Description

War correspondent stumbles on a little known fact that an honored American war patriot had in fact worked for the Fascists; wife urges writer to expose the facts for history. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Flameout
Hard to imagine Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn being lousy together: until you see them in this Popular Front catastrophe fron 1942. The conspiracy theory of those days among Hollywood leftists was that there were Fascist fifth columnists under every bed and they had to be rooted out. Reporter Tracy is rooting under widow Hepburn's bed to get the goods on her late husband. Tracy was not politcally sympathetic to the project and he looks thoroughly discouraged and annoyed from scene one. The crummy script and abominable sets didn't help any. Politics is always a touchy subject in the movies; it usually doesn't date well. Some films, like "For Whom the Bell Tolls," can shrug off the rhetoric and still be great years later. Others, like "Keeper of the Flame," sink like a stone.

Keeper of the the Flame reminded me vaguely of "Citizen
Kane". This film was made a year later in 1942. The techniques, the tone & general production just seemed siniliar. Kate Hepburn is the widow of the famous, popular, charismatic World War I hero, Robert Forest. Apparently he's also become fabulously wealthy. A bridge washes out from a storm the night he is to meet with other powerful men to plan a takeover of the United States. He's a closet facist & very few people know. Anyway, he's basically dead in an auto accident before the movie starts. Could he have been saved? His marriage to Hepburn hasn't been going too well & she being a patriotic American, has a probelm with his facisism. None of this is known of course. Along comes Spencer Tracer a famous reporter to do a biography on the great man. A few sparks fly & as a Hepburn/Tracy flick, this is not their best effort. There are a few slow spots but its a thriller that keeps your attention. There was a war on when this movie was made but thankfully the anti-facist message was pretty subtle. Overall, they could have done better, but then, they could have done worse. 31/2 stars.

National Hero?
A journalist (Spencer Tracy) investigates the strange circumstances surrounding the death of a national hero. But he runs into a wall of silence. Everybody seems to hide something and the strange behaviour of the widow (Katharine Hepburn) puzzles him: her mourning seems not very deep. No wonder, since her husband planned to take the U.S. Government over with a fascistic coup, and this poor woman did what she considered her patriotic duty...

Good thriller that could have been great. The warning of totalitarianism is subtle - the young adherents who beleaguer Hepburn's home never use martial rhetoric - but the film is plodding and drags on. Tracy spends nearly the entire film running and sometimes riding on horseback from one house to the other, from one taciturn witness to the next. The denouement is squeezed into the last 10 minutes. Hepburn is even declared an american hero although her motives were not entirely selfless: her husband despised her because she could not bear him children. The flaws in this film are all the more disappointing, since, with this plot and this cast, the film could have been on the level of NOTORIOUS.

one of the best
This one of the best no matter what! My dad told me to watch this movie because he thought I would like it, and I did. It might not be the best Known movie but it's still a thriller. If you love Alfred's movies I promise you will love this!

Tracy-Hepburn vehicle warns of the Fascist threat at home
This is an interesting choice for the second Tracy-Hepburn picture, following the success of "Woman of the Year," but then all of the films Katharine Hepburn made during World War II were interesting choices. In "Stage Door Canteen," while other stars performed, Hepburn shared in the film's main dramatic scene and in "Dragon Seed" she played a Chinese peasant girl. However, "Keeper of the Flame" is clearly Spencer Tracy's film. He plays Steven O'Malley, a famous correspondent who has returned from Europe to cover the death an American national hero, Robert V. Forrest. Hepburn plays the reclusive widow, a role that eerily foreshadows Jacqueline Kennedy in some regards, whom O'Malley comes to suspect of having murdered her husband. However, to his surprise, O'Malley discovers that Forrest's supernationalism was merely a facade for fascism. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Based an "unwritten" novel by I. A. R. Wylie and scripted by Donald Odgen Stewart, the choice of George Cukor to direct the film is quite surprising. Cukor and cinematographer William Daniels do their best to create a Hitchcock-type film, but the overall effect is a pale imitation at best. Hepburn seems ill-suited to the role of the widow with a secret, although certainly her political sensibilities would support the point of the film. Tracy is a bit subdued, no doubt because of the conflict between his feelings for Christine Forrest and his desire to uncover the truth no matter what the cost, but this is still a solid performance from one of the greatest film actors.

