Reviews (84)

Miscast Elizabeth
Greer Garson stars as Elizabeth Bennet in this 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. She plays the clever and witty eldest of five daughters, who are all looking for rich husbands. Lawrence Olivier plays Mr. Darcy, a suitably wealthy prospect, however he is too arrogant for Elizabeth's liking. The story follows the two as they tease and rebuff, only to end happily with their engagement, as we always knew it would.

Being such an old film, the quality of the picture and sound were poor. Even so, they were better than the outrageous casting of Greer Garson as the lead. She was much too old to play Elizabeth, and was utterly unconvincing. Two of her sisters were played by Anne Rutherford and Maureen Sullivan. They were both excellent and would have done better in the lead. Olivier was wonderfully snooty as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy.

The other major weakness with the film was the costume design. The ladies' gowns and men's suits looked like they were borrowed from the set of Gone With the Wind. The dresses were full and puffy, not at all like the delicate and low-cut gowns of the early 1800s in England.

There were no exterior shots of the grand houses; rather we saw only small rooms with very ordinary furnishings. The photography was drab, even considering the age of the film.

The screenplay was co-written by the famous Aldous Huxley, who, it seems, had no knack for reproducing Austen's glorious dialogue. All in all, I found this film an acceptable introduction to Jane Austen's classic book, but not deeply satisfying or beautiful.

Wonderful movie of a timeless novel
This version of Pride and Prejudice first got me interested in Jane Austen. Though it may not be the most acurate version of the famous novel, it is very funny and all of the characters are played well. Lawrence Olivier IS Mr. Darcy, and Greer Garson shines as Lizzy, despite her age difference to the character.

An inferior adaptation of a great book
There are three film versions of Jane Austen's immortal "Pride and Prejudice" extant, and this one, the first, is by far the weakest. It would be hard to tamper with the great story, which is so well known as to need no rehashing here; but although the film tries to follow the story, Aldous Huxley proved incapable of incorporating Austen's incomparable dialogue into the film script, as the two later versions were able to do with remarkable success. There are other, more egregious shortcomings, in this film, which are:

1) Casting Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet. Whoever had this idea should have been put in the stocks and pelted with water balloons. Elizabeth Bennet is 20 years old in the book, and Greer Garson, on the wrong side of 35, looks absolutely ridiculous trying to play a young ingenue. Who was she kidding? She doesn't even look like Austen's description of Elizabeth. Vivien Leigh might have made a great Elizabeth, if she wasn't already fixed in the public mind as Scarlett O'Hara. Which brings us to:

2) The 1860-ish costumes. Were they trying to move the timeline up? Somebody should have told the costume department that Longbourn and Tara were six thousand miles and sixty years apart. "Pride and Prejudice" was set sometime between 1790 and 1810 (Austen's biographers are in disagreement as to the exact date), but the costumes in this first version of "Pride and Prejudice looked like leftovers from the set of "Gone With the Wind". A big no-no.

3) The casting of Lawrence Olivier as Darcy was a mistake. Austen describes Darcy as being tall and handsome. Olivier was handsome but he didn't look much taller than Garson. Or maybe Garson was too tall. Whatever... it was a total mismatch.

4) The whole scene at Pemberley, which is central to the book, was eliminated. So how did Elizabeth's one-eighty from loathing to love take place? The movie doesn't say and we're left totally unconvinced.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that "Pride and Prejudice" is one of the best-loved books in English literature. It certainly deserved a better film adaptation than this one. Fortunately it has not one, but two: the BBC version of 1985 starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (my personal favorite), and the A&E film of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Watch either or both of these after seeing the Garson/Olivier movie, to see what a good film adaptation of a great book really is.

Worst Adaptation!
This film was the worst adaptation of Jane Austen's famous novel that I have ever seen in my life. It is not really true to the novel, the costumes are ridiculous looking, not to mention that they do not match the kind of clothing that was worn in Austen's time. They hardly ever use the famous words and/or phrases from the book, only once or twice but they are somewhat changed. Granted I think Laurence Olivier made a great Darcy if he was more like Darcy is suppose to be, instead his version of him was more perky and uppity than nonchalant and melancholy and a little arrogant, which to me is what Darcy is actually like. If you want to see the greatest adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" ever made then check out the BBC and A&E production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I guarantee you'll watch it all the way through with a satisfied and happy smile on your face.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this movie is
Misleading, to say the least.

I saw this movie last week on Turner Classic Movie channel, expecting to see a nice little 40's style rendition of that book we oh-so dearly enjoy.

What a silly movie.

Granted, I'm sure making a two hour movie out of the novel is difficult, but if you were to take a high school test on Pride and Prejudice after seeing this movie instead of reading the book, you would fail miserably.

The dresses were too elaborate. Mary is way too pretty. Greer is too blonde to play Elizabeth, where are those dark "fine eyes"? Darcy grossed me out. I don't even remember Bingley or Jane, and Elizabeth's transition from hating to loving Darcy goes a little something like this (paraphrased, of course):

Elizabeth: "Oh, how I miss Mr. Darcy"
Jane: "What? I thought you hated him?"
Elizabeth : "Well now, quite suddenly I love him!"

This is without the reunion at Pemberly. Its rushed, to say the least.

I did like Lydia, and there is a lovely, albeit irrelevant scene where Mrs. Bennet and the girls Mrs. Lucas and Charlotte (who is much too pretty in this adaptation) are racing neck and neck via carriage to get to Netherfield to meet the eligible men.

And the slightly amusing part where Mr. Bingley is talking about what's wrong with Jane when she's sick. That was just weird. Trés 40's, no?

Mr and Mrs Bennet are enjoyable characters, but I imagine that it would be difficult to screw up those well-written characters in any cinematic endeavor.

And the part with Lady Catherine acting as a "secret agent" for Darcy. What the hell.

Ugh. This movie is slightly amusing, if it was 5 hours of nonsense I would give it one star, but since its only 2 hours you might as well watch it if you feel so inclined.

But read the book and check out the 1995 BBC production one, too. ... Read more

Description

Jane Austen's classic novel about the prejudice that occurred between the 19th century classes and the pride which would keep lovers apart. ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Miscast Elizabeth
Greer Garson stars as Elizabeth Bennet in this 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. She plays the clever and witty eldest of five daughters, who are all looking for rich husbands. Lawrence Olivier plays Mr. Darcy, a suitably wealthy prospect, however he is too arrogant for Elizabeth's liking. The story follows the two as they tease and rebuff, only to end happily with their engagement, as we always knew it would.

Being such an old film, the quality of the picture and sound were poor. Even so, they were better than the outrageous casting of Greer Garson as the lead. She was much too old to play Elizabeth, and was utterly unconvincing. Two of her sisters were played by Anne Rutherford and Maureen Sullivan. They were both excellent and would have done better in the lead. Olivier was wonderfully snooty as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy.

The other major weakness with the film was the costume design. The ladies' gowns and men's suits looked like they were borrowed from the set of Gone With the Wind. The dresses were full and puffy, not at all like the delicate and low-cut gowns of the early 1800s in England.

There were no exterior shots of the grand houses; rather we saw only small rooms with very ordinary furnishings. The photography was drab, even considering the age of the film.

The screenplay was co-written by the famous Aldous Huxley, who, it seems, had no knack for reproducing Austen's glorious dialogue. All in all, I found this film an acceptable introduction to Jane Austen's classic book, but not deeply satisfying or beautiful.

Wonderful movie of a timeless novel
This version of Pride and Prejudice first got me interested in Jane Austen. Though it may not be the most acurate version of the famous novel, it is very funny and all of the characters are played well. Lawrence Olivier IS Mr. Darcy, and Greer Garson shines as Lizzy, despite her age difference to the character.

