Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

dougdoepke An underrated flick in the Garfield canon. His charter boat captain, Morgan, may not be very likable, but the actor makes him a compelling tough guy. So, how's Morgan going to pay his debts and keep his charter boat. It's a struggle, especially when wheedling deal-maker Duncan (Ford) keeps tempting him with illegal transporting. It's really a battle for Morgan's soul though he doesn't realize it. On one hand there's faithful wife Lucy (Thaxter) and two small daughters, along with deck hand Park (Hernandez) depending on him for support. On the other, is smoothy Duncan, sultry temptress Leona (Neal), and an array of criminal types offering him money for illegal services. Trouble is Morgan loves both Lucy and his boat, so will he stay honest and get a new livelihood, or will he succumb to seductive overtures from Duncan and turn criminal boat captain. Garfield's Morgan is not a nice guy, so the outcome is uncertain. Every other word is a smart-alecky remark, and though he loves wife Lucy and the two little girls, he seems to forget them when obsessing about his boat. Clearly, his ego is tied up with being a captain.It's a perfect Garfield role, and he gives no quarter. At the same time, Thaxter works wonders as the sympathetic wife without getting smarmy, a really difficult role. And shouldn't overlook Neal whose grinning blonde temptress resembles a figure from perhaps the lower regions. Then too, inclusion of Black actor Hernandez was a bold one for 1950 when Black actors were still mostly servants or comic relief. Moreover, his inclusion results indirectly in one of the most brilliantly poignant final scenes in film annals. I get the feeling the writers were doing their best to avoid a typical Hollywood ending, which was still the norm. All in all, the movie deserves a ranking just below Garfield's celebrated Force of Evil (1948) as a study in self-realization. Please, TCM, revive the flick whenever you can.

secondtake The Breaking Point (1950)Forget for a second that this is a Hemingway story, or that it was more famously and loosely made into a movie ("To Have and Have Not)" with Bogart and Bacall in 1944.Here was have John Garfield playing with great realism a boating man, Morgan, who has hit hard times. So he is tempted by an illegal run for some big money. And it goes badly. Then, to get out of that jam, he is drawn into yet another one, which goes even worse.So this is really a story of a man against the odds. He's basically a good person, which we see in how he treats his partner, his wife, his kids. But it's partly because of those others that he feels he has to come through and make some money. In a way, this is what Hemingway's novel is all about--how a man copes with crisis. (This is always what Hemingway is about, in a way.) It's great starting material.The two women in the story, made to look slightly similar, are key in a Hemingway kind of way, too, because a Hemingway man is essentially torn by love all his life. Morgan's wife is terrific in a simple, unexciting way, and when Patricia Neal appears very sexually hungry, Morgan at first is not interested. Neal's character is not quite a noir femme fatale, since she really wants nothing for herself, but is a distraction and siren.The two of them are terrific. Around them are a whole swarm of characters, some with important roles and excellent character actors, but we really get inside the head of Garfield and we really feel the weirdly brazen and carefree intensity of Neal. So why is this a forgotten film? For one, Garfield is a low key leading man. He always is. His effect is subtle. And Neal isn't a steaming hottie or an outrageous caricature like some leading (blonde) women in these crime films. And then, frankly, they don't totally have chemistry on screen, which is neither one's fault alone, and which isn't so inaccurate to the story.And about Hemingway? The book is great. You have to like his style and his manly view, but if you can adapt to that, read it. Easy reading, too. And he set the scene in the waters between Florida and Cuba, which is where he lived and fished. The Bogart version was set in the war, working for the French Resistance in Europe. The Garfield version was set (and shot) in California, with a trip to Mexico. A later version (1958) is set in Florida.This is actually a first rate movie. Part of the success depends on the writing-both Hemingway and the sharp, noir-influenced screenplay by Ranald MacDougall. Note that the photography is by the great Ted McCord (Sound of Music, East of Eden, etc.).The plot has some deeply personal aspects, both with Morgan's wife and kids as they barely scrape by and with the temptation of the sort of femme fatale played with a cool sharpness by Patricia Neal. And it has a serious crime plot with several angles that develop and disperse and develop further. It moves from dark night scenes to open water scenes to a faked fog ending (a flaw, visually, because you can tell it's just been processed for lower contrast even though the sun is out). The movie also has some aspects that strike me as socially relevant, starting with the smuggling of a group of Chinese people out of Mexico at the start and ending with the tragic dilemma of a little African-American boy left literally alone on a big open dock at the final fade. This last aspect (which I can't get specific about without spoiling something) points to one of the really big interpersonal parts of the film that is key, and that I wish had been developed just a hair more because it's so key.On my third viewing, I continue to like it a lot. See it.