Overall the fascist threat seems too muted in this film. Darryl Hickman as the young Jeb Rickards, who had belonged to Forrest's youth organization (which looks less like the Boy Scouts and more like the Hitler Youth as the movie progresses), is the true emotional heart of the film. Yet in the end you feel more that he was mislead than actually endangered by his membership. The idea that fascism could succeed in America only as a third front sort of thing is dangerously misleading, as demagogues like Huey P. Long were in the process of proving. The nation surely could have used a solid anti-fascist film from Hollywood, but "Keeper of the Flame" was ultimately too shallow an effort. At the end you might understand that Robert V. Forrest was a fascist, but you really have no idea what that means beyond the fact that it is a very bad thing.

This is arguably the weakest Tracy-Hepburn film and was certainly not the formula followed in their more successful efforts. Given the subject matter the romantic elements between the two is sadly misplaced, getting in the way of the film's message as much as the reporter's investigation. Hepburn would be served a little better by her next foray into the suspense genre four years later in "Undercurrent." ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Golly! This movie is corny and patriotic? You don't say.
A fine film. It's pure, distilled, Grade-A, all-star, all-American, accept-no-substitutions, concentrated, three-hankie, melodramatic, sentimental, heartwarming, white picket fence, patriotic wartime schmaltz. They don't make 'em like this anymore. Mickey Rooney stars as Homer Macauley, a bright-eyed, fresh-faced, optimistic teenager living in Smalltown, USA during the height of World War Two, when all able bodied young men, including his older brother, have gone off to fight against the fascists and save civilization itself. Still, even with soldiers passing through town and cannons crowding the trains that are headed back East towards Europe, the war is still far, far away, and civilization can still be saved right here, back on the homefront. Taking his brother's place as "the man of the family," Homer learns about hard work, fair play, compassion for others, and about disappointment and heartbreak as well. It's all unremittingly corny, but that's entirely the point. This is not a modern movie -- it isn't cynical or packed with obligatory violence, nor is it politically nuanced or notably subtle. But it is a fine document of its time, sort of an ultimate exposition of the best and most cheerful face that mainstream, white America could put on the underlying grimness that a total war mobilization meant for America and the world. It's a piece of homefront propaganda, but no less true to life, in its way, than any other film of the time.

The screenplay by William Saroyan is set in the author's home in California's fertile San Joaquin Valley, and while he makes sweeping nods towards the Valley's legendary cultural diversity (omitting, for the most part, blacks, Jews and Germans...), Saroyan gives Norman Rockwell a run for his money in the sentimental Americana category. A couple of the religiously-themed scenes may be suffocating to secular or nonsectarian audiences, but other than the film's persistent preachiness, it's a fascinating slice of wartime historical hokum -- worth checking out its time capsule qualities, as well as for entertainment value. Plus, it's packed with loads of great character actors and all-star cameos, including Frank Morgan (aka The Wizard Of Oz), as Homer's older mentor, Don Defore and (a very young) Robert Mitchum as babyfaced soldiers on leave, and Carl Switzler ("Alfalfa," of the Little Rascals) as a teenage hooligan. This movie is sappy, sure... but it's also worth checking out if you have any interest in understanding American society at this critical juncture in our national history.

An over-looked gem.
I disagree with reviewers who've complained that this movie is too patriotic. The heart of the movie is the Macauley family, not the war effort or America alone. Just because Homer Macauley (Mickey Rooney) chooses optimism over bitterness, it is not because of patriotism. Though the Macauley family has an older son away at war, their daily struggle is trying to get by without a father as fourteen-year-old Homer tries to support his family with a job as telegram boy. Though this proves difficult at times, Homer never complains and remains endearingly precocious, as displayed by his struggle in school with a snobby bully and his hopeless crush on a classmate. Overall, the movie is a good, solid effort, mostly due to Mickey Rooney's flawless performance as Homer.