An inferior adaptation of a great book
There are three film versions of Jane Austen's immortal "Pride and Prejudice" extant, and this one, the first, is by far the weakest. It would be hard to tamper with the great story, which is so well known as to need no rehashing here; but although the film tries to follow the story, Aldous Huxley proved incapable of incorporating Austen's incomparable dialogue into the film script, as the two later versions were able to do with remarkable success. There are other, more egregious shortcomings, in this film, which are:

1) Casting Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet. Whoever had this idea should have been put in the stocks and pelted with water balloons. Elizabeth Bennet is 20 years old in the book, and Greer Garson, on the wrong side of 35, looks absolutely ridiculous trying to play a young ingenue. Who was she kidding? She doesn't even look like Austen's description of Elizabeth. Vivien Leigh might have made a great Elizabeth, if she wasn't already fixed in the public mind as Scarlett O'Hara. Which brings us to:

2) The 1860-ish costumes. Were they trying to move the timeline up? Somebody should have told the costume department that Longbourn and Tara were six thousand miles and sixty years apart. "Pride and Prejudice" was set sometime between 1790 and 1810 (Austen's biographers are in disagreement as to the exact date), but the costumes in this first version of "Pride and Prejudice looked like leftovers from the set of "Gone With the Wind". A big no-no.

3) The casting of Lawrence Olivier as Darcy was a mistake. Austen describes Darcy as being tall and handsome. Olivier was handsome but he didn't look much taller than Garson. Or maybe Garson was too tall. Whatever... it was a total mismatch.

4) The whole scene at Pemberley, which is central to the book, was eliminated. So how did Elizabeth's one-eighty from loathing to love take place? The movie doesn't say and we're left totally unconvinced.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that "Pride and Prejudice" is one of the best-loved books in English literature. It certainly deserved a better film adaptation than this one. Fortunately it has not one, but two: the BBC version of 1985 starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (my personal favorite), and the A&E film of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Watch either or both of these after seeing the Garson/Olivier movie, to see what a good film adaptation of a great book really is.

Worst Adaptation!
This film was the worst adaptation of Jane Austen's famous novel that I have ever seen in my life. It is not really true to the novel, the costumes are ridiculous looking, not to mention that they do not match the kind of clothing that was worn in Austen's time. They hardly ever use the famous words and/or phrases from the book, only once or twice but they are somewhat changed. Granted I think Laurence Olivier made a great Darcy if he was more like Darcy is suppose to be, instead his version of him was more perky and uppity than nonchalant and melancholy and a little arrogant, which to me is what Darcy is actually like. If you want to see the greatest adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" ever made then check out the BBC and A&E production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I guarantee you'll watch it all the way through with a satisfied and happy smile on your face.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this movie is
Misleading, to say the least.

I saw this movie last week on Turner Classic Movie channel, expecting to see a nice little 40's style rendition of that book we oh-so dearly enjoy.

What a silly movie.

Granted, I'm sure making a two hour movie out of the novel is difficult, but if you were to take a high school test on Pride and Prejudice after seeing this movie instead of reading the book, you would fail miserably.

The dresses were too elaborate. Mary is way too pretty. Greer is too blonde to play Elizabeth, where are those dark "fine eyes"? Darcy grossed me out. I don't even remember Bingley or Jane, and Elizabeth's transition from hating to loving Darcy goes a little something like this (paraphrased, of course):

Elizabeth: "Oh, how I miss Mr. Darcy"
Jane: "What? I thought you hated him?"
Elizabeth : "Well now, quite suddenly I love him!"

This is without the reunion at Pemberly. Its rushed, to say the least.

I did like Lydia, and there is a lovely, albeit irrelevant scene where Mrs. Bennet and the girls Mrs. Lucas and Charlotte (who is much too pretty in this adaptation) are racing neck and neck via carriage to get to Netherfield to meet the eligible men.

And the slightly amusing part where Mr. Bingley is talking about what's wrong with Jane when she's sick. That was just weird. Trés 40's, no?

Mr and Mrs Bennet are enjoyable characters, but I imagine that it would be difficult to screw up those well-written characters in any cinematic endeavor.

And the part with Lady Catherine acting as a "secret agent" for Darcy. What the hell.

Ugh. This movie is slightly amusing, if it was 5 hours of nonsense I would give it one star, but since its only 2 hours you might as well watch it if you feel so inclined.

But read the book and check out the 1995 BBC production one, too. ... Read more

Description

Depicts the gallant exploits of the American Rangers and their leader, Colonel William Darby, as he leads his men through the landing assault on North Africa and the invasion of Italy. Suggested by the book by Major James Altieri. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Birthday Gift
I purchased this video for my dad's 72nd birthday and it would not play correctly. Lines throughout the picture on the screen. We tried it on 3 different TV's to no avail. Unfortunately I bought it on Aug.13th and his birthday was on Sept. 12th and by the time I returned home on the 14th of Sept. it was too late to return it. He had been so looking forward to receiving this video that I am saddened not to be able to provide it to him. He served in the Korean War and enjoys watching war movies. He had looked all over for this movie and I was so happy to find it on Amazon.com. I thought it would be a terrific surprise for him but it was I who was surprised by the video being defective.

Wild Bill Defies Formula
Near the end of his eccentric and notorious career William "Wild Bill" Wellman directed "Darby's Rangers" for Warner Brothers. Despite the studio's budget, which limited the production to formula action-war-adventure status, Wellman used the dialogue to create interesting characterizations from his young contract players. Focusing on James Garner as Darby and the personal lives of his men, on and off the field, Wellman delivered a to the point and appealing film still memorable to anyone who has ever seen it.

Great World War II Film from Wild Bill
"Darby's Rangers" was director William "Wild Bill" Wellman's second from last film. An ace pilot in WW1 "Wild Bill" Wellman went to Hollywood and directed "WINGS," the first film to win an Academy Award. "Darby's Rangers" released in 1958 deals with Major William Darby's formation of a crack ranger outfit. The studio wanted an aging Wellman to turn out another formula war film late in his career but thanks to the charisma that James Garner brings to the role of Major Darby this movie works much better than expected. The movie deals with the Ranger's exploits on and off the field of battle. Cinematographer William Clothier's images are well filmed and stalwart Composer Max Steiner once again gives us that old 'guts and glory' scoring. The good cast includes Jack Warden, Edd Byrnes, Stuart Whitman, Peter Brown, Torin Thatcher, Murray Hamilton and David Janssen.

Great action and adventure based on the WWII truth.
For those of you interested in World War II history, especially as it relates to the training and operations of commando units, this video is a must see. James Garner offers a wonderful portrayal of Major Darby, the founder of the modern-day Rangers. Hollywood fluff is at a minimum in this stirring account of Ranger missions. Sit back and enjoy. ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Miscast Elizabeth
Greer Garson stars as Elizabeth Bennet in this 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. She plays the clever and witty eldest of five daughters, who are all looking for rich husbands. Lawrence Olivier plays Mr. Darcy, a suitably wealthy prospect, however he is too arrogant for Elizabeth's liking. The story follows the two as they tease and rebuff, only to end happily with their engagement, as we always knew it would.

Being such an old film, the quality of the picture and sound were poor. Even so, they were better than the outrageous casting of Greer Garson as the lead. She was much too old to play Elizabeth, and was utterly unconvincing. Two of her sisters were played by Anne Rutherford and Maureen Sullivan. They were both excellent and would have done better in the lead. Olivier was wonderfully snooty as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy.

The other major weakness with the film was the costume design. The ladies' gowns and men's suits looked like they were borrowed from the set of Gone With the Wind. The dresses were full and puffy, not at all like the delicate and low-cut gowns of the early 1800s in England.

There were no exterior shots of the grand houses; rather we saw only small rooms with very ordinary furnishings. The photography was drab, even considering the age of the film.

The screenplay was co-written by the famous Aldous Huxley, who, it seems, had no knack for reproducing Austen's glorious dialogue. All in all, I found this film an acceptable introduction to Jane Austen's classic book, but not deeply satisfying or beautiful.

Wonderful movie of a timeless novel
This version of Pride and Prejudice first got me interested in Jane Austen. Though it may not be the most acurate version of the famous novel, it is very funny and all of the characters are played well. Lawrence Olivier IS Mr. Darcy, and Greer Garson shines as Lizzy, despite her age difference to the character.

