Reviews (19)

Shakespeare in Hollywood.
Let me begin by saying that the 5 star rating is purely subjective. As you can see from the other reviews you either like this film or you don't. I LOVE this film. As an adaptation of Shakespeare's play it's not very good. Such is the case with other Shakespeare movies of this vintage (check out the 1934 ROMEO AND JULIET with Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer or the 1929 TAMING OF THE SHREW with Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford). In fact the hostile reception this version received steered Hollywood clear of anything by Shakespeare for years. So much for Shakespeare in Hollywood. The fairy scenes are among the most magical I have ever seen in any film echoing their German origins while the Athenian scenes are as Hollywood as they come. F.W. Murnau's FAUST (the co-director William Dieterle played Valentine in FAUST) meets 42ND STREET (note the dance numbers). The performances by James Cagney, Olivia de Haviland, Ross Alexander, Jean Muir, and Victor Jory are quite good. Anita Louise is a lovely Titania and Mickey Rooney (12 at the time) is loud and mischievous. Just what I would expect Puck to be. Most of these performers were in Max Reinhardt's stage production which this film is based on. The tradesmen are vaudeville comics with the exception of Frank McHugh and are perfectly at home in this dual setting. Joe E. Brown and Hugh Herbert get to do their shticks while an unrecognizable Arthur Treacher gets to do nothing. A MIDSUMMERNIGHT'S DREAM is not for everyone and definitely not for Shakespeare purists. But if you approach it as a movie from the Golden Age of Hollywood and all that implies then it's much easier to enjoy. Postscripts for the historically curious (with apologies to Henry W. Simon). This was the film that brought Erich Wolfgang Korngold to Warner Brothers. His job was to arrange the well known music by Mendelssohn. The rest as they say is history. The part of the young Indian prince is played by Kenneth Anger of HOLLYWOOD BABYLON fame.

I liked the new one better
This wasn't a terible movie, but I liked the new version better. Some of the acting in this version was overdone; Anita Louise, who played Titania, sounded like she belonged in an opera house, and why did Mickey Rooney decide to portray Puck as a wild animal in human form? Olivia De Havilland did give a good portrayal of Hermia, however; I just wish she'd had more lines! James Cagney also gave a good portrayal of Bottom. In the new version, whoever played the man who played the woman in the play about Pyramus and Thisbe gave a much better performance than Joe E. Brown does here. Brown just plays it for laughs. For the most part, the acting in the new version was much better. I believe the special effects were innovative for the time period; it is easy to see that, but, unfortuanatly, they pale in comparison to all that has come since in special effects in movies. The sets weren't too bad, either. So, on the whole, there were pluses to this movie, but minuses, too. The new version had more pluses.

Puck steals the show!
This is not the type of movie I would normally watch - but it is a must-see! The dance numbers are awesome, and the real kick is watching the performance of Puck, which I only realized later was Mickey Rooney - he doesn't look 12, and I found myself wondering "how did they get him to act like that?".

The movie seems long at times, particulary in the party at the very end. But I wouldn't mind watching it again with someone -

The best to date
There have been criticisms here of Reinhardt's AMND as "un-Shakespearean," but truly: who among us would really want to sit in a theater with almost no props or backdrops, minimal costuming, men performing the women's parts, and audiences that were anything but quiet during the show? -For that's exactly what Shakespearean theater conditions amounted to. Our idea of Shakespeare derives simply from modern Masterpiece Theater style productions, which make a virtue of sober lucidity, and do a fine job of it, too.

But Reinhardt gives us a German High Romantic version of AMND, and displays a very different virtue, seldom seen in modern screen transcriptions of older works: a sense of well-conceived and executed style. You may not like his Mendelssohnian fairies, but their integration into the play--by choice of dialog, imaginative staging and costuming, brilliant special effects and incidental music--is consistent. Mendelssohn's music was in fact intended to accompany actual performances many years previously; and the ballet sequences built around it have a way of stopping time even today with their visionary beauty, a matter of movement, staging, lighting (the remarkable Hal Mohr), editing and effects. A book in fact could be written on Reinhardt's multi-level application of thematic materials, which is done in a manner that's far less boring than the way it sounds. This is a brilliant conception of Shakespeare, far from the "let's be different to grab attention" Shakespeare of punk Romeos that have fled across our screens in recent years.