So...what's wrong with tugging a heart-string or two..?
This has always been one of my favorite films, since I saw it on TV about 30 years ago. Sentimental & Corny? Sure, but those who take the time to feel the deeper message will be rewarded. Apparently, some of my reviewing predecessors kept their minds closed to the depth (yes, that's right) of the story. First of all, this is a fable; a commentary not on life itself, but about life as it ought to be. The fact that it involves Ithaca, and characters named Homer, Ulysses & Marcus suggests Greek tragedy (the irony of the title) and the Greek chorus (the father). I couldn't possibly deny the fact that there are plenty of sappy moments, but they are layered & blended with some quite profound lessons. Let's not forget that in 1942 the war was at its absolute peak and enouragement like this was not only welcome but very necessary. Mickey Rooney gave a relaxed, centered performance, probably his best; Frank Morgan, Fay Bainter, James Craig, Marsha Hunt...all wonderful. How can you not feel for Homer when he has to deliver a singing telegram to his girlfriend...sent by his rival? Clarence Brown, known for heart-tuggers (The Yearling, National Velvet) came thru with flying colors, juggling the very complicated events & episodes into a coherent narrative. Say or think what you want...I was moved and touched by the over-all power of this film. It is quite verbose, and some of the preachy little speeches might've been shortened, but the substance of those little speeches hit home powerfully. Home, family, work, love...all those things that matter...are portrayed here as they "ought" to be, and after the tragedy of Sept 11, I welcome this little reminder of the things we have that are taken so much for granted.

Corny and trite.
Maybe wartime audiences needed sickly sentimental and syrupy movies such as this to escape from reality. And there are some moving moments in this movie; but its overall sappiness makes it a disappointment in the long run.

Some parts are just so unbelievably syrupy that it just boggles the mind. In one scene set on a train filled with soldiers heading towards overseas embarkation areas, one soldier starts to play gospel hymn on his accordian and his buddy starts to sing along. In a scene that reminded me of the nun with the guitar scene in "Airplane," all the other soldiers upon hearing the music, stop what they're doing, look towards the musicians, and then start to sing too. Soon the entire train, which must have been completely filled with evangelical Christians, is singing away. But that was not the corny part. It really gets silly when the camera starts doing closeups of one soldier urging everyone to "SING!" It soon dawned on me that the filmmaker was trying to get the audience watching in the theater to sing along with the characters on the screen. Now that's corny! (The only thing missing was the song's lyrics at the bottom of the screen with the bouncing ball accompanying the music.)

However, like other reviewers here, it is the ending that really made me shake my head with wonder- a character attempts to put a joyful spin on some really tragic news. The ending is just absurd. And the fact that this was a wartime movie is no excuse when you compare "The Human Comedy's" ending to the truly moving ending of another wartime melodrama, "The Fighting Sullivans." "The Fighting Sullivans" shows that wartime sentiment and patriotism could be used to make a good movie; on the other hand, "The Human Comedy" shows the exact opposite.

Embarrassingly soapy vignette of WWII patriotism
Though William Saroyan's original work had many a deficiency, and indeed had much excessive flag waving, the characterisation, lighter scenes, and inclusion of a few other "supporting players" made it a bit more believable. This film is tedious, totally "preachy," and one in which few characters seem at all like anyone who actually walks the earth.

The Saroyan novel, for all its excessive patriotic references, basically dealt with a young man's growing to maturity. Mickey Rooney's efforts to make Homer Macauley a likeable teenager are noble, but the film version reduces him to one dimension. Young Ulysses, who has a certain charm in the book, seems a cartoon character. Mother Macaulay is the worst of all - delivering weighty pseudo-wisdom in awesome tones that would put one in mind of the wax figures who sat in "Grandma Predicts" booths at Coney Island.

