Martin Ritt had already directed Paul Newman in "The Long, Hot Summer", "Paris Blues" and "Hud" when he made "The Outrage". A worthy effort but it doesn't quite compare to its source material (Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon"). To us nowadays it's going to be jarring to see Newman playing a Mexican, especially since there were plenty of Latino actors who could've played the role.As for the movie overall, I thought that the most interesting scenes were of the three men (William Shatner, Edward G. Robinson, Howard DaSilva) going over the different versions of the story. It's worth seeing, but it's far from Ritt's best movie. I recommend the original version over this one, due to Kurosawa's clever way of filming some of the scenes.

The Outrage is the American version of Rashoman, the famous Japanese story told from multiple points of view. In this stylized tale, a crime has been committed. One man's version is related from start to finish, convincing the audience of what's so. Then, a second witness comes forward. His version is different, planting the seed of doubt into the viewer's head. And so it goes.Those of you who like to discuss philosophy after a movie's end have probably seen this film, or another version of it. I like this version because it was produced right after the end of the Hays Code. Violence and sex were allowed in movies during the 1960s, but since it was all new to filmmakers, they didn't go overboard. While the movie discusses rape and murder, it handles them tastefully. In The Outrage, get ready to see some intriguing performances from Laurence Harvey, Paul Newman, William Shatner, Claire Bloom, Edward G. Robinson, and Howard Da Silva. With a twist during every tale, you won't know who to trust! And you'll be talking about the ending long after the credits roll, trust me.

If one forgets that Rashomon (1950) exists, then The Outrage (1964) is a great film. Unfortunately, Rashomon does exist and TO is a standard remake that adds no new insights to the story or characters. I wouldn't call it a shot-for-shot remake, but it's pretty close.On its own merits, this is a good drama. The cinematography is beautiful and fluid. Alex North's melancholy score effectively underscores the action, never once intruding upon the proceedings. All the actors are great, and even the often-criticized Paul Newman does a good job as the bandit. Claire Bloom is absolutely marvelous as the wife, giving an intense and ambiguous performance that comes close to rivaling Machiko Kyo's in the original film.An enjoyable movie, but it really didn't need to be made.

I am no actor, and I realize scenes are frequently shot out of sequence. But don't the actors have some sort of inkling as to how poor a picture is while they are making it?I've never been one for "flashback" movies, but this one with several different versions of the flashback is just too much.There were a couple good pieces of acting, such as when Bloom accused her husband of cowardice, but they were too few to carry the movie. The last 8 to 10 minutes were more like 3 Stooges/Laurel & Hardy slapstick comedy sliding down a waterfall into a pond and spitting water...c'mon!I did enjoy the scenery around Tucson, and the music was pretty good, also. The rest of it left me scratching my head. This is a movie I had timer-recorded to DVD and did not watch for quite a while since recording it, so it is in my collection. I have real doubts it will ever get another watch by me.And what's up with the baby? Did the writers just say "Hey, this ought to work for something?"It's a pity, too, because with de Silva, Newman, Bloom, Robinson...these are actors I really like. They could have made a much better movie.I rarely give less than 5 stars, but this one only rates 4 from me.jonesey65244