Androcles and the Lion (1952)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Whatever the reverse of deja vu is you'll find it here inasmuch as three of the cast played similar roles in similar films within a year of two of this one. John Hoyt went on to play Decius Brutus in Mank's Julius Caesar whilst Jean Simmons played an almost identical role to the one here in The Robe in which Victor Mature also appeared. Other than that there is little remarkable in this fairly affable adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's satire on early Christianity written, as the majority of Shaw's work, for the theatre. Alan Young makes a decent fist of the eponymous Androcles and though he played a couple more leads his career faded within the decade. Jean Simmons made her US debut here and went on to enjoy several decades of success whilst most of Victor Mature's best work (Kiss Of Death, Easy Living, was behind him. Worth seeing but not worth buying the DVD.

In reference to a previous comment, the Lion's name, Tommy, comes from the original text of Shaw's play at the end of Act II. Androcles also talks baby talk to the Lion while he is removing the thorn from his paw in the Prologue (or first scene) of the play. Also I think Victor Mature does a pretty good job as the Captain, although some might be put off by the clash of his accent and acting style with the rest of the mostly British cast. However, Mature's style is well suited to the no-nonsense, pragmatic officer trying desperately to save the patrician Lavinia from being sacrificed in the arena. He tells her to lie and recant her Christian beliefs if that is what it takes to save her life; then she can go home and believe whatever she wants. Mature's less polished acting style underscores his amoral pragmatism as well as his worldly desire for Lavinia. He is her temptation, her incentive the deny her faith. That she resists this demonstrates her dedication to her religion.

I remember this movie fondly as a very young child. The reviewer may have seen this film many years later, but at the time, it was a believable and wonderful film to watch. I was moved to tears (believe it or not) by the plot and the main character (Alan Young) who later took the role he was most famous for opposite that stupid horse on Mr. Ed. The film, however, is the thing I remember and will always hold close to my heart. It's really too bad that the nice bubbles we hold close get burst so easily by people how have no clue they are even doing such a disservice. It's OK though. It's why I don't read or listen to reviews and I will continue to avoid them in the future.

This 1952 film was the first film version of a George Bernard Shaw play produced after the playwright's death, and the compromises are already obvious.Shaw had had artistic control over three films produced from his plays-- the 1938 "Pygmalion", "Major Barbara" (1941) and "Caesar and Cleopatra" (1945), and his influence had clearly been felt, some would say for both good and bad. He had had absolute final say-so over the casting, and, after his experience with "Pygmalion", Shaw became somewhat more demanding and insisted that not a word be cut from both "Major Barbara" and "Caesar and Cleopatra", a decision that resulted in both of these excellent films being flops. "Androcles and the Lion" clocks in at less than two hours.The casting suffers without Shaw's influence. Because this is an RKO release directed by Chester Erskine, a not especially distinguished American director, the cast features two American actors in major roles, and the clash between their style of acting, and that of the British actors who HAVE had experience with Shaw, is apparent. Some other American actors can be seen in bit roles.In a blatant effort to court the average movie audience who wouldn't recognize a Shaw play if it hit them in the face, movie hunk Victor Mature (yes, the very same actor who appeared in "The Robe" and "Samson and Delilah") is cast in the somewhat demanding role of a Roman captain trying to understand the Christian martyrs. An actor like James Mason or Stewart Granger might have been perfect and would have had the necessary acting ability, but Mature, although apparently trying hard, comes close to wrecking the film and destroying its Shavian flavor. And he gets second billing!Alan Young, whom most people will remember as Wilbur from the "Mr.Ed" TV series, is also American, but is a far better actor than Mature, and although his style sometimes seems as if it straight out of a sitcom rather than a Shaw play, Young does quite a good job in the all-important lead role of Androcles. But was it the Hollywood adaptors, or is it REALLY Shaw who gave the lion the endearing name of "Tommy"? Or is that just another sop to the movie-going crowd who loves animals with cute names?The rest of the cast is just fine--Jean Simmons excellent, and not syrupy, as a devout woman willing to face martyrdom in the arena, Robert Newton, hilarious as a hulking strongman converted to Christianity who can barely be kept from singlehandedly demolishing his enemies, Noel Willman, Elsa Lanchester in the brief role of Androcles' wife, and, in his best screen performance, Maurice Evans (Dr. Zaius in the 1968 "Planet of the Apes") as the Roman emperor. They make this film exactly what it should be.