The ending (which I'll not reveal, though it is obvious from the first scene) is sad but realistic in the book - grotesque in the film. The very last line Homer utters, and which is not in the original, is an attempt at inappropriate cheer that comes out as macabre.

Much more could have been done with a cast such as this, but the adaptation is one of the worst. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

"Susan" is Odd
From the second she steps off the boat for a weekend with her society friends, Joan's "Susan" is a glittery whirling dervish of newfound religious enthusiasm, much to the dismay of her still-jaded companions. Susan's misguided attempts at converting these "worldlings" are the high point of the movie. The excellent supporting characters, played by Ruth Hussey, Nigel Bruce, Rose Hobart, and Rita Hayworth, et al, are all wittily horrified at her meddling in their personal lives, and these scenes zip along with style and verve.

Joan doesn't really have a light comedic touch here, as someone like Carole Lombard might have brought to the role; rather, her Susan is quite high-strung, jittery, feral even---never, even in her earlier flapper roles, have I seen her this jumpy, and her rapid-fire delivery and intensity in these early scenes is decidedly unusual for her and will probably be especially fascinating for Joan devotees.

Things do slow down in the movie's second half once Susan's relations with her alcoholic husband (Fredric March) take center stage, and the storyline then shifts to focus on the rather trite lesson Susan must learn that "family comes first." Not a knock on March, or Rita Quigley, who plays their daughter Blossom---both are quite subtle and sensitive as the neglected family members. It's just that Susan's earlier repartee with her friends is much more interesting than seeing Blossom, er, blossom under Susan's newly discovered mothering skills. Director George Cukor also seems to lose a bit of steam in the second part of the film --there are several scenes and shots that linger too long without purpose.

Overall, though, I'd definitely recommend -- a "10" for the snappy first half, and "6" or so for the duller but still well-acted second half. (With kudos, as always, to the cantankerous Marjorie Main as the family's surly, sassy housekeeper.)

Joan Crawford In An Enjoyable Non Traditional Role
The beginning of the 1940's decade saw the start of the "changing of the guard", at MGM illustrated in the tapering off of the careers of the resident movie queens of MGM from the 1930's, Norma Shearer, Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford. In her own effort to retain her position in the MGM pecking order Joan Crawford, long dissatisfied with many of the scripts handed to her, began to actively seek out more prestigious vehicles for her future starring roles. When Norma Shearer turned down the lead in the highly successful Rachel Crother play "Susan and God" which had been a smash hit on Broadway starring Gertrude Lawrence, fearing to play the mother of a teenage girl Joan jumped at the chance and turned in one of her most interesting later day MGM performances. Comedy and religion dont normally go together in 1940's comedy and that is what gives this Crawford vehicle it's own unique interest.

Featuring the only teaming on screen for Joan Crawford and Fredric March this film has two distinct parts to it with the high comedy prominent in the first half being replaced by a more traditional Crawford type dramatic slant in the second. "Susan and God", tells the story of society matron Susan Trexel (Joan Crawford) who after an extended trip to Europe arrives back home in a flurry of excitement over her newly discovered religious beliefs which to all her society friends appear to be just the latest fad embraced by Susan in her normally frivolous existence. Those beliefs based on the idea of a public confession of one's own shortcomings begin however to cause troubles between her jaded society friends and more importantly within her disfunctional home life with husband Barrie (Fredric March) and daughter Blossom (Rita Quigley). Susan's meddling in her friend's married life also causes problems between Hutchie (Nigel Bruce) and his much younger wife Leonora (Rita Hayworth in an early role). Susan however is no shining example of the advise she so piously dispenses and she experiences a complete estrangement from her normally loving husband who has been driven to drink by her repeated lack of care, and from her daughter who is socially withdrawn and simply wants a loving home environment with both parents. Barrie sees that Susan's religious pontificating is simply another of her wild schemes for attention and like all she does has no sincerity or lasting value below the surface gloss. Being the loving father that he is however Barrie decides to ask Susan for the sake of their daughter to begin a new life together again. Agreed to reluctantly at first by the superficial Susan, as time passes she begins to realise the real damage that she has caused over the years to those closest to her by her self centred attitude. Seeing the real hurt she has been responsible for Susan begins to realise that running away from her responsibilities is not the answer or the way of finding the personal salvation she has been talking so much about. Seeing the total lack of any real love in her immediate family circle Susan does an about face and begins to make a real effort to really practice what she has been preaching so lighly to all and sundry since her return.

