mikevonbach But what is not usually gone into is the other side of the coin. China was not well governed for the bulk of the population. In fact, in the 1850s and 1860s there was a long and bloody Civil War (The Taiping Rebellion) that was to make an international figure out of the British General who finally put it down (Charles George "Chinese" Gordon). The reason for the rebellion was partly religious, but it was also partly economic - the peasantry was tired supporting the Manchu Court in Beijing (the Peking of the movie title). A succession of weak emperors were plaguing the country, who were manipulated by Tzu - Hsi (one of the most unscrupulous monarchs in history). Tzu - Hsi would basically control the Chinese Government from 1860 to 1908, when she died. Her idea of government responsibility is illustrated by a famous act of selfishness she performed. When China's navy was trounced in the Sino - Japanese War of 1894 (Japan had a modern navy), it was decided to use tax money to build up the Chinese navy to compete with Japan again. The Dowager Empress agreed - she took the money earmarked for battleships, and built a super battleship. Only it was made of marble, in the shape of a battleship, and was put on land as a summer palace. It is still standing as a tourist attraction.Humiliations were not only done by Europeans, Americans, and Japanese. If you recall the geography lesson scene in THE KING AND I, the children are unconvinced about the small size of Siam as opposed to China. The Crown Prince points out that China can't be that big - it's monarchy is considered weak, while Siam's is strong. Well, in this period, Siam (Thailand) also had managed to get some territory back from China - and to become rather important in the area of southeast Asia. This would not have been the case in the 17th or 18th Centuries.In 1900 the Chinese finally exploded. The people had been forming para- military groups in the late 1890s (in the wake of the defeat by Japan) which were ultra-Nationalist, fervently anti-foreign, and fervently in favor of Chinese religious beliefs over Christian. The Dowager Empress realized that it would be advantageous to her to let these energies be expanded towards the foreigners: it would keep these people looking too closely at her misrule. Without officially countenancing these groups (called "Boxers" because their translated

arminhage Seeing the movie in 21 century, at first glance the production seems to be very good considering there was no CG at the time so they had to construct the whole stage. They did a good job as other epics of the same period but the positive aspect of the movie ends there.Aside from the fact that we see obvious white actors poorly made up to look like Chinese, the screenplay lacks the slightest dramatic factor to incite any emotion in audience as a result, watching this long movie to the end in one session would be a torture! Obviously Matt Lewis (Heston) is the hero but what's likely about him besides being played by Charlton Heston? Nothing. He is an American marine who is where he shouldn't be and is defending a wrong cause. They are occupational forces who humiliated Chinese and try to extend their influence in their land. So what's likely about about him? What's the difference between him and a WWII Wermacht major in Russia? I guess the difference is winning and losing otherwise there is no difference in action. The loser would be evilized and the winner would be patronized but at the end, there is no difference between them. The support would be Arthur Robertson (Niven) who's rudely after realizing the imperialist agenda of British Government and since the movie is from British point of view, he leads the pack of other diplomats. The love is Baroness Ivanoff (Gardner) which her cheesy affair with Lewis is flat and boring as there is no chemistry between them.It was tried to depict the Boxer Rebellion at the dawn of 20th century on big screen. They failed to deliver an epic valuable work as the story was conceived on grossly arrogant and misleading British point of view. It could be tolerable to some degree if there was a good underlying love story which never was.It was a awful movie, not only it failed to faithfully picture the Boxer Rebellion but it is extremely boring and worst that it is an insult to Chinese people. Where they Killed thousands of Boxers but when a captain got shot, Lewis in the field hospital says "What are we doing here? Was it worth it?" or something like that as all those Chinese were dogs and the lost life of a captain was of great value. Really disgusting movie.

dmuel Heston, Gardner and Niven star in film about China's historic Boxer Rebellion and the subsequent siege of the foreign legation section of Peking (now Beijing). Filmed in an era when Hollywood was awash in epics, the most successful of which was the previous year's Lawrence of Arabia, the movie seeks to add human drama to a tragic time in the intersection of Western Colonialism and Chinese history. Epics were conspicuous in Hollywood fare for nearly another 10 years, but this one is quite mediocre, at best. Naturally, the story is told mostly from the view of Western colonialists, and conveniently omits some of the savagery that accompanied the Western 8-nation relief force, which included murder, rape and pillaging. This is not to excuse the Boxers themselves, who were also very brutal, but there were atrocities on both sides. The fictional human drama of the story tries to capture passion, romance and tragedy, but it falls flat, with no chemistry between Heston and Gardner. Heston is particularly wooden in his romantic performance. There is also a peculiar plot element added, that of a pretty young Chinese child who seems mysteriously drawn to the strong, wooden soldier Heston, but no real connection between her and the Western military man is ever satisfactorily established. Niven and several other characters seem to exist merely to give the story an international flair. The Chinese are not cast in a favorable light, though it was the Chinese who bore the brunt of Boxer savagery. The Dowager Empress, Cixi, is portrayed by a Western actress--typical of that era of film making--and is calculating and cruel. Some of the "Chinese" music and singing we hear in the film sounds more like the contrived chants from an Indiana Jones movie, to induce, one assumes, a more "exotic" mood. The Chinese generally in the movie have a role not substantially different from that of the Indians in your typical 1950's or 60's wild-west movie. Any attempt to give a realistic depiction of the historical complexity of this event were sacrificed in favor of clichéd Hollywood drama.

keveen2 The detail in this film are reasonably accurate. It starts out well and develops quite believably until it gets to the rebellion itself. At this point it becomes a cowboys and Indians movie - good white guys versus anonymous Chinese who are mowed down in familiar Hollywood fashion. David Niven is made to babble on about benign Western motivations which are in complete contradiction to the reasons why they are all there in the first place. So the usual Hollywood muddle that doesn't add up. However it is worth watching and is well made. All the acting is good and although its white men and women pretending to be the important Chinese they do it without being silly or ridiculous. It doesn't offer any insights but its worth watching. The emotional quieter scenes are just padding, not convincing.