An inferior adaptation of a great book
There are three film versions of Jane Austen's immortal "Pride and Prejudice" extant, and this one, the first, is by far the weakest. It would be hard to tamper with the great story, which is so well known as to need no rehashing here; but although the film tries to follow the story, Aldous Huxley proved incapable of incorporating Austen's incomparable dialogue into the film script, as the two later versions were able to do with remarkable success. There are other, more egregious shortcomings, in this film, which are:

1) Casting Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet. Whoever had this idea should have been put in the stocks and pelted with water balloons. Elizabeth Bennet is 20 years old in the book, and Greer Garson, on the wrong side of 35, looks absolutely ridiculous trying to play a young ingenue. Who was she kidding? She doesn't even look like Austen's description of Elizabeth. Vivien Leigh might have made a great Elizabeth, if she wasn't already fixed in the public mind as Scarlett O'Hara. Which brings us to:

2) The 1860-ish costumes. Were they trying to move the timeline up? Somebody should have told the costume department that Longbourn and Tara were six thousand miles and sixty years apart. "Pride and Prejudice" was set sometime between 1790 and 1810 (Austen's biographers are in disagreement as to the exact date), but the costumes in this first version of "Pride and Prejudice looked like leftovers from the set of "Gone With the Wind". A big no-no.

3) The casting of Lawrence Olivier as Darcy was a mistake. Austen describes Darcy as being tall and handsome. Olivier was handsome but he didn't look much taller than Garson. Or maybe Garson was too tall. Whatever... it was a total mismatch.

4) The whole scene at Pemberley, which is central to the book, was eliminated. So how did Elizabeth's one-eighty from loathing to love take place? The movie doesn't say and we're left totally unconvinced.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that "Pride and Prejudice" is one of the best-loved books in English literature. It certainly deserved a better film adaptation than this one. Fortunately it has not one, but two: the BBC version of 1985 starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (my personal favorite), and the A&E film of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Watch either or both of these after seeing the Garson/Olivier movie, to see what a good film adaptation of a great book really is.

Worst Adaptation!
This film was the worst adaptation of Jane Austen's famous novel that I have ever seen in my life. It is not really true to the novel, the costumes are ridiculous looking, not to mention that they do not match the kind of clothing that was worn in Austen's time. They hardly ever use the famous words and/or phrases from the book, only once or twice but they are somewhat changed. Granted I think Laurence Olivier made a great Darcy if he was more like Darcy is suppose to be, instead his version of him was more perky and uppity than nonchalant and melancholy and a little arrogant, which to me is what Darcy is actually like. If you want to see the greatest adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" ever made then check out the BBC and A&E production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I guarantee you'll watch it all the way through with a satisfied and happy smile on your face.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this movie is
Misleading, to say the least.

I saw this movie last week on Turner Classic Movie channel, expecting to see a nice little 40's style rendition of that book we oh-so dearly enjoy.

What a silly movie.

Granted, I'm sure making a two hour movie out of the novel is difficult, but if you were to take a high school test on Pride and Prejudice after seeing this movie instead of reading the book, you would fail miserably.

The dresses were too elaborate. Mary is way too pretty. Greer is too blonde to play Elizabeth, where are those dark "fine eyes"? Darcy grossed me out. I don't even remember Bingley or Jane, and Elizabeth's transition from hating to loving Darcy goes a little something like this (paraphrased, of course):

Elizabeth: "Oh, how I miss Mr. Darcy"
Jane: "What? I thought you hated him?"
Elizabeth : "Well now, quite suddenly I love him!"

This is without the reunion at Pemberly. Its rushed, to say the least.

I did like Lydia, and there is a lovely, albeit irrelevant scene where Mrs. Bennet and the girls Mrs. Lucas and Charlotte (who is much too pretty in this adaptation) are racing neck and neck via carriage to get to Netherfield to meet the eligible men.

And the slightly amusing part where Mr. Bingley is talking about what's wrong with Jane when she's sick. That was just weird. Trés 40's, no?

Mr and Mrs Bennet are enjoyable characters, but I imagine that it would be difficult to screw up those well-written characters in any cinematic endeavor.

And the part with Lady Catherine acting as a "secret agent" for Darcy. What the hell.

Ugh. This movie is slightly amusing, if it was 5 hours of nonsense I would give it one star, but since its only 2 hours you might as well watch it if you feel so inclined.

But read the book and check out the 1995 BBC production one, too. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

GREAT FILM WITH A HOLLYWOOD ENDING
I call this a "Hollywood ending" not in the sense that it is a happy ening, but one which seems to be contrived to follow the production code of the day which stated that all wrongdoers must be brought to justice. Bette Davis, in one of her great performances, is killed off by Gale Sondergaard who herself is arrested by the police at the end. I really don't know if this ending is in the novel but it does not ring right with me. After all, Leslie Crosby was cleared of the crime and could have gone on living even with the torture memory of the lover she murdered in cold blood although I doubt if she would have remained faithful to wimpy Herbart Marshall for long. Gail Sondergaard, the dragon lady wife of the knocked off husband, just seems to be unable to get enough revenge. The 10 grand she got for selling the incriminating letter to Bette apparently was not enough to satisfy her. I especially liked the scene where Leslie tells her husband how much she still loves her vengefully slain adulterer.

Getting Away with Murder
Who else could get away with murder and still get the approval of the audience but Bette Davis? Based on Somerset Maugham's story, THE LETTER relates the murder of a rubber-plantation owner (Herbert Marshall) in Malaya by his wife (Bette Davis). It is interesting how Davis approaches this part. She gives a brilliant study of a cold yet proper woman who intoxicates her society friends and authorities through a pretense of female sexual virtue. She deliriously illustrates the passion of a woman who would kill a man for attempting to leave her and in doing so entices the audience on her behalf. Davis is so brilliant at conveying such a cold woman who my in effect really need the warmth and passion of a desperate soul, that even she may not realize her actions are a desperate attempt to realize her own desires. Is her behavior a pretense or not? This was very erotic stuff for its time. This film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards. Carl Jules Weyl's Art Designs combined with Tony Gaudio's Cinematography made a very provocative setting for the images. However the only fault I found with this film was Max Steiner's score. Max Steiner is one of my favorite film composers but I found his score too full of that heavy-handed Warner Bros. sound and not sensitive to the nature of the main character or the film.

seven well-deserved Oscar nominations
"The Letter" is a superb adapation of the Somerset Maugham tale set in Malaysia. Bette Davis is at the top of her form in her role as a deceitful, anguished wife caught up in an illicit love affair. Her pleasant, steady, unexciting husband, a rubber plantation manager, is played exceptionally well by Herbert Marshall. James Stephenson, in the role of her defense attorney, turns in an admirably understated yet vital performance.

William Wyler's masterful direction, employing exotic settings and mysterious minor characters, make this spellbinding tale of passion and murder a can't-miss for all Davis fans.

"The Letter" deserves the highest recommendation!

Exciting exotic thriller from the colonial age
Pistol shots bang through the starlit night in the malayan jungle and rubber planter Robert Crosbie (Herbert Marshall) is stupefied to learn that his own wife, Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis) has bumped off his best friend, Jeff Hammond. "He tried to rape me, so I shot him" she tells her husband - and we know from the start that she is lying. Hammond's body is riddled with bullets, her magazine empty. Some shots were fired when he was already lying on the ground.

While her credulous husband coddles her, she gives her lawyer, Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) her version of the story - only interrupted by crocodile tears and a simulated fainting-fit. Joyce is really considerate: he even commends her on her courage. So good is her mood when she regales the police with a dinner that she is surprised to learn that she could face a murder charge. Robert, haggard from lack of sleep tries to convince himself that everything is O.K: "She shot the man like a rabid dog". But Hammond was so dashing, charming, a real ladies man - hard to believe that he was capable of such a thing...