This most unusual topic of the detrimental effects that religion has on a family was a theme rarely explored in Hollywood at this time and it is a pity that this film, like the celebrated stage play it was based on have been largely forgotten with the passing of time. Directed by veteran George Cukor who always worked well with strong female performers and with Joan in particular as seen in their next film together the classic "A Woman's face", here he has a difficult task on his hands with an essentially unsympathetic and unlikeable lead female role that somehow must being able to logically reform as the story progresses. It reveals the much larger range that Joan Crawford was rarely allowed to show in her MGM years and her change from shallow society queen out for more attention into a mature and reflective individual thinking of others for the first time really is a stunning showcase for her by now experienced talents. The gifted Fredric March has the far less colourful role here of the husband who is largely a victim of Susan's latest caprices however being the strong actor he is manages to make something of his weak character who gains inner strength and purpose. Rita Hayworth was beginning to emerge at this time from her years as a "B" movie actress and her scenes reveal the glowing freshness that became so much of her later appeal. Rose Hobart and Ruth Hussey as Susan's friends Charlotte and Irene also make most favourable impressions in their scenes dealing with Susan's latest wild schemes, Hussey in particular excellent in the love scenes she shares with Fredric March.

Backed up by the expertise in every department that one comes to expect from MGM this film nowadays certainly has curiosity value for it's unorthodox subject matter and largely non traditional role undertaken by Joan Crawford. It revealed her talents in full bloom backed up by solid direction and great attention to detail. I recommend this different Crawford vehicle made just prior to the end of her legendary career as a top star at MGM.

WORTH A LOOK
Because religion coupled with sophisticated comedy was such an unusual subject for the Hollywood of 1940 to dabble with at all, this little movie is a curio. This film, which is based upon Rachel Crother's comedy of manners is not really in Joan Crawford's range; supposedly, she failed to provide the charm that Gertrude Lawrence reportedly gave the role on Broadway. When Crawford is being intellectually frivolous, it's merely tiresome. The director, George Cukor and the scenarist, Anita Loos, must certainly have been aware of the problem, because Loos supplied some new characters and Cukor lavished affection on the actresses - Marjorie Main and Constance Collier - who played them. Joan plays a woman who finds religion and drives her husband (Frederic March) and friends up the wall with her pious attitudes and newly found graces. Rita Quigley plays her discontented daughter and Marjorie Main steals the show when Susan insists that she (as the housekeeper) refer to her by her first name. Susan enters her summer cottage and asks Main how long ago the new decorating was done. Main replies heartily "About six months ago - SUSAN!!" to a hilariously shocked Joan. While not considered a completely successful transfer of the play, it is untypical for its subject matter and you can see a youthful Rita Hayworth in a supporting role as one of Susan's bewildered victims!

Offbeat subject, unmannered Crawford make this worthwhile
George Cukor's Susan and God has a couple of things going for it. First the subject matter, religion, which is not treated in depth but provides material for a satire of spiritual faddism circa 1940. Second, Joan Crawford before her late-phase bulldozer style had taken over entirely. Crawford plays a thoroughly silly rich matron whose latest fling with a self-analytic cult becomes her crusade, much to the chagrin of her family, friends and household staff. Of course her conviction runs just about as deep as her makeup. The movie's priceless line is delivered by housekeeper Marjorie Main who, taking Crawford's exhortations that they're equals quite literally, purrs an insolent "Suuuuuusan" back at her.

