GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

angelsunchained I admit that this film is far from great, but it is entertaining enough to get you through a rainy night. Alan Ladd has good on screen chemistry with Lloyd Nolan and the two off screen friends play well off each other. Again, they are not Redford and Newman, but they both give a decent enough performance. So, if you are a fan of Alan Ladd, you will find this easily forgetful film decent entertainment. If not, you haven't lost much.

JohnHowardReid I remembered this as being rather a dull, ordinary film. Yes, it is a bit on the dull side. There's a vigorous action episode at the beginning and some action at the finale, but in between are long stretches of ho-hum dialogue played by some of the most unconvincing players ever assembled. Mr. Ladd, I suppose, is the worst. He acts bored. Miss Podesta runs him a close second. She is not much more animated than Mr. Ladd and even less likely and convincing as her accent and skin coloration are all wrong for the part of a Cuban Joan of Arc. Yes, the script is as nonsensical as all that, and when you join these characters to Chill Wills drawling his way though the part of a riverboat skipper and some of the others... Lloyd Nolan is probably the most convincing of the lot and even he is no great shakes. Dull is an apt description.But what is not ordinary and makes the film very much worth watching, is John Seitz's color photography. Every frame is a picture, the lighting, the use of color and shadows, the costumes, the sets, the way they are all composed and lit and integrated is always visually exciting and often breathtaking. The film is a feast for the eye and an artists's delight from start to finish.

MartinHafer Later in his career, the quality in most of Alan Ladd's films dropped dramatically. Surprisingly, after his terrific performance in "Shane", it was all downhill from there...and "Santiago" is as downhill as you can go!The film is set in the late 19th century--just before the Spanish- American War. Two groups of gun-runners are trying to outmaneuver each other and take advantage of trouble brewing in Cuba. While neither guy in charge cares about the revolution, one is comic book bad (Lloyd Nolan) and his character has no depth whatsoever. Heck, had they had Bluto from the Popeye cartoons play the guy, it would have been just as realistic. As for the other, it's played by Ladd and his character is very inconsistent throughout the film--going from selfish and greedy to selfless and kind!! None of this makes any sense and it's made worse by a very weak and uninteresting script and a love interest who is less appealing than a sheep. All in all, Ladd deserved better...and you can do better.

vitaleralphlouis It's not easy to explain what went wrong with SANTIAGO. It has a basic good story, a top-level cast, and an experienced director; yet it lies virtually flat as a pancake as it unravels on screen. It suffers a serious failure to involve the audience in either the adventure or the romance.This picture was made by Alan Ladd's production company. To Ladd's credit it's next to impossible to see this picture. Never issued in VHS or DVD, never re-issued, difficult to ever find a listing on eBay.Leave this one alone and seek out Iron Mistress, Boy on a Dolphin, or two dozen other very good films starring Alan Ladd.