HotToastyRag I thought A High Wind in Jamaica was going to be a family-friendly adventure movie because of the premise. Five children are sent on a ship to England to get a proper education, but in the middle of the voyage, a band of pirates hijacks the ship. Anthony Quinn and James Coburn are the two main pirates, and if you can guess which one is stern and which one has a soft spot in his heart for the kids, then give yourself a gold star and feel free to skip the movie. As you'd expect, Anthony Quinn is very good as a ruffian with a heart of gold, and his tender scenes with the children, Deborah Baxter in particular, almost make the movie worth watching. The main problem with it is it's a pretty sad, adult drama that happens to have some kids among the cast. There is very little humor in the script, and the situations Deborah and her siblings find themselves in are far heavier than they should be. A High Wind in Jamaica is not one of those sweet Disney flicks like Treasure Island that came out in the 1950s and 1960s. If you really want to watch this one, just know you've been warned.

JohnHowardReid Westrex sound System. Associate producers: Clifford Parkes, Tom Pevsner. Producer: John Croydon. Copyright 25 May 1965 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Capitol: 16 June 1965. U.S. release: 25 May 1965. U.K. release: June 1965. Sydney opening at the Embassy. 9,257 feet. 103 minutes.SYNOPSIS: In 1870 when a ferocious hurricane finally thrashes itself out of the island of Jamaica, Frederick (Nigel Davenport) and Mrs Thornton (Isabel Dean) decide that their five children must be sent to England for an education. They feel that their children's personalities are being effected by the primitive pagan beliefs of the islanders. The Thornton children, along with two Creole youngsters, are entrusted to Captain Marpole (Kenneth J. Warren), whose schooner is sailing for England. A few days out of port, their ship is attacked by a pirate schooner under the command of Chavez (Anthony Quinn), a strange, morose man who is finding it increasingly difficult to stay ahead of the new steam-powered warships and merchant vessels. Chavez dreams of owning a farm, while his first mate, Zac (James Coburn), wants to open a gambling casino in Tampico. The children are taken aboard as part of the booty, and soon they adjust to their bizarre new surroundings. They have been raised with the superficial manners of proper English children in a country dominated by black magic and superstition, and are not surprised by weird contrasts and illogical actions. Unable to perceive the horrible reality of their situation, they are soon terrorizing the pirates with their madcap pranks and juvenile cabals.NOTES: Although the producer claims that his writers never had access to it, a stage adaptation of the Hughes novel opened at Broadway's Belasco Theatre on 15 November 1943. Entitled "The Innocent Voyage". the play was scripted and directed by Paul Osborn. The cast included Oscar Homolka, Herbert Berghof, Dean Stockwell, Guy Stockwell, Abby Bonime, Lois Wheeler and Clarence Derwent. This "dramatic triumph... distinguished in every way" (New York World- Telegram), closed after only 40 performances.COMMENT: A sort of "Lord of the Flies" in reverse, this bizarre tale makes for exciting, if horrifying, viewing. Director Mackendrick is as usual, a whiz with children, but he's also a sufficiently imaginative and skilled artist to bring home the terrible "message" of the book with unerring force. A wholly engrossing piece of film- making, the movie's hypnotic fascination is aided by superb performances, a highly-charged script and the gripping atmosphere provided by the real locations and the meticulously in-period reconstructions.In fact, it's a tribute to the producer's taste and acumen that Hughes' off-beat, if classic novel has been transferred to the screen with such fidelity and power. Quinn gives one of his most convincing portrayals, never once faltering or relaxing his hold on what is actually an extremely difficult role.

vlevensonnd-1 I saw this movie as a child and it had made such an impact on me that I never forgot it, or the haunting theme song. I'd long since forgotten the title, so I was utterly thrilled when I happened to turn the AMC channel on and they were playing it - 30+ years after it was in theaters! It wasn't until after the two main actors passed away that this movie was FINALLY released to the public - around 40 years AFTER it was made. I do not know if it was due to some rights conflict, or that maybe they didn't want it released due to the original story that dealt with a very 'inappropriate relationship' between the child-character Emily, and the Captain. This relationship is displayed far more subtly in the movie, most likely to make it a bit more family-friendly, however, the book was far from being a family-friendly novel. The book and movie are thankfully and EXTREMELY different in demeanor and focus. The author's focus appeared to be more with a notion of an innate evil within children, where he presents them as being cunning, manipulative, knowledge-filled, demon-like creatures, rather then innocent-minded youths. A couple of examples of the differences in demeanor between the book and the movie; In the book, it is the Captains right-hand man, Zac, who takes the eldest dark-haired girl by brutal force and keeps her as his - uh - female. When she becomes a lifeless, emotionless shell, he simply throws her overboard into the sea. In the movie, it is the girl who takes notice to a crew member and no one is taken by force or repeatedly raped or thrown to the sharks. At the end of the movie, Emily is confused by what occurred on board with the battle they were involved with, where the other ships Captain was murdered in Captain Chavez's quarters, where Emily was. She very innocently, grievously, and mistakenly says something that sends her beloved Captain, and his crew, to the gallows. In the book, she did it on purpose with malicious intent. It's like two completely different stories.I would much rather watch this wonderful and exciting movie, then to ever again read the dark novel that this came from. The acting is completely superb, even among the children. I have watched it several times and I will again.

mmarshal I saw this fantastic movie for the first and only time as a child in a theater when it was first released in 1965. Since then, I've hoped to see it again and share it with others, but it is not available for viewing anywhere. Repeat, ANYWHERE. It never appears on American TV (I've checked, there are several web sources one can use to track whether specific movies are scheduled to run, and I've never seen any of them showing High Wind appearing on any North American station. In fact, the only time any of theses sources showed it being broadcast anywhere was once, on a network in Japan back in 1988). It has never been re-released for theatrical showings, and it has never been released on video. I even regularly check eBay to see if a "black market" copy might be available, but none have ever shown up.Mt gut tells me the reason for this is likely the usual in these sorts situations: some endless (and meaningless) copyright dispute. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is, I wish the opposing parties would wake up and realize that (a) this release -- as great as it is -- is too old and unknown to be a big future money maker for anybody, and (b) that whatever that income might be, because of their arguing neither of them is making ANY money of this film.A great movie, but one lost, in all likelihood because of greed. What a shame.