 12th Century period depicted wasn't as well known to audiences as Christ and the Romans in Judea. El Cid would be compared to Ben-Hur and its immense success and come up short to audiences, unfair or not.

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

That looks well informed, and believeable as an explanation. Though as I said before it's still quite a shame that circumstances turned out that way. Thanks for the information.

Though for the record while I still think "Ben-Hur" is a fantastic movie I've actually come to prefer "El Cid" to it.

[–] turtletommy 11 years ago

You're welcome. Though it has its passionate fans El Cid does seem to get overlooked, especially compared to the other big cast of thousands epics. I'm with you on Ben-Hur, it's a fantastic movie and one of my favorites but maybe because I've seen it so many times and hadn't seen El Cid a second time since 1993 that I was ripe for a new epic experience. Somehow that 1993 viewing didn't light a spark for it until I bought the 2008 DVD release. It's never shown on TV. I'm perplexed a bit on why it didn't make more of an impression on me then. Guess I wasn't receptive yet I don't know. At any rate now I just love watching it and I bought the soundtrack CD and think Rozsa's work on that is a toss-up with his more well-known Ben-Hur score. The film's time period and politics is interesting to me as well. Anyway, they just don't make 'em like this any more- a pity.

[–] debtfull 9 years ago

Seems like it would be especially topical these days.

[–] jstang411 9 years ago

Great info on the votes to bolster a very good point to start with.

People have said there were corporate problems up top with the distribution company. Given that the only way to get it for years was via pirated versions.....makes sense to me.

And that is sad. What a movie.

[–] bardmore 8 years ago

What a movie is right! I was 12 when I saw it in 1961 and was completely swept away. After all these years I still think it is a sweeping, moving work. Okay, some of the dialogue is occasionally stilted, and a few scenes overly choreographed --- notably the entry of the king and family into the court early on, the crowds outside the place where Cid and Chi have just had a go of it. But some scenes are fantastic --- the forcing of John Fraser to swear is searingly dramatic. And who could ever forget the spine-tingling scene of the dead Cid riding out, with the sun gleaming on him and Rozsa's glorious score pealing? And special mention to the fantastic Genevieve Page, who stole every scene she was in.

[–] turtletommy 8 years ago

The entry of the king and family is one of my favorite parts of the movie- each gets a grand introduction (and yes a choreographed pose lol) and the music is superb. Despite the farfetched notion of a huge army of hundreds (and their horses) keeping quiet enough outside the stable to pull a surprise it's still a stirring scene underscored once again by Rozsa's magnificent march music. "For Spain!!!"

Page didn't have enough screen time she indeed stole every scene.

[–] movie80 9 years ago

IndianaMcClane
Why isn't this film more well known/remembered?

I wasn't even aware this movie existed. Will borrow from the library.
Thank you for posting.

[–] IndianaMcClane 9 years ago

Hope you enjoy/ed it! 

[–] movie80 9 years ago

Finished watching the 1st time, will have to watch again.
Yes this movie is great.
It is a high caliber work, somehow I had not heard of it before (I knew the story El Cid).

It was filmed long time ago, no CGI then, so they must have hired a lot of extras to play the soldiers?

Sophia Loren was very beautiful in this movie.
Charlton Heston was at his best, too.

[–] Condottiero 9 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054847/faq

One of the charms of these old epics, lost with Total War style CGI, was the employment of army personnel.😞 Most of these movies, set in pre-modern times, had battles involving troops marching in blocks, so no need to train someone used to parade ground maneuvers and each man interacted realistically with his surroundings than any CGI rendered figure.

[–] blgoldston-30432 8 years ago

Heston had just appeared in and won the Oscar for Ben Hur, and it wasn't' that long before that he had made his mark in the Ten Commandments. I think that when EC came out there might have been some "Heston Epic" fatigue going on. Additionally, IMO but not shared by everyone, EC was not BH. People inevitably chose between the 2 and, like me, most at the time preferred BH.
Frankly I've see ED several times, though never at the theater, and I've just never cared much for it.

[–] ccr1633 8 years ago

blgoldston-30432 wrote:

Frankly I've see ED several times, though never at the theater, and I've just never cared much for it.

Nobody much cares for erectile dysfunction. It's fortunate that you never experience it at the theater, where I, too, most desire a raging hard on.

[–] MetalgearSldSnk 8 years ago

It's just not that good of a film. It's solid, but it's nothing to go crazy over. Ben-Hur was just amazing in contrast.

El Cid isn't a bad movie, but I wouldn't consider it a classic. It's just a solid movie, really.

Also, other than the names and figures, there really is no feeling that they are in Spain. The film would've been a lot better if the actors were Spaniards/Latinos/whatever who spoke Spanish. Just doesn't feel at all authentic. The soundtrack is also very loud and obnoxious.

I didn't care for Loren's performance. She just didn't do anything that well. Heston gives a solid performance, but as I said, nothing felt authentic at all. Film would've been so much better if they tried for authenticity instead. I think that would've pushed it towards a classic because the story is great.

This is one of those films that I think deserves a remake.

[–] Searcher229 (16) 2 years ago

Agreed - it was the fourth highest grossing film of 1961, but I think that was due in great part to the fact that epic films were at their peak of popularity, and it was Heston's follow up to "Ben-Hur". Had this film been released a few years later, it might very well have met the fate of Samuel Bronston's subsequent epics like "55 Days at Peking" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire".

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PaladinNJ (20373) 4 years ago

A lot of the modern generation believe that good films didn't exist before they were born.