The casting is generally very good. Mickey Rooney, in his first film role, displays all the remarkable energy and focus which were his greatest gifts. (What a shame the film industry kissed him off when he matured into a short, pudgy man, who was just as talented!) No prim, polite observer, his Puck is an elemental force, taking malicious delight in the strongly felt emotions of the humans that have come to the forest. Everything is brilliant, bright mockery: his deliberately garbled imitation of the speech and gestures of Lysander prior to the latter's magical sleep is a good example. This is not a Puck you would want call Robin Goodfellow, not unless you wanted to please him--and you most definitely would want to please him. It is a taut, kaleidoscopically varied performance.

The comic players are also well cast. James Cagney is superb as Bottom, particularly in the monologue that follows waking from what he considers "his dream." Hugh Herbert brings more variation to a giddy giggle, both for accompanying expression and meaning, than any other human being probably ever has. Frank McHugh is a delight as Peter Quince. Only Joe E Brown, as Flute, goes overboard, trying to steal the scene from others during their lines; but he makes up for it with a delightful Thisbe. Arthur Treacher is very much wasted, with nothing to say; and their are indications in the action that more may have been filmed, or at least planned of their material to film. Considerations of length and/or budget probably intervened.

Victor Jory, so well known even today for his villainous roles (especially in Flash Gordon serials), is a superbly dark Oberon: not sinister, but more of a somber Herne the Hunter type, in contrast to Anita Louise, who is all Elven gossamer. Presumably Reinhardt saw them as a balance of light and dark, perhaps with an overlay of contemporary Austrian psychoanalysis: masculine/dark/forceful against feminine/light/receptive. No, I don't buy the silly pop analysis of Men Are From Mars, Women From Venus; but in Reinhardt's AMND, we may be looking at an earlier incarnation of the same values, definitely presented on a more creative level. I don't buy into Reinhardt's portrayal of Oberon's followers as a bunch of anthrompomorphized bats, but I have to admit it works in context. This especially holds true for the ballet sequence where one bat follower symbolically forces a fairy follower of Titania to the ground, overshadows her, then bears her off, horizontal, her hands waving delicately in the air. I suppose we can only be thankful that the Hayes Office wasn't really paying attention to high prestige Art films.

The lovers are not quite as effective. All four are good, with Olivia de Haviland perhaps the best of the lot; but there's little sense of emotional depth in their performances, at least enough to draw forth Puck's disparaging remark about "what fools these mortals be." Some of this, again, may be due to the director's conception. Reinhardt clearly plays them more for laughs, cutting a fair amount of the four-way badinage, and deliberately staging at least one famous piece of it as a four-way, non-stop, unintelligble harrangue, in which opponents trade off to continue arguing. The quartet in Adrian Noble's 1996 AMND is to be preferred, here (though the staging is, IMO, awful).

To round out, I have to return to Reinhardt. He gave many of Hollywood's greatest talents during the 1920s-40s their apprenticeships. The contemporary notices for his productions are unanimous raves for his artistic insight, integrity, intelligence, directorial ability, and brillance of execution. Yet he would be no more than a footnote in some theatrical encyclopedia if it were not for this single film, made after Reinhardt escaped from the Nazis. A modest success in box offices at the time, Hollywood could not countenance the huge expenditure of resources on such a film, and Reinhardt was a respected pariah in the film community until his death in the early 1940s. But AMND lives on, and provides an excellent sense of what all the excitement was about this master visionary of theater...and potentially, cinema.

Mere Words Cannot Describe the Horror
Max Reinhardt was among the great theatrical impresarios of the early portion of the 20th Century, renowned primarily for the pageantry of his stage productions. His 1930s Los Angeles staging of William Shakespeare's A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM was such a popular success that Hollywood studios went wild to lure Reinhardt into adapting his production to the screen. Strange to say, Warner Brothers--more at home with gangster movies, tough melodrama, and strident musicals--won the bid, and the result was this 1936 abomination.