Robert has every reason to be worried: Joyce is informed by his asian counsellor that a certain letter exists: written by Leslie on the last day of Hammond's life, inviting him to come and see her...This letter is in the hands of his eurasian widow (Gale Sondergaard) who runs a gambling house. Leslie's smiling self-confidence dissolves under Joyce's interrogation. She denies everything, she rages, but her lawyer is not dumb: "I dont't want to hear more from you than is necessary to save your head". He feels nothing but contempt for the woman who implores him to get her the letter, but he feels compassion for her husband. The price for the letter is 10.000 Pounds - the exact amount of Robert's bank deposit - and Mrs. Hammond made it a condition that she should bring the money personally. Leslie tries to hide behind a veil, but it doesn't help her: after letting her wait for nearly one hour in an opium-den, the widow demands to see her face - and throws the letter before her feet with disdain. A male jury acquits the virtuous lady of her indictment, but there is more trouble brewing: Her husband wants to leave for Sumatra, become independent and buy his own plantation. He does not realize that his money is gone...

This exciting thriller contains one of Bette Davis' most famous performances. Herbert Marshall is equally brilliant in the role of her gullible husband, especially in the final scenes. He must have been the most often cuckolded husband on screen: Greta Garbo deceived him in THE PAINTED VEIL, and Marlene Dietrich in BLONDE VENUS and the delightful, underrated ANGEL. Perhaps he was beyond help, because he did not learn from his faults: His next film was THE LITTLE FOXES where he played Bette's victim again.

Sondergaard looks spectacular, but is psychologically wrong: Men usually fall in love with little Miss Butterfly - not with the empress of China. Bette Davis was universally praised. A very intelligent actress, she was on the right track: She wears glasses, she concentrates on her embroidery with great patience - needle-work and sex-appeal don't exclude each other, but there must have been a reason why her lover became tired of her...I think that she lacked the boldness to steep herself completely in Leslie Crosbie's true character. This type of woman ("One is getting so lazy here, the boys do everything" she says) has survived until recently in South Africa: she has no goal, no funcion, and my guess is that she was growing fat...Leslie Crosbie was porridge - and Bette plays her like caviar! W. Somerset Maugham, like Agatha Christie, is very good to read to this day: They were not dishonest authors, just one-sided: they nurture a nostalgia for the "glorious" age of colonialism, which existed only for a small part of mankind.

A great deal
It is a real crime story. Only at the end of this story you experience what happened in this special night. It is hard to feel how this nice beautiful woman can be a murderer.I was surprised that a lawyer does such a great deal (with that letter) to save the life of his client who is guilty. At the end you are in doubt if it is a fair end or not. The book is interesting to read. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Enchanting Soap Opera From A Bygone Era
Although the 1935 version of THE DARK ANGEL was a remake of an earlier silent film, it too seems to have disappeared into obscurity--and what a shame! This movie will not appeal to fans of the current brand of Hollywood "love stories", where the hero and heroine (or same sex couples in some cases) slip easily into bed together after only just meeting, several car chases and shoot-outs ensue, and the plots remind you of the last Meg Ryan film you saw because they are all the same--and they are filmed in color. THE DARK ANGEL is from an entirely different era of film making: the glorious 1930s. A time when movies, particularly love stories, depended on a good script and good acting to keep the viewer watching, and if successful in both these areas, the viewer won't notice that the movie is in black and white. And what a wonderful job they did with this film! Although, like most films of the time, it may seem dated to modern viewers, this film is set twenty years earlier during World War 1, and deals with a love triangle between stoic Herbert Marshall, lovely and gracious Merle Oberon, and the always charming and very handsome Frederic March. When Oberon decides to marry March instead of Marshall, she finds there isn't time to get the proper licenses and such before the boys are shipped out to war. Instead, March and Oberon stage a faux wedding and spend an evening together in a hotel on their last night together. Whether they consumated their "union" or not is left up to the viewers imagination--today you'd see everything in graffic detail. Due to a misunderstanding, Herbert Marshall's character (who is March's superior officer) comes to believe that March has spent the night with a prostitute, and to retalitate he refuses March's request for a leave so he can marry Oberon. During an explosion, March is blinded. Afraid to be rejected by Oberon, he goes into hiding after the war and becomes a successful author of children's books. Oberon and Marshall believe him to be dead, and then decide to marry each other. Only then do the couple learn that March is still alive. Will Oberon go ahead and marry Marshall as planned? Will she take March back? Will self-pitying March have her? And will Oberon's obnoxious cousin gets what's coming to him? Sounds like a pretty juicy soap opera, and it is, only the acting, directing, and styling in every area is worlds away from the schlock you're liable to see today. If these vintage "weepies" are not to your liking, go ahead and pick up a Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan film and stare at the screen for 90 mind-numbing minutes and come out thinking you've seen quality acting and a good story. But if you can get past the black and white photography and slightly dated speech and acting style--and this is some darn good acting!--I highly recommend giving this one a watch. Yes, it's a "chick flick" from long ago, but it will leave you sad, happy, and in a romantic mood. Too bad it's "out of stock" at the moment.

Another great 1930's film with Fredric March
Let me begin by saying I have recently discovered Fredric March. I am 40 yrs. old and never saw him in anything until this summer when I saw him in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". After that, I was hooked, and now I have collected over 40 of his films. This man is a wonderful actor that noone should miss. In this film Fredric March plays a man, Alan Trent, who came to live with his aunt and cousin Gerald Shannon(played by Herbert Marshall)in England when he was a boy. The 2 boys grew up together, and are close and great friends. They both happen to love the same girl, Kitty(Merle Oberon). Well, Fred wins Kitty's heart, and they want to be married before he must go to war, but due to circimstances beyond their control,they can't. Kitty spends the night with him before he leaves (they remain chaste), and this scene of them together is very well done. Unfortunately, Gerald gets the wrong idea about the evening Alan had, and later as his commanding officer at the battlefront, sends Alan on a dangerous mission instead of granting him leave so he can marry Kitty.Gerald believes he has died in action, and regrets that he sent Alan on the mission. I don't want to tell too much of the story...but Alan is not dead, only blind. Fredric March is a man of amazing talent. As a blind man, he is totally convincing. One of my favorite scenes is when he is alone in his hotel room, and he feels his way around. We see Fred's hands as he touches a wall lamp. When he stands by the door when the children come in, for two of them have never seen a blind man, it is the most touching and beautiful scenes I have seen Fred in. He was truly a beautiful man. I will say that this film ends happily, with all things right and as they should be. If you like WW1 timeframe movies ( I do), and if you like romances (I do), and if you like to gaze upon Fredric March as a handsome soldier and otherwise (I do), then this movie will in no way disappoint you. It is a hard to find video, but well worth it!

Underated, Tasteful "Golden- Age" Hollywood Melodrama
The Dark Angel has become one of my favorite melodramas from this decade. With production design by Richard Day, cinematography by Greg Toland(future credit would include Citizen Kane), and strong performances from all three princples,The Dark Angel has many attributes worth viewing. Merle Oberon was convincing and sympathetic in this role that was a departure from her previous exotic fare and she was rewarded with a "Best Actress" nomination. Herbert Marshall's usual stalwart acting is somehow appropriate for his character. However, it is Fredric March that has the most compelling scenes in The Dark Angel, especially after he returns from World War I and recovers in a British Hospital that rehabilitates blinded soldiers. Although sentimental at times, I found this movie to be surprisingly well conceived and engrossing. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In the opening sequence of The Letter, director William Wylerdelivers a primer on film directing: at a rubber plantation, in the tropicalfunk of a Malaysian night, the heavy stillness is suddenly broken by shots...and a woman with a gun, descending a staircase. She is the wife of theplantation owner, and the dead man is, ahem, not her husband. Holding the gun sosecurely is Bette Davis, in one of her greatest performances (her acting of abig revelation, late in the film, is still an astounding piece of emotionalfluency). The story is taken from one of those sturdy Somerset Maugham talesthat has proved itself in many versions, but this is the keeper; it wasnominated for seven Oscars®, including best picture, director, and actress,winning none. Wyler's impeccable direction, and Davis's take-no-prisonersapproach to an "unsympathetic" character, make for a completely satisfyingpicture. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (22)

GREAT FILM WITH A HOLLYWOOD ENDING
I call this a "Hollywood ending" not in the sense that it is a happy ening, but one which seems to be contrived to follow the production code of the day which stated that all wrongdoers must be brought to justice. Bette Davis, in one of her great performances, is killed off by Gale Sondergaard who herself is arrested by the police at the end. I really don't know if this ending is in the novel but it does not ring right with me. After all, Leslie Crosby was cleared of the crime and could have gone on living even with the torture memory of the lover she murdered in cold blood although I doubt if she would have remained faithful to wimpy Herbart Marshall for long. Gail Sondergaard, the dragon lady wife of the knocked off husband, just seems to be unable to get enough revenge. The 10 grand she got for selling the incriminating letter to Bette apparently was not enough to satisfy her. I especially liked the scene where Leslie tells her husband how much she still loves her vengefully slain adulterer.