Crawford Near Her Peak
This film is an odd one in Joan Crawford's MGM films, but entertaining and well worth viewing for one of Crawford's better, more carefully thought-out performances. Originally purchased for Norma Shearer (who balked at playing the mother of a teenager), this dramatic comedy provides a fine framework for one of Crawford's few successful comedy portrayals. Widely faulted at the time for too closely copying Gertrude Lawrence's stage performance (in the same role), today it is apparent how much originality and commitment Crawford brought to the part of Susan, a flighty upper-crust socialite hell bent on bringing her newfound religious enlightenment to her family and friends, with disasterous results. Frederick March turns in a fine, delicately shaded performance as Susan's long suffering husband who is driven to drink by her fecklessness. This is a first rate MGM production of its day, with stunning costumes and brilliant supporting players. Majorie Main, as Susan's down-to-earth housekeeper, almost steals the film and Rose Hobart gives a brilliant, tense performance as Susan's unhappy best friend. This film has often been overlooked by fans and critics alike, but it offers many delights and highlights excellent contributions by George Cukor, the director, and the rest of the MGM production team. The subject (born again religious mania) is rather an odd one for Golden Age Hollywood to have touched on at all, but it is handled with care and Susan, in the end, emerges a wiser, happier woman. No Joan Crawford fan should miss it! ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Anyone who loves the history of Virginia . . ..
Being from Virginia, I am of course partial to movies about it. Having spent a lot of time touring historical homes in and around the state, this movie in particular stands out. Part of the movie was filmed at Carters Grove Plantation, one of the James River Plantations. Cary Grant was great friends with the McCrea's who owned the plantation in the 1930's-40's. He loved the house so much that he recommended to the film company that they use the house for the home of inlaws in the movie. (The plantation was also used for the George Washington miniseries with Barry Bostwick/as the Fairfax home)
I recommend this movie to anyone that loves Cary Grant. Mr Grant's portrayal is very moving, Richard Carlson as Thomas Jefferson isn't so bad either !

A very big Cary Fan Hates This One!
As much as it pains me to say, this is a terrible movie for Cary-and a terrible movie in general. All of Grant's strengths are hidden while he is asked to play a rugged, outdoorsman with no polish, class or sophistication. It sounds like a bad joke, doesn't it? Well it is. It hurts to watch this great actor stumble through this movie. Please keep in mind that I am a huge(maybe even obsessive) Grant fan, owning over 30 of his DVDs. This is, however, by far my least favorite. Sorry. Save your money and invest in the new Criterion edition of "Notorious."

Cary Grant -- miscast but still fun to watch
At 115 minutes, this Hollywood historical film runs a bit long, and Cary Grant isn't the best fit for Matt Howard, but he is still fun to watch and the film covers interesting bits of the events leading up to the American Revolution, such as the Boston Tea Party. We also meet Thomas Jefferson and listen to Patrick Henry. The film's tension comes from the class differences between rebel Matt and his conservative wife, Jane. While the sets and costumes look good, the story lags at times, but this would be a worthwhile rental for Grant fans or Revolution cinephiles.

The dvd features are: subtitles in English, French or Japanese, and trailers for three other classic films.

Worthwhile viewing
This is a fine movie for adults to watch along with their children. I totally enjoyed the political IN-correctness of this movie. Filmed on location in Willimsburg before the town was turned into Revolutionary Themepark, the street scenes truly were what they would have been during the revolution. Historical movies today work too hard at either beating us over the head with societal inequalities or pretending they didn't exist. In the 1700s Legislators were men, women stayed on the sidelines, black people were slaves. To deny the truths of the period is to deny the valour of the people who fought for change since then. The story moved quickly and the reasons for Revolution were clearly spelled out as affecting the whole nation, not just about one or two people as we have recently seen in movies like "The Patriot". Although most of the women's costumes were awful (zippers were obvious), the furniture detail and most of the men's costumes were well done. I would recommend this movie as worthwhile viewing.