Now, I won't go so far as to say this version of Shakespeare's famous fairy tale will actually make you run screaming from the room, but I will say that by the time it ends you may wish you had. Fairies flutter, flounce, and flop around to some of the most uninspired choreography imaginable; the score, lifted from the Mendelsson's most obvious works, could rot your teeth at twenty paces; the sets and costumes strive for a Parrish-like effect and instead come up with clunky Hollywood gloss. And need we mention that Shakespeare's gossamer script has been ripped to shreds?

The cast is simply horrendous. This was Olivia de Havilland's first film, and while she isn't memorably bad, neither is she memorably good--and that's really the highwater mark of the performances as a whole. James Cagney is terribly miscast, and Dick Powell behaves exactly as if he is about to launch into a Busby Berkley musical number. And then there is Mickey Rooney, who gives what must be single most abrasive performance in all of 1930s cinema. Only Joe E. Brown manages to emerge unscathed.

All in all, watching the 1936 Warner Brother's version of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM is akin to watching an alligator swallow an innocent, sweet-eyed fawn. You just can't quite believe that it is happening, right there, in front your own eyes. Now, if you have an interest in how Hollywood approached Shakespeare in the 1930s, you may actually want to sit through this movie once. But don't inflict it upon any one else. They won't thank you for it.

--GFT (Amazon.com Reviewer)-- ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Review of Omar Khayyam
This is a wonderful film and it came as a most pleasant surprise. Omar Khayyam provides us with a splendid cinematic introduction to Persia's greatest poet. Khayyam was a compassionate and noble figure whose extraordinary literary talent and all-encompassing intellect displayed no natural boundary. Important aspects of Khayyam's fascinating personality are admirably portrayed by Cornell Wilde. The casting of the movie was exceptional and we are treated to fine supporting performances by distinguished actors such as as Michael Rennie and Sebastian Cabot among others. I was particularly impressed by extent to which this movie explored key historical issues surrounding the life and times of Khayyam. We learn about the Byzantine Roman Empire's war with Persia involving an alliance composed of Bulgars, Greeks, Franks and Lombards. We also confront a number of other historical and scientific issues in this film that are portrayed with an interesting admixture of detail and insight that seems to be unusual for such Hollywood productions. Omar Khayyam additionally provides us with a fascinating glimpse of the Assasins of Syria, believed by some to represent one of the world's first terrorist organization. As an advisor to the Persian Shah, Khayyam's effort to root the Assassins out of their extrodinary mountain fortress in northern Syria bears a striking resemblance to events taking place in Afganistan in the wake of September 11th. There is indeed an eerie parallel between the Persian Assassins, as depicted in this film, and the American and Northern Alliance-led effort now being waged to blast Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda units from out of the caves of Tora Bora. Omar Khayyam has a most satisfying ending. After seeing it, the viewer should be encouraged to read Fitzgerald's splendid translation of the Rubaiyat. By all means see Omar Khayyam - the film's artistry, poignancy and depth will not elude the sensitive viewer.

It's a disappointment!
Normally, Hollywood makes a very poor use of talented actors/actresses who have especial gifts, like great singing voices, for example. This is the case of this movie, which presents or introduces an extraordinary talent like Yma Sumac, without giving her the opportunity to show properly the talents she is famous for. I saw the movie just because her name was in it. What a disappointment! She is treated in the movie like a native extra! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Excellent early Elizabeth Taylor adult role
I've always loved this film. I constantly feel that it is unfairly dismissed as a jungle soap opera but it has so many very good things going for it. I feel it was a very important early adult film role for Elizabeth and certainly gives an indication of all the stunning roles coming up for her soon like "Giant", "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "Suddenly Last Summer" etc. She gives here an excellent performance and absolutely holds her own against Dana Andrews and Peter Finch.
The look of the film is spectacular and Elizabeth has never been more lovely. I wont retell the saga of Elizabeth replacing Vivien Leigh here again as other reviewers have mentioned it already, bu tthe film does benefit from the stunning on location photography in Ceylon which adds richly to the films quality. Abraham Soefar has a superb role as the mystical and haughty man servant who at first despises but then grows to appreciate Elizabeth's character through plague and then of course the spectacular elephant stampede at the finale which is without doubt "Elephant Walk"s most famous scene. It is a stunner and well worth the wait.
I highly recommend "Elephant Walk" for all of you who, like me, love Elizabeth Taylor and know what a fine actress she is. An excellent film to sit back and enjoy....they don't make 'em like this any more!!

