MisterWhiplash Stanley Kramer was never really known for his subtlety, which is why it's good to say that in the case of Ship of Fools he did cast a few people to try and convey some moments and emotions that weren't as big and decidedly un-subtle as in Judgment at Nuremburg or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I'm not saying that being brash and overly dramatic with the story's message is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, and with Nuremburg it worked (in Dinner it just didn't for me). But with Ship of Fools what works is that it's like changing the channels between about seven or eight channels with each one having different characters in the same time period, so if one channel starts to drag a little it can flip to another and it might be more interesting or compelling.The film doesn't have a strong story, which is both to its benefit and detriment. If there was something that was at the core that this was all working or building towards (I'm not saying it needed an iceberg or some contrivance, just some goal or spine), then you could follow these characters with this or that. But it's all about just the context of the people on the boat and the time period: 1933 on a ship going from Mexico to Europe, transporting Spaniards who were working in Mexico and now returning home, and mostly Germans and some Americans (i.e. Lee Marvin) and there is the whole 'upstairs downstairs' aspect. The white people, mostly, get the better level while the Spanish don't, but they end up mingling together for various reasons, such as there's a dancing scene at dinner one night that really is mind-blowing and the most entertaining part of the film, and there's a woman who becomes kind of a prostitute on the ship.There's a wide array of Characters with a capital C, and some of them really *mean* things while others maybe not so much. Vivien Leigh is the (just slightly) older woman who was once probably to die for and now time has sort of passed her by from her jazz days; the Southern boozer (Marvin) who doesn't get why Jews are put down by the Germans but can't help but drop n****er a few times without even seeming to notice; Oskar Werner is a doctor who becomes a sort of friend to Simone Signoret (I say sort of since it unfolds into what may be a romance for him, and for her is more mysterious); and George Segal is an artist who can't seem to really make a living at that job since he works for money elsewhere, and Elizabeth Ashley as his flustered would-be lover.I may have neglected to mention some of the German characters, of which there are many, including a dwarf, one of the more interesting people in the movie who sort of opens the film with a 4th-wall breaking moment (not really to repeat itself, and I wish either Kramer had more of it or dropped it altogether as it's unnecessary). The main message is pretty clear: when you throw together this group of people, especially when it's Germans in 1933 right as Hitler is going to take power in the election and it's the sort of thing that, as one character says, "Hey, I'm not anti-semetic" (as if saying "I'm not racist, which usually means someone is) and in the midst of these fellow Germans and others adrift in life or, of course, the Spaniards, you get some mixed emotions and high tension and passions.But I think that because of the lack of some core story or something to work towards it's just a character portrait. That would be fine, to be sure, and at times watching this I wondered what Robert Altman would've made of the novel (probably a lot more, I'd wager). Some scenes really do stand out, such as the man who cries out against some of the Germans due to his wife being Jewish (though the scene that really works with him is a little later, when he admits to the one apologetic older German lady that he and his wife separated), and of course people like Werner and Signoret are perfect together. Marvin I liked a lot as well, though it's more his screen presence to bring something else to the character. Leigh and Segall are fine, but also with characters that, again, have a lot of screen time but not too much depth otherwise.The film is photographed beautifully (it won an Oscar subsequently), and many moments of dialog are enjoyable and fun and sincere enough to not be taken melodramatically, but it's a thing of the 'parts more than the whole'. In other words, it's like the more serious, slightly shorter and less ambitious (in terms of cinematic scope) version of Kramer's own It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Worth watching, especially if you like the actors, but not essential.

GeoPierpont Initially I was inspired to view Vivian's swan song. However, it appeared too much of a rehash of Blanche for any redeeming merit. She most likely required the cash for medical bills. Very sad to see her deteriorate so quickly, a most ardent beauty.I found it most difficult to comprehend how most every single person had to have a breakdown and some sad sack story that overly dramatized such minor plot lines given the grand Nazi takeover sentiment. It appears that due to lack of material, each storyline was extended beyond boredom and to punch it up EVERYONE had to cry, including Dirty Dozen hero Lee Marvin. It had to have been his double since you really could not see his face. I am certain he defiantly refused to relinquish his bravado image and most likely under duress to even have that scene shown.My favorite couple was the doctor and the contessa. Simone retained her appeal and you could see that she portrayed an awareness of her great beauty, albeit years ago. The doctor was the most sympathetic of characters who did not overplay his role and the subtlety played off in spades.I also appreciated the scene with the 16 year old boy willing to kill his grandfather to provide relief for a modicum of much needed loving. Now that was as close to reality as it got in this terrible script! Overall, overkill on the characters, length of film and uninteresting plot lines.Recommend for Vivien fans and seeing Lee Marvin breakdown. This reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle" when Tom Hanks cries over Trini Lopez dying in the Dirty Dozen. Who would have thought he may have seen this film and was inspired for that scene!!

adamshl There's pretty much agreement that "Ship of Fools" is a good film. With a dream cast, it's become a respected staple, yet not quite a classic.I've watched the film several times, and I kept wondering what was preventing it from a still greater achievement. My conclusion is in its ultra realistic look and feel. Director Stanley Kramer uses the same technical style as in his "Not As a Stranger": crystal clear, razor- sharp photography, lots of stark, revealing close ups, and a pretty stationary camera for lengthy dialog scenes.However, I feel the production could have been done in a more expressionistic, softer tone to achieve a higher poetic and universal level. As it stands, the work seems rather earth-bound, speaking to its particular period. One doesn't feel it offers a very strong revelation for us today---that its enacted foibles and fallacies applies equally to contemporary standards.An example of the latter might be what Stanley Donen achieved in the lengthy dialogs and soliloquies of "Long Day's Journey into Night." Here one feels a timelessness and universality, and one notes softer photographic lenses and subdued lighting employed.However, in "Ship of Fools" the cast can't be bettered, and it may be admitted that Porter's book may have been a daunting project to film. So what we have in this effort is a 3:4-star achievement.

MartinHafer Tonight was the second time I tried to watch "Ship of Fools". The first time, I hated it and couldn't understand its relatively high rating. A few years later, I thought I'd try it again--after all, there are a lot of reviewers who gave this one a 10. Unfortunately, in retrospect my first reaction was confirmed--I did not like this film. Why? Well, there are a few main reasons. First, at times the dialog was simply god-awful--completely impossible to believe and even painful. The worst was the 'love scene'(???) between Elizabeth Ashley and George Segal--it seemed like no conversation I would ever expect from two folks in love and seemed...bad. Second, too many of the characters just seemed like archetypes--too stereotypical and too simple. The bad people are simply bad and the good ones are noble. Third, because the film is set on a ship, there isn't anything to do but just talk...talk...talk. Fourth, and this is probably because I am a retired history teacher, some of the costuming was terrible. Christiane Schmidtmer's hair and costumes were NOT from the 1930s but would have looked rather fashionable in 1965.The bottom line is that there have been countless films that have dealt with fascism much more effectively. You can easily do better. I did, however, love the bulldog.