Robert J. Maxwell Garfield is the owner of a charter boat, The Sea Queen, and is having financial problems. His boat is taken from him and he has to support his wife and kids. So far, so Hemingway, more or less.It's not very Hemingwayish thereafter, although that doesn't matter much. Howard Hawks' "To Have And Have Not," was based on the same short novel as this film but didn't stick to the novel's plot either. Why should they? Who wants to watch movies about a one-armed fisherman who gets killed at the end? Garfield agrees to rent his boat for use in a getaway by some big-time robbers. He plans to capture them all and collect the reward that will get him out of hot water. But the thieves scramble aboard at an awkward moment and must shoot Garfield's buddy and helpmate, Juano Hernandez.The angry Garfield takes the boat to sea pursued by the Coast Guard, which plays the role in this movie that the stern and uncooperative cops play in most noirs. There follows an exuberant shoot out along the lines of "Key Largo." The performances are okay. Garfield is Garfield. Phyllis Thaxter -- I don't know. She's a little elegant for the part of the dutiful, loving, proletarian housewife. She was a judge's daughter, after all. Patricia Neal, a fine actress, is not essential to the story and is made up and garbed in an ungainly way. The gangsters are stereotypically nasty in their looks and behavior.The final gun fight is excitingly staged by the seasoned director Michael Curtiz and the set is mounted on gimbals that give the illusion of a small boat at sea -- a nice touch -- with hanging objects swinging from their hooks and deck chairs pivoting wildly on their stands. Another nice touch, not too sentimental: when the Sea Queen is towed back into port and the bodies removed and Garfield is taken to the hospital, the crowd on the pier disperses while some cop waves his hands and goes through the familiar routine -- "Move along. Nothing to see here." The pier quickly empties and in that desolate silence only one small figure is left in long shot -- Hernando's little boy, looking around, wondering where his father might be, not knowing that he's been murdered and his body dumped at sea.

joedonato234 This is a remake of TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT that supposedly from what I've read sticks closer to the Hemingway story. Garfield could play the strong but tormented guy like nobody's business, here however we have most of the information needed in understanding just what's eating at this guy, wearing him down and making him afraid. "A man alone hasn't got a chance," he keeps repeating. But Harry isn't alone. He's got a family that loves him, a plain but good woman he adores, and who adores him. A best friend who is his shipping mate, yet he still can't shake the feeling that somehow the universe is against him, working overtime. He's like a man that needs some spiritual guidance. Something is missing. On first viewing this plays like a well done yarn. On subsequent viewings however, this film begins to haunt. The characters and scenes play on a deeper, more meaningful level. The domestic scenes, usually the throwaway, boring parts of a story like this, become the rock and Garfield and Phylis Thaxter emit genuine emotion and affection for one another that is unusually realistic. Patricia Neal is the temptress here, and in an unusual move, we're not supposed to fall in love with her or maybe even like her, which is evident in how she's physically presented. Her haircut is really bad and she's basically unflatteringly lit and photographed. She too looks realistic: like a once beautiful creature who's been around the block too many times and is starting to look all used up.Juano Hernandez rounds out the main players as Garfield's friend and shipmate. It was Garfield who insisted the character be a black man and had the relationship between the two beefed up. According to Garfield's daughter, the studio didn't like the idea and tried to talk him out of it, eventually giving up. This casting led to someone (director Michael Curtiz?)coming up with that final shot in the film that hits like a sucker punch to the gut, unexpected and unforgettable.Watch this one a second time and see if you agree.