Getting Away with Murder
Who else could get away with murder and still get the approval of the audience but Bette Davis? Based on Somerset Maugham's story, THE LETTER relates the murder of a rubber-plantation owner (Herbert Marshall) in Malaya by his wife (Bette Davis). It is interesting how Davis approaches this part. She gives a brilliant study of a cold yet proper woman who intoxicates her society friends and authorities through a pretense of female sexual virtue. She deliriously illustrates the passion of a woman who would kill a man for attempting to leave her and in doing so entices the audience on her behalf. Davis is so brilliant at conveying such a cold woman who my in effect really need the warmth and passion of a desperate soul, that even she may not realize her actions are a desperate attempt to realize her own desires. Is her behavior a pretense or not? This was very erotic stuff for its time. This film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards. Carl Jules Weyl's Art Designs combined with Tony Gaudio's Cinematography made a very provocative setting for the images. However the only fault I found with this film was Max Steiner's score. Max Steiner is one of my favorite film composers but I found his score too full of that heavy-handed Warner Bros. sound and not sensitive to the nature of the main character or the film.

seven well-deserved Oscar nominations
"The Letter" is a superb adapation of the Somerset Maugham tale set in Malaysia. Bette Davis is at the top of her form in her role as a deceitful, anguished wife caught up in an illicit love affair. Her pleasant, steady, unexciting husband, a rubber plantation manager, is played exceptionally well by Herbert Marshall. James Stephenson, in the role of her defense attorney, turns in an admirably understated yet vital performance.

William Wyler's masterful direction, employing exotic settings and mysterious minor characters, make this spellbinding tale of passion and murder a can't-miss for all Davis fans.

"The Letter" deserves the highest recommendation!

Exciting exotic thriller from the colonial age
Pistol shots bang through the starlit night in the malayan jungle and rubber planter Robert Crosbie (Herbert Marshall) is stupefied to learn that his own wife, Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis) has bumped off his best friend, Jeff Hammond. "He tried to rape me, so I shot him" she tells her husband - and we know from the start that she is lying. Hammond's body is riddled with bullets, her magazine empty. Some shots were fired when he was already lying on the ground.

While her credulous husband coddles her, she gives her lawyer, Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) her version of the story - only interrupted by crocodile tears and a simulated fainting-fit. Joyce is really considerate: he even commends her on her courage. So good is her mood when she regales the police with a dinner that she is surprised to learn that she could face a murder charge. Robert, haggard from lack of sleep tries to convince himself that everything is O.K: "She shot the man like a rabid dog". But Hammond was so dashing, charming, a real ladies man - hard to believe that he was capable of such a thing...

Robert has every reason to be worried: Joyce is informed by his asian counsellor that a certain letter exists: written by Leslie on the last day of Hammond's life, inviting him to come and see her...This letter is in the hands of his eurasian widow (Gale Sondergaard) who runs a gambling house. Leslie's smiling self-confidence dissolves under Joyce's interrogation. She denies everything, she rages, but her lawyer is not dumb: "I dont't want to hear more from you than is necessary to save your head". He feels nothing but contempt for the woman who implores him to get her the letter, but he feels compassion for her husband. The price for the letter is 10.000 Pounds - the exact amount of Robert's bank deposit - and Mrs. Hammond made it a condition that she should bring the money personally. Leslie tries to hide behind a veil, but it doesn't help her: after letting her wait for nearly one hour in an opium-den, the widow demands to see her face - and throws the letter before her feet with disdain. A male jury acquits the virtuous lady of her indictment, but there is more trouble brewing: Her husband wants to leave for Sumatra, become independent and buy his own plantation. He does not realize that his money is gone...

This exciting thriller contains one of Bette Davis' most famous performances. Herbert Marshall is equally brilliant in the role of her gullible husband, especially in the final scenes. He must have been the most often cuckolded husband on screen: Greta Garbo deceived him in THE PAINTED VEIL, and Marlene Dietrich in BLONDE VENUS and the delightful, underrated ANGEL. Perhaps he was beyond help, because he did not learn from his faults: His next film was THE LITTLE FOXES where he played Bette's victim again.

Sondergaard looks spectacular, but is psychologically wrong: Men usually fall in love with little Miss Butterfly - not with the empress of China. Bette Davis was universally praised. A very intelligent actress, she was on the right track: She wears glasses, she concentrates on her embroidery with great patience - needle-work and sex-appeal don't exclude each other, but there must have been a reason why her lover became tired of her...I think that she lacked the boldness to steep herself completely in Leslie Crosbie's true character. This type of woman ("One is getting so lazy here, the boys do everything" she says) has survived until recently in South Africa: she has no goal, no funcion, and my guess is that she was growing fat...Leslie Crosbie was porridge - and Bette plays her like caviar! W. Somerset Maugham, like Agatha Christie, is very good to read to this day: They were not dishonest authors, just one-sided: they nurture a nostalgia for the "glorious" age of colonialism, which existed only for a small part of mankind.

A great deal
It is a real crime story. Only at the end of this story you experience what happened in this special night. It is hard to feel how this nice beautiful woman can be a murderer.I was surprised that a lawyer does such a great deal (with that letter) to save the life of his client who is guilty. At the end you are in doubt if it is a fair end or not. The book is interesting to read. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Horroriffic!!!!!!!!
I saw this movie only once .... once again being on AMC'S Monster Fest 2000 ... its a good hokey Wartime horror film classic i think Universal shouldve made it though!!!!! bjut its still very atmospheric and a bit of a twist .. bela returns for his 3rd vampiric film after 8 years of absence after the twisted film The Mark of the Vampire where he wasnt a vampire at all ... lol but still a good chiller .... ok back to the Return of the Vampire.... like i said only 69 minutes of playing time but still a good movie ITS WORTH EARNING!!!

My Name Is Drac... Er, Tesla!
Bela Lugosi is Armand Tesla, an amazingly Dracula-like vampire, in this fangy fable. Assisted by his werewolf helper Andreas Obry (Matt Willis), Tesla goes on a reign of terror, only to be stopped by a spike through the heart. Years later, during WWII, we find Andreas reformed of his lycanthropic ways, and working for Lady Jane, the very woman who had helped put an end to Tesla. Well, the nazi's bomb England, unearthing Tesla. Two civil defense guys find his body and one of them pulls the spike out of Tesla's chest! Soon, The bloodsucking begins! Tesla regains his hold on Andreas and hatches his plot for revenge. Tesla now has a vendetta against Lady Jane. He has decided to destroy her by taking control of those she loves. Can Lady Jane stop him before it's too late? You can tell that Bela enjoyed playing this role. He IS Dracula in this movie, no matter what his name is. The acting is pretty good all around, including the wolfman, even if his make-up job is a tad goofy. Worth owning...

BEWARE THE NIGHT FOR THE VAMPIRE STALKS
Any true monster movie fan would have this film on their movie shelf. One of the best Dracula movies ever made in the 1940's.
In this movie there is never a dull moment. Like the eerie cemetery in the beggening to the dark allies of London wher Dracula and his companion,the wolfman, dispose of their victims.
And in the end there is a message to the viewers,I won't give it away. But this film is worth it. Starring Bela Lugosi, Freida Inescort, Nina Foch, Miles Mander and Matt Willis as the werewolf.