If it weren't for Cary Grant...
If it weren't for Cary Grant, I would never have finished watching this video/film. I was bored by the lack of character development, but Cary Grant's smoldering presence makes the movie worth seeing once. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Fine, classic family entertainment
This is the type of movie you walk away from thinking, "They sure don't make family films like this anymore". And you know what? They don't!

Released in 1948, "Hills of Home" takes the world's favorite collie and places her in the hills of Scotland in a small farming town. Lassie has a phobia of water, and is turned away by a shepherd, only to be taken in by a country doctor, played by Edmund Gwenn, who is bound and determined to help his new friend overcome her fear.

The script is the right combination of wit, drama, and action. The cast is top notch, including Tom Drake as an apprentice of Gwenn's, whose father refuses his studies to be a doctor, and a young Janet Leigh (in of her first film roles) as the girl of Drake's affection.

The scenic work is beautiful, the costumes are lush, and since it's an MGM film, you know that nothing was spared in creating a true classic film treasure.

Excellent Lassie Movie, Better than average plot
A Scottish country doctor needs the help of a dog to help him in his rounds. He gets a collie but the dog is afraid of water. Edmund Gwenn plays the doctor and of course Lassie plays the collie. The story has a number of subplots that keep the story going. Will the doctors protege pursue a career as a physician despite his fathers wishes? Can Lassie overcome her fear of water to save the day? If you liked All Creatures Great and Small, you will love this movie. I highly recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Fine, classic family entertainment
This is the type of movie you walk away from thinking, "They sure don't make family films like this anymore". And you know what? They don't!

Released in 1948, "Hills of Home" takes the world's favorite collie and places her in the hills of Scotland in a small farming town. Lassie has a phobia of water, and is turned away by a shepherd, only to be taken in by a country doctor, played by Edmund Gwenn, who is bound and determined to help his new friend overcome her fear.

The script is the right combination of wit, drama, and action. The cast is top notch, including Tom Drake as an apprentice of Gwenn's, whose father refuses his studies to be a doctor, and a young Janet Leigh (in of her first film roles) as the girl of Drake's affection.

The scenic work is beautiful, the costumes are lush, and since it's an MGM film, you know that nothing was spared in creating a true classic film treasure.

Excellent Lassie Movie, Better than average plot
A Scottish country doctor needs the help of a dog to help him in his rounds. He gets a collie but the dog is afraid of water. Edmund Gwenn plays the doctor and of course Lassie plays the collie. The story has a number of subplots that keep the story going. Will the doctors protege pursue a career as a physician despite his fathers wishes? Can Lassie overcome her fear of water to save the day? If you liked All Creatures Great and Small, you will love this movie. I highly recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Flameout
Hard to imagine Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn being lousy together: until you see them in this Popular Front catastrophe fron 1942. The conspiracy theory of those days among Hollywood leftists was that there were Fascist fifth columnists under every bed and they had to be rooted out. Reporter Tracy is rooting under widow Hepburn's bed to get the goods on her late husband. Tracy was not politcally sympathetic to the project and he looks thoroughly discouraged and annoyed from scene one. The crummy script and abominable sets didn't help any. Politics is always a touchy subject in the movies; it usually doesn't date well. Some films, like "For Whom the Bell Tolls," can shrug off the rhetoric and still be great years later. Others, like "Keeper of the Flame," sink like a stone.

Keeper of the the Flame reminded me vaguely of "Citizen
Kane". This film was made a year later in 1942. The techniques, the tone & general production just seemed siniliar. Kate Hepburn is the widow of the famous, popular, charismatic World War I hero, Robert Forest. Apparently he's also become fabulously wealthy. A bridge washes out from a storm the night he is to meet with other powerful men to plan a takeover of the United States. He's a closet facist & very few people know. Anyway, he's basically dead in an auto accident before the movie starts. Could he have been saved? His marriage to Hepburn hasn't been going too well & she being a patriotic American, has a probelm with his facisism. None of this is known of course. Along comes Spencer Tracer a famous reporter to do a biography on the great man. A few sparks fly & as a Hepburn/Tracy flick, this is not their best effort. There are a few slow spots but its a thriller that keeps your attention. There was a war on when this movie was made but thankfully the anti-facist message was pretty subtle. Overall, they could have done better, but then, they could have done worse. 31/2 stars.

