source: The Defiant Ones

... but no Charlie Potatoes: like the races they represent, two escaped cons battle through the swamps, and their prejudice, to demonstrate there's so much more to who we are than the colour of our skin. Sydney Poitier and Tony Curtis are outstanding!

When I first saw it I wrote in my diary: "Contrived stuff, but entertaining." Ten years later: "The movie has serious flaws. The whole idea of having a black and white man chained to each other, is silly and unconvincing, particularly when they physically fright each other. The movie's most serious flaw is the long initial scene in which policemen and detectives roam around aimlessly and discuss trivial stuff. The plot should have concentrated entirely on the fugitives and the people they encounter. The police need not be shown to make the movie dramatic. Another flaw is the casting. Neither Curtis nor Poitier look like criminals. Hollywood is too insecure to pick unknowns. They have to go for that sure thing, the big star.

When the truck that is transporting convicts has an accident on the road, the inmates John "Joker" Jackson (Tony Curtis) and Noah Cullen (Sidney Poitier) that are chained to each other escape. They hate each other but they need to help each other to succeed in their intent of going north to jump in a train and reach freedom. Meanwhile the humane Sheriff Max Muller (Theodore Bikel) organizes a posse to track them down in a civilized manner and respecting justice. Joker and Cullen reach a small farm where a lonely woman helps them to get rid of their chains. She offers to driver her car with Joker and her son Billy while Cullen would escape through the swamp to the railroad. But when Joker learns that she sent Cullen to a trap, he leaves her and is shot in the shoulder by Billy. Joker seeks out Cullen to save him and when they meet each other, their former hatred has changed to friendship and respect. "The Defiant Ones" is an unforgettable anti-racism classic when the United States were openly racist. Stanley Kramer is responsible for two of the best anti-racism movies, "The Defiant Ones" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", both with Sidney Poitier. Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier have memorable performances. I would like to know how the reception of this movie from the audiences in 1958 was. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Acorrentados" ("Chained")

Proof that Stanley Kramer's decision to idealise the Sidney Poitier character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" was a conscious, thought-out move (some would say it was a mistake for all that, but that's another matter), and not a cowardly or patronising one. Poitier's convict here has streaks of nobility - Curtis's does too - but the aggression for which he was jailed is real enough. For the first half, everything is firmly screwed in place: the black and the white convict chained together, the local volunteers tracking them down, the humane sheriff trying to keep his forces in check. Things started to shake themselves loose when the woman makes an entrance. The story had worked well so long as the two convicts were estranged from civilisation, with only each other to fall back on, and it might have continued to work, if the woman had been interesting in some other way than as a plot device. In fact things got better again as soon as she vanished from the screen. Solid and intelligent, but the other well-known Kramer films, considered as films, are better.

I imagine when this came out in 1958 it was groundbreaking. However watching this 50 years later it is terribly outdated. The plot is mediocre, the acting is wooden and atrocious, and you don't really get to care about these two men. I have seen this done better. In fact this is probably one of Sidney Sidney Poitier's worst movies. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone in particular. There is so much that could have been done better with this starting with a better script. What's worse is the fact this received so many Oscar wins (2) and nominations (9). I can't believe that it won best screen story especially. I mean really? Really? The script is really bad. I guess if you saw this when it came out you would have loved it, but it really doesn't hold up at all.

The brilliant performances of Poitier and Curtis highlight this incredible film from the great Stanley Kramer. In the finest role of his career, Curtis shines especially as the man forced to fight for survival, not only from the law, but from Poitier, who is his enemy simply because of the color of his screen. Through their fight for survival, an unlikely kinship develops. Bikel and Williams are also wonderful in key supporting roles, as is Lon Chaney Jr.