SO IT AIN'T VAL LEWTON....
I can't carp about this little 40's spooker with LUGOSI playing Dracula again (finally) even if it IS low-budget and has a funny-looking werewolf/assistant. It's still a curio and features a wartime setting as well as the lovely Nina Foch (in an early role) as a potential victim. It's goofy and weird and not all that bad, really. At least it was a major studio that released it and not one of those hideous poverty row junkfests that were churned out by the truckload around the same time. The class shows through with the acting,camera-work and story coherence. It could have been much worse but it's not and it sits proudly with my other DVDS as an old fashioned reminder of what going to the movies used to be about and how thankful I am that some of these old chestnuts are still around to be appreciated.

"It ain't even safe to be dead, anymore!"
The definitive movie vampire, Bela Lugosi, stars in this entertaining Columbia production. Although mired in a downward career spiral of poverty row clunkers, Bela, ahem, rises to the occasion. Among the familiar vampire cliches, we find a unique character in Andreas (Matt Willis), the wolf man familiar that serves the vampire. This guy looks like Lon Chaney, Jr. in full makeup, but he does not go around howling at the full moon. Instead, he shows great restraint and is quite articulate as he speaks rather than growls. His fiendish appearance tells of the soul's evil and the vampire's spell. After a prologue, that shows the vampire's 1918 horror and dispatch, Andreas escapes the dark side with help from a kindly lady scientist (Frieda Inescort). He falls back into dreadful habits after a WWII bombing raid unearths Bela. The scenes in the London cemetery inflicted with bomb damage are surreal images of foggy darkness and the children of the night. The script suffers from some B picture limitations, but not enough to matter. Lugosi's character, Armand Tesla, is merely Dracula, winking at legal copyright infringements. He catches Nina Foch in his alluring web of unholy desire. The climax in the bombed-out church is done well, and covers a multitude of unlikely plot developments. Character actor and former Mack Sennett star, Billy Bevan, plays Horace, the comic civil defense worker who utters the above immortal dialogue. Some viewers may recognize Bevan as the hapless Whitby policeman, Albert, in Universal's "Dracula's Daughter." Atmospheric sets and a veteran cast add to the enjoyment. Great fun for genre fans and collectors. ;-) ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Deanna Durbin in a movie that has it all!
This is, in my opinion, one of Deanna Durbin's most underrated screen vehicles (the other being "Something in the Wind"). "The Amazing Mrs. Holliday" is a film that has it all - action, suspense, drama, comedy, romance and (with Deanna on board) music! This was Deanna's most dramatic film to date. As a young woman forced to flee China with eight young war orphans, Deanna shows what a talented actress she actually is. She also sings some beautiful songs (including "Mighty Lak' a Rose"). Throw in Barry Fitzgerald for some comedy, and Edmond O'Brien for romance and you have a wonderful little film that is sure to brighten your view of the world! Overall, one of Deanna's greatest pictures.

Deanna tries to find a way to care for eight war orphans.
This is a most unusual Deanna Durbin film. In this movie, Deanna is a missionary returning from China with eight war orphans. The movie is partially nararrated by Deanna herself as she recounts the story of how she found the orphans and brought them to America. It is very touching although it has a few comic twists. Barry Fitzgerald is his delightful self and causes her no end of trouble. In the end she is the proud mama of NINE war orphans and has found them a very charming daddy. We really enjoyed this film even though it wasn't Deanna's usual style. It showed us that she was certainly capable of playing a more serious role. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

They don't make the most obvious screen couple--if you squint, you might think Stan Laurel had gotten together with Lauren Bacall--but their differences only serve to make this effervescent musical all the more entertaining. You'll Never Get Rich is the first of two that Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth made together (followed by You Were Never Lovelier). Astaire, who stars as choreographer-turned-soldier Robert Curtis, has rarely been looser, and Hayworth, as dancer Sheila Winthrop, has rarely been more graceful. As in Royal Wedding, Astaire also engages in some fancy solo footwork. Robert Benchley and Frieda Inescort provide priceless support as Robert's philandering boss and his clever wife, and Cole Porter composed the music, including "So Near and Yet So Far," "Dream Dancing," and the Oscar®-nominated "Since I Kissed My Baby Goodbye." You'll Never Get Rich is timeless, escapist fun that also serves to prove that sometimes opposites don't just attract--they can make beautiful music together. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (8)

You'll never get rich
The best of two pairings of Astaire and Hayworth on film. Though Astaire and Rogers claim primacy amongst dancing partners, it is hard to imagine any actress who generates more heat and incandescent charm onscreen than Hayworth. As lovely as he is talented, she holds her own surprisingly well in a film that finds Astaire spending most of his time in a stockade for going AWOL or somnabulent mishaps and mayhem. His centerpiece number "since I kissed my baby goodbye" by Cole Porter might be his greatest solo number of the 40's, beginning as a sly and ingenious bit of improvisation. The film also benefits from a superb supporting cast with Robert Benchley as Astaire's unctuous boss who attempts to pursue Hayworth while covering his adultery by passing off an unwilling (bold plot device for the breathing world) Astaire as her boyfriend. Astair e was eager to work with Hayworth due to his friendship with her father (a fellow choreographer) and it's not at all hard to discover why. A goofy mid-war comedy well worth using to stave off any rainy day.

Definitely worth a look or two
I'm one of those for whom a second tier Fred Astaire film is still more enjoyable than just about anything without him. And there is no question that Fred is at his best in this one. Unfortunately, he just isn't given first-rate musical material around which to wrap his massive dancing abilities. His partner is the extraordinarily capable Rita Hayworth, who spent her teenage years as her father's dance partner in the years when she was both abused by him and when she looked completely Hispanic (plastic surgery, skin lightening, and dying her hair transformed Rita Cansino into Rita Hayworth). They really do make a nice couple, though Fred had the rare ability to make almost anyone look like they were born to dance with him.

The plot is fairly silly, but anyone who loves thirties and forties movies knows when to cut a film a bit of slack. The cast is not outstanding beyond Fred and Rita, with the notable exception of Robert Benchley. This was actually a crucial point in Benchley's career. He had throughout the thirties maintained a dual movie career as the star of a string of hysterically funny one reelers, in which Benchley instructed the public on "How to" do things, such as "How to Vote" or "How to Read." He actually made one of the first talking shorts still to be seen occasionally, "The Sex Life of a Polyp" (1928, a short that obviously couldn't have been made after 1934 and the imposition of the Code). Benchley also made a host of appearances in rather unimportant films during the decade. Starting with Hitchcock's FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, however, Benchley began appearing in much higher quality films, including such gems as THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR (in which he plays Ginger Rogers's nemesis) and I MARRIED A WITCH. Unfortunately, he died in 1945.

The film was also extremely crucial for the career of Fred Astaire. He had ended his mythic partnership with Ginger Rogers only two years earlier, and his two following films were both disappointments. SECOND CHORUS was probably the worst film in Astaire's career, and BROADWAY MELODY OF 1940, while containing many wonderful moments, teamed him with legendary tap dancer Eleanor Powell. Emending my statement above, these two did not mesh as dance partners. Powell was too individual a performer, and excelled as a solo dancer, not as part of a team. They also failed to generate any romantic chemistry. YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH, while not a massive success, nonetheless reestablished him as a romantic dance star, and made six more films before his "retirement" in 1946 (he broke it as a favor to Gene Kelly in 1948 when Kelly broke his leg and was unable to film EASTER PARADE--the film "unretired" Astaire and he went on to make ten more musicals before retiring as a dancer).

So, this won't be the greatest musical anyone has ever seen, but it certainly won't be the worst. No Astaire fan would dare to miss it.