National Hero?
A journalist (Spencer Tracy) investigates the strange circumstances surrounding the death of a national hero. But he runs into a wall of silence. Everybody seems to hide something and the strange behaviour of the widow (Katharine Hepburn) puzzles him: her mourning seems not very deep. No wonder, since her husband planned to take the U.S. Government over with a fascistic coup, and this poor woman did what she considered her patriotic duty...

Good thriller that could have been great. The warning of totalitarianism is subtle - the young adherents who beleaguer Hepburn's home never use martial rhetoric - but the film is plodding and drags on. Tracy spends nearly the entire film running and sometimes riding on horseback from one house to the other, from one taciturn witness to the next. The denouement is squeezed into the last 10 minutes. Hepburn is even declared an american hero although her motives were not entirely selfless: her husband despised her because she could not bear him children. The flaws in this film are all the more disappointing, since, with this plot and this cast, the film could have been on the level of NOTORIOUS.

one of the best
This one of the best no matter what! My dad told me to watch this movie because he thought I would like it, and I did. It might not be the best Known movie but it's still a thriller. If you love Alfred's movies I promise you will love this!

Tracy-Hepburn vehicle warns of the Fascist threat at home
This is an interesting choice for the second Tracy-Hepburn picture, following the success of "Woman of the Year," but then all of the films Katharine Hepburn made during World War II were interesting choices. In "Stage Door Canteen," while other stars performed, Hepburn shared in the film's main dramatic scene and in "Dragon Seed" she played a Chinese peasant girl. However, "Keeper of the Flame" is clearly Spencer Tracy's film. He plays Steven O'Malley, a famous correspondent who has returned from Europe to cover the death an American national hero, Robert V. Forrest. Hepburn plays the reclusive widow, a role that eerily foreshadows Jacqueline Kennedy in some regards, whom O'Malley comes to suspect of having murdered her husband. However, to his surprise, O'Malley discovers that Forrest's supernationalism was merely a facade for fascism. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Based an "unwritten" novel by I. A. R. Wylie and scripted by Donald Odgen Stewart, the choice of George Cukor to direct the film is quite surprising. Cukor and cinematographer William Daniels do their best to create a Hitchcock-type film, but the overall effect is a pale imitation at best. Hepburn seems ill-suited to the role of the widow with a secret, although certainly her political sensibilities would support the point of the film. Tracy is a bit subdued, no doubt because of the conflict between his feelings for Christine Forrest and his desire to uncover the truth no matter what the cost, but this is still a solid performance from one of the greatest film actors.

Overall the fascist threat seems too muted in this film. Darryl Hickman as the young Jeb Rickards, who had belonged to Forrest's youth organization (which looks less like the Boy Scouts and more like the Hitler Youth as the movie progresses), is the true emotional heart of the film. Yet in the end you feel more that he was mislead than actually endangered by his membership. The idea that fascism could succeed in America only as a third front sort of thing is dangerously misleading, as demagogues like Huey P. Long were in the process of proving. The nation surely could have used a solid anti-fascist film from Hollywood, but "Keeper of the Flame" was ultimately too shallow an effort. At the end you might understand that Robert V. Forrest was a fascist, but you really have no idea what that means beyond the fact that it is a very bad thing.

This is arguably the weakest Tracy-Hepburn film and was certainly not the formula followed in their more successful efforts. Given the subject matter the romantic elements between the two is sadly misplaced, getting in the way of the film's message as much as the reporter's investigation. Hepburn would be served a little better by her next foray into the suspense genre four years later in "Undercurrent." ... Read more