There is this story going around that Robert Mitchum refused the part Tony Curtis eventually played because he did not want to work with a black man. The actual story is that Mitchum who did spend time on a southern chain gang said there was no way that back in the day a black and white man would have been chained together in the first place. In fact Stanley Kramer must have taken the critique in stride because sheriff Theodore Bikel has a line of explanation saying the warden had a sense of humor. Though the film dates a bit, it's still quite dramatic even now. Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier chained together have an unplanned jail break while being transported. Curtis has all the attitudes typical of his time and Poitier doesn't take nothing off anybody. Still joined at the hip as they are, they do need each other and find eventually there's more that unites than divides them. Besides Theodore Bikel in a strange role for him as a laconic southern sheriff, look for good performances from Lon Chaney, Jr. who runs a turpentine work camp who saves Curtis and Poitier from a lynching and Cara Williams as a trampy white trash farm lady whose needs haven't been met for a while. Tony Curtis in an incredible act of generosity insisted on equal billing for Sidney Poitier since due to the nature of the film, they are on screen together for most of it. That act of generosity may have cost him an Oscar for both he and Poitier were nominated for Best Actor, but lost to David Niven for Separate Tables. An act that rankles Tony Curtis to this day because at the drop of a hat he will insist Niven got 'his' Oscar. Despite the sour grapes, The Defiant Ones though dated is still a good bit of cinema.

In the deep South a car transporting prisoners to jail crashes. Most of the prisoners live but two escape--John Jackson (Tony Curtis) and Noah Cullen (Sidney Poitier). They're also chained to each other. Naturally they hate each other but (sigh) slowly learn to respect and care for each other. What a dated movie. Seriously--THIS won a Best Screenplay Oscar? I find it hard to believe that even in 1958 this was considered daring. The talks and insights are thoroughly predictable and I actually rolled my eyes a few time at how obvious this was getting. Also there are glaring lapses in continuity---after Jackson and Cullen are caught in a raging river AND running through the rain, Jackson's cigarettes AND matches are completely dry and we get to watch him smoke nonstop. To make matters worse they run into a woman (Cara Williams) at the end and the film comes to a screeching halt (and it was already slow to begin with!). On the plus side--the acting was great. Curtis and Poitier play well off each other and make their change from hatred to caring seem realistic. Also it was fun to see Lon Chaney in a rare dramatic role and he was great! It was well directed by Stanley Kramer and won a well-deserved Oscar for cinematography. But, all in all, I found this boring, heavy-handed and slow-moving. Time is not kind to all movies and this is proof positive of that! I give it a 5.

I sometimes like to watch a "classic" that I have never seen before. I was fully expecting to see a great film, based on the Oscars and the actors. What I received was a reminder that Oscars are given primarily for bold moves in the film industry (now no longer bold) and acting has come a long way since the 50s. I don't normally "bash" on the classics, but I certainly did not get half of what I was expecting. Here are some painful points: All of the actors and actresses seemed very rigid, like they were trying to hit some sort of queue mark -- save Sidney at moments and the gentleman that saved them from the mob. - Sidney's singing was very annoying (I knew that he was trying to show his defiance, but it was so annoying and without feeling it diminished the point). Everyone was quick to light up a cancer-stick. We're drowned, beat up, dogs on our tail - but hey, lets act cool right now and make it a point to have a puff or two before we say some really deep lines to each other. Guy with dogs seriously overacted - I've never seen anyone try to pet a dog so fast and hard. He was harder on the dogs than the hunt was. Sheriff was totally unbelievable. Would pause at odd times and I had to wonder if I had ever met anyone so lethargic before. Cara Wiliams had the best part of all - play a mother that throws her kid away while throwing herself at some con that walks into your house. - duh. Here are some good points: Seeing a much younger Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier was kinda neat. The racial animosity/tolerance thing. I can imagine that, for its time, this was a very bold move. While both overdone and underdone at times, it still serves us a reminder that people are people and we should try and forget the stereotypes we create. -- (it was this that got me to the end of the movie). You will better appreciate films being created today even the two stars :)