BETTER LOOKING THAN A LOT OF COLUMBIA "CLASSICS"!
"You'll Never Get Rich" is the first of two musicals Fred Astaire made with Columbia's resident bombshell - Rita Hayworth and although it's light, breezy and brimming to the ceiling with comedy and music - ironically, there's not much for the lovely Ms. Hayworth to do, except tap one solo and dance all too briefly in a contrived song with Astaire. The plot focuses on Astaire's employer - Robert Benchley, whose roving eye gets him in perpetual hot water with his wife. Currently, his eye is on Sheila (Hayworth). But an unlikely affair begins, then stops, then starts up again when Sheila realizes she's falling in love - not with Benchley, but Astaire. How's it end? - with music, fun and good humor; all main staples of the Hollywood film musical at its zenith.
TRANSFER: Well, considering the pure garbage Columbia has been giving classic film buffs of late (Talk of the Town, You Can't Take It With You, The Awful Truth) this DVD is looking pretty snappy! The gray scale is accurately rendered - though several scenes look as though second or third generation film elements were used instead of an original camera negative. There is a definite grain structure to this presentation. Apart from that, the usual aliasing, edge enhancement and pixelization that has accompanied many Columbia titles is thankfully absent herein. The audio is MONO but very nicely balanced and - for its vintage - natural sounding.
EXTRAS: ONLY A COUPLE OF THEATRICAL TRAILERS!!!
BOTTOM LINE: The follow up to this movie (You Were Never Lovelier) is far more engaging musical entertainment but this film showcases Astaire's tapping at some of its very best and it's refreshing to see the lovely Ms. Hayworth in fine comedic and dancing form! Recommended.

The first A-H movie is worth a second look.
YNGR is the first of two films which paired Astaire and Hayworth as dancers, and I initially thought it was the lesser of the two pairings. But I have to admit this film- which puts its audience squarely into the start of World War II- is quite sharp, script-wise, and quite lyrical, music-wise. Astaire's dance director shows an early but distant attraction to chorus dancer Hayworth (and vice-versa), but is drafted into the Army (not to mention repeatedly banished to the guardhouse for various insubordinations) before they can live happily ever after. They were a sweet coupling (despite their 19-year age difference) and Hayworth, as others have mentioned, was quite a revelation as a tap and ballroom dancer. All of their dances are performances only, not love scenes (which are the duets I have always preferred), but they are sensational. The requisite 'big number' is the finale, the "Wedding Cake Walk" (you'll do a double-take at the last image of the tank-shaped wedding cake), and there is an ensemble dance at the start of the film called "Boogie Barcarolle." But two numbers stand out: Astaire's solo dance in the guardhouse, sung by a black jazz chorus (uncredited, but I believe called the Delta Rhythm Boys) and entitled "Since I Kissed My Baby Goodbye." It has a marvelous grace and elegance, not to mention a sensational vocal by lead Delta man Lucius Brooks. The other number is Astaire and Hayworth's dress rehearsal "So Near and Yet So Far," a stunning rhumba which shows off Hayworth in a sheer black gown and expands into intricate layers of choreography. This is one of the last films to show Ms. Hayworth as a brunette; shortly after this outing she began doing Technicolor films, and her tresses went red forever after. Their follow-up film, "You Were Never Lovelier," had more of the standard romantic shenanigans and more lyrical dance numbers, but this first one was more screwball comedy and, in a sense, more of a challenge to pull off. See. Buy.

A fun, fast-paced and slightly risque comedy
Fred Astaire meets the draft in this pre-war comedy, featuring Rita Hayworth as a chorine who capures his heart, although she naturally already has a beau, presenting Fred with a challenge he must overcome between stints in the stockade for going AWOL and various other infractions of military law. This tart, well-scripted comedy is a little light on the dancing, but features some of the best, briskest dialogue that came Astaire's way, and a fine supporting cast, including the famous Hollywood "double-talker," Cliff Nazarro, going through his routine in numerous scenes. Hayworth dazzles, as usual, and Fred is in top form. Cole Porter's compositions for this film are not his best work (in fact, I don't think a single tune stuck in my head after watching this one), but they don't detract from the overall charm of this super-fun, class act classic film. Definitely recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (7)

"Him No Choke"
"Him no choke" was the famous line from this movie when Jane asked Tarzan to hold the bottle up as so young Boy would not choke. This movie was another of the GREAT Weissmuller collection! The Best part is when the natives get Boy's greedy ,slimey second cousin and get him ready to shrink him down to about 2 feet high, first using him as some sacrifice (what ever they did to him and several of the tribal boys looked pretty bad even though you couldn't see what was going down as they began to chant over their victims)Boy those natives they were pretty rough! I own all of the MGM series and this is my favorite next to "Tarzan and His Mate"next to"Tarzan Escapes"and I could go on ! This is truly a Classic and I still don't see how "Gone with the Wind" was able to win the Acadamy Award in 1939 over this picture - talk about a scam - this movie should have won hands down ! Do yourself a favor and buy yourself a piece of real Hollywood History as this movie is the TOTALPACKAGE ! note:another great line in the movie is "That used to be a full grown man" "ENJOY"

Cheetah find Boy. Give Boy to Tarzan. Jane say keep Boy.
It was not until I actually started working my way chronologically through the Tarzan novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs that I discovered Tarzan and Jane did not find their son in a wrecked airplane. The novel "The Son of Tarzan" was actually made into a fairly faithful silent film in 1920, but Johnny Weissmuller's Tarzan is not going to father Korak the Killer in this 1939 effort. This begs the question "Why?" Is it because women would faint at the idea of Maureen Sullivan's Jane giving birth in the jungle, no doubt with Cheetah as the mid-wife? Or would it be because pregnancy results from sex and the Hays Office would have a conniption over the implied jungle love? Then again, it might just be that the theme of the purity of the jungle versus the sins of civilization play up better with this film's storyline.

The plot is pretty simplistic. A plane crashes in the jungle and a baby is the only survivor. Cheetah brings the infant to Tarzan and Jane. Of course, Jane insists they will raise it as their own and acquiesces to the idea of calling the baby boy "Boy" (we can only wonder what would happen if the couple were to come across a second male child in terms of names). Boy (Johnny Shefield) is happy in his jungle home when suddenly a saffair made up of his parents' relatives arrives up the scene to begin a custody dispute, jungle style, which means involving a LOT of elephants.

The bottom line is that "Tarzan Finds a Son!" is the second best of the Weismuller Tarzan films, behind 1934's "Tarzan and His Mate," bringing out a paternal streak in the Lord of the Jungle that becomes him. The chemistry between the trio (okay, the quartet when you include Cheetah), makes this film work despite the limited vocabulary Weismuller's Tarzan has to work with in this series. Not to mention Boy has a pretty good variation of the Tarzan yell going for him. Of course, if you see this one be sure to check out "Tarzan's New York Adventure," where Boy is kidnapped by an evil circus promoter and taken to New York City where Tarzan and Jane follow to rescue him.

Rousing Jungle adventure yarn
I only saw this installment in the terrific MGM Tarzan series for the first time recently and must admit I was impressed. I feel this story further developed the storyline of Tarzan and Jane living the good life in the jungle.

This installment certainly added extra dimension to both of their characters with Tarzan displaying paternal emotions for the character of Boy and Jane being revealed as not always making the right choice and having a disagreement with Tarzan that causes a rupture, however temporary, in their relationship.

By the time this installment was released in 1939 (it was the fourth in the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films) technology had developed considerly from the first film (Tarzan the Ape Man) in the early 30's which today seems abit primitive. In this film , apart from a few very fake vine swings , the special effects are wonderfully handled and show a real refinement.The underwater sequences are superbly handled and where actually filmed by the actors themselves. The film really has everthing from wild animals to rampaging tribes of natives, plane crashes etc. Everthing to make this film an exciting adventure story and one of the very best in the MGM Tarzan series

The stories main feature is of course the introduction of Johnny Sheffield as Boy, a character that remained in the rest of the Tarzan features. I wont relate the plot line of Boy's introduction into the story as other reviewers have already covered that but to say that Johhny Weissmuller personally picked young Sheffield for the role and their on screen chemistry is wonderful. I feel Boy's introduction adds a logical development to the Tarzan character and from now on the king of the jungle had a family in the true sense of the word.

No Tarzan film would be complete without its quota of villians and "Tarzan finds a Son" has a very exceptional list of fine character actors as supporting performers. The great Henry Stephenson appears fresh from his great performance in the previous years MGM classic "Marie Antoniette" as Boy's long lost great Uncle looking for the possible survivors of the earlier plane crash. Another great performer is Cecil B. DeMille regular Henry Wilcoxon who plays one of the white explorers. Both add a real prestige element to this film.

I think "Tarzan finds a Son" is a terrific piece of entertainment and one of the best in the MGM series. At this point the series was still alive and fresh and the expert direction by Richard Thorpe really keeps the action moving along. Enjoy!

Tarz rocks as a Dad but the movie flounders in mediocrity.
let me say at the open that I'm a Tarzan fan and like all the Weismuller movies in particular. Johnny Sheffield was great in this movie, his acting was impressively natural. His relationship with his "parents" Tarzan and Jane seemed real and unforced. He acted just the way you would imagine a kid would act growing up in the jungle with Tarzan That part of the movie I liked.
The problem I had was with the tacked on confrontation between Tarzan and Boy's relatives. It was awkward and the villains weren't really worthy of testing Tarzan's mettle. They were unimaginitive cardboard characters and the plot revolving around them was grade A hack material. The greedy grasping relatives seemed so bland and uninspired compared to the relationship between Tarzan, Jane and Boy. I would have liked to have seen something that re-inforced the relationship between Boy and his parents. In closing, the parts with Boy, Tarzan and Jane are great. A boy couldn't hope for a better life than growing up in the jungle with Tarz. The rest of the movie though is a flop. it's worth watching, just stay near the fast forward button on the remote.

Johnny Sheffield the Baby Boost becomes Boy
"Tarzan Finds A Son" introduced the character of Boy to the series. After an impressively staged plane crash in the thick jungle a solitary baby is recovered from the wreckage of the craft. Enter the character of Boy! Johnny Weissmuller personally picked Johnny Sheffield for the new and much needed integral part for the series. You might say that Sheffield provided a "baby boost" to the series! Weissmuller assisted the strapping Sheffield as he trained for the rigors of the role. The film was shot entirely at Silver Springs, Florida. Several lakes there were brilliantly clear and were perfect for the underwater photography. Maureen O'Sullivan who wanted to quit her role as Jane dies in the arms of Tarzan in the original script. The scene was actually shot, but under protests from Edgar Rice Burroughs and many fans MGM re-shot the scene keeping O'Sullivan in the series. I like this film because it focuses more on the characters and their relationship as a family unit rather than on their relationship with the various jungle friends and threats which were growing wearisome by the time of this entry in the series. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

George Stevens won an Oscar for his 1951 adaptation of Theodore Dreiser's novel An American Tragedy, though the film seems a little overwrought today and even self-parodying at times. Still, Montgomery Clift's performance as a poor lad so drawn to a rich, beautiful girl (Elizabeth Taylor) that he contemplates killing his lower-class fiancée (Shelley Winters) is powerful, sympathetic, and mesmerizing. Taylor makes a strong impression, but Winters is awfully good in the less-glamorous role. The tone of the film is oppressive--the film doesn't exactly breathe with possibility--but there are lots of good reasons to give this movie a visit. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (62)

A Bad Life Decision
A Place in the Sun, 1951
Running time: 120 minutes in black & white
Director: George Stephens
Studio: Paramount Studio
Actors/Actresses: Montgomery Clift (George Eastman)
Elizabeth Taylor (Angela Vickers)
Shelly Winters (Alice Tripp--name is symbolic of her behavior)
Awards/Nominations: Oscar won in 1952 for best cinematography, black & white; best costume design, black & white; best director; best film editing; best music; and best writing.
Nominated for an Oscar in 1952 for best actor and actress in a leading role and best picture.
DGA Award won in 1952 for outstanding directorial achievement in motion pictures.
Golden Globe won in 1952 for best motion picture drama.
Silver Ribbon Award won in 1952 for best director of a foreign film.
NBR Award won in 1951 for best picture.
PGA Hall of Fame for Motion Pictures Award won in 1997.
WGA Screen Award won in 1952 for best written American drama and nominated for the Robert Meltzer Award.
Genre: Romantic Tragedy

In summary, the movie includes the trials and tribulations of a love triangle between a smart nice guy, a rich nice woman, and a manipulating possessive working-class woman. George Eastman hitchhikes from Kansas City to his uncle's swimsuit factory to work. Once there, he is given a position boxing merchandise by his not-too-friendly cousin. Prior to his employment, George is informed that he is not to have romantic relations with his fellow co-workers as a condition of employment. Unfortunately, George broke this rule by dating and ultimately getting one of his coworkers pregnant. While dating her (Alice), he falls in love with Angela Vickers, a high-class woman that is well-known throughout the comunity and by Charles Eastman (George's rich uncle). Instead of telling Angela about Alice and vice versa, George "drives himself crazy" and eventually commits the ultimate crime. What may astonish the viewer is that even after learning of George's hideous crime, Angela confesses that she still loves him.

Both George and Alice would have different lives at the end of the movie if George had stayed in Kansas City! He also should have been honest with both women in order to alleviate stress for both he and Alice. This movie was given four stars due to its relativeness to society and its great plot for the time period. It was interesting throughout the whole movie.

What Chemistry
The first time I viewed A Place In The Sun it did not have much of an impact on me. Perhaps I was too young, plus I did not understand Montgomery Clift's acting style. Subsequent viewings have made me realize the quality of this film. Clift stars as the poor relation of an important family who begins to work his way up. He first has a relationship with plain working girl Shelley Winters. Then he meets the real love of his life, beautiful, wealthy Elizabeth Taylor. From that point, things become very complicated for all concerned. Clift was an actor that played everything deeply, and his performances are always painfully real, just like this one, in which you can feel the conflicts that tear him apart. Winters is excellent in her tragic role, while Taylor, besides looking unbelievably beautiful, brings a lot of honesty to her character. The chemistry between the Clift and Taylor is palpable, and their on screen kiss is one of the most memorable you will ever see. Although there is a sense of doom that permeates the movie, the actors make every moment a great one. Some of elements of the story may seem dated, but it is played with such honesty and intensity that you will appreciate it for the very fine film it is.

Heartbreaking & Realistic
Ever wanted something you couldn't have? Ever wanted it so badly you'd kill to have it? In "A Place in the Sun" George Eastman (Montgomery Clift), a poor young man with big dreams, deals with these questions as he tries to make it to the top of the social ladder in spite of social prejudices from the richer Eastman clan.
As he pursues his dream of social grandeur, he falls in love with the beautiful and unatttainable Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor), a rich socialite. But just as his dreams begin to come true, George is confronted by his ex girlfriend (Shelly Winters), a poor factory employee, who is pregnant with his baby and threatens to destroy his newly attained social lifestyle. Having made it to the top, however, George is determined to stay there at any cost - a decision that leads to tragic results.

Memorable performances
Excellent movie about the tragic consequences of pushing too hard to obtain the american dream. Montgomery Clift gives a realistic performance as the poor kid who makes it to the top at a high price. Liz Taylor is believable as the rich beauty who falls in love with Clift, and Shelly Winters is especially memorable as the poor factory worker who gets shoved aside by Clift after he meets Taylor. Beautifully made movie that makes you really get into the mind and heart of its protagonists. Highly Recommended.

Tragedy Turned to Melodrama
It was probably inevitable that "An American Tragedy," in its evolution to screen, would become more about the doomed love affair of Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor than the moral and ethical dilemmas that really form the foundation of Theodore Dreiser's novel. After all, doomed love is a bigger sell, especially when you have the romantic faces of Clift and Taylor swooning together in extreme close-up.

I'm not a fan of doing book to movie comparisons. I figure that film and literature are two different art forms, so I shouldn't compare their rendering of the story anymore than I would compare the same story as presented in a painting as opposed to a ballet. So I tried to take the film on its own merits (admittedly difficult to do, since I watched the movie on the same day I finished the book), but even at that, I think the movie falls short.

Clift plays George Eastman, poor nephew to a rich, socially elite family in a small New York state factory town. He's been invited by his uncle to come and work in the Eastman factory, giving him an entre into a world of luxury that has always been out of his grasp due to his family's humble position (they run a mission and preach on the streets). George strikes up a love affair with Alice Tripp (Shelley Winters), a girl who works with him in the factory, but his attentions for her quickly fade when he becomes in