A great film!
I really like this film. It has everything in it, adventure and drama. Elizabeth Taylor wears ome very beautiful clothes in it as well. The scenery is great to. I'd give it more stars if I could. It really keeps your interest.

ELIZABETH REPLACED VIVIEN
The casting of the female part in this film was a shaky one. Firstly, Taylor was cast but lost the part due 2 pregnancy. Then Vivien Leigh got the part(the industry shocked that she would accept this film - truly a programmer) and persuaded lover Peter Finch to undertake the male part. Vivien suffered severe breakdowns on location in Ceylon and was eventually fired. Taylor came 2 rescue but thanks to Vivien`s scenes didn`t have 2 go to Ceylon and shot her scenes in Hollywood. So it`s Vivien Leigh u see in the longshots in the location footage. A windmachine threw a splint into Taylor`s eye which supposedly could have been fatal. On the whole, an exciting film with a rousing finale concerning the title of the film. A must-see. Strangely, Taylor seems 2 be at her best in her not so-famous-parts.

A very underrated film and a good early adult role for Eliza
A very entertaining film with the elephant stampede at the finale a real stand out. Elizabeth Taylor is excellent in a early mature role. Beautiful color photography on location in Ceylon. Well worth purchasing ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Beautiful Rita Hayworth Shines In Legendary Bible Epic
"Salome", has really come in for it's fair share of criticism in the years since it's 1953 release. Criticised for it's blatant altering of the New Testament story that depicts the beheading of John the Baptist, it has been called everything from a campy mess to an insult to scholars of the Bible. However I always just appreciate the film for it's many outstanding qualities that well and truly earn it a place in my personal pantheon of great 1950's Biblical Epics. Lacking the wide scope of for example "The Ten Commandments", "Salome", takes a short incident in the Bible and turns it into a highly entertaining and at times tragic story. It certainly succeeded in provided an eye filling showcase for actress Rita Hayworth, only recently arrived back in Hollywood after an unsuccessful marriage to Prince Aly Khan. Despite the break from Hollywood she has never been more alive and sensual as in this role and her justly famous rendition of the notorious "Dance of the Seven Veils", is the dramatic and indeed sensual climax of the film. If for nothing else Rita Hayworth will always be imprinted in viewers minds as the Princess Salome seductively performing this dance before an obviously besotted King Herod just prior to John the Baptist's head being brought into the room on a platter.

We have all read about John the Baptist as children and how Princess Salome agreed to do the "Dance of the Seven Veils", in return for the Baptist's head. Hollywood being Hollywood, has altered the story and Salome is now not the total wanton of the Bible story but a basically decent girl surrounded by total corrupting influences. This artistic licence aside the story is an affectivly told one and includes some terrific actors having the time of their lives with their colourful characters. The story opens with young Princess Salome residing in the Rome of the Emperor Tiberius (Cedric Hardwicke). She has been sent there by her mother Queen Herodias (Judith Anderson), who is intent on keeping her away from the incestuous attention of her step father King Herod (Charles Laughton). Salome however runs foul of the Emperor when she falls in love with Marcellus a relative of the Emperor. Refusing to allow his family to marry "barbarians", Salome is sent back to her parents in Galilea. On the journey over she is placed in the care of Roman Commander Claudius (Stewart Granger), and the two begin a definite love /hate relationship. Upon arriving back in her homeland Salome discovers all is not well as her mother Queen Herodias, who is trapped in a loveless marriage with Herod, has consuming ambitions for the throne and rather disturbingly King Herod takes an unwelcome and decidely unheathy interest in his beautiful step daughter. The kingdom is rife with unrest and John the Baptist is constantly speaking out against the corruption and godlessness of the ruler and his court. When he speaks out at the Queen as an adulteress Salome goes to find out more about this outspoken preacher and discovers that Claudius who she now realises she loves, is actually one of his followers. Queen Herodias makes plans to have the baptist assassinated however it fails and Herod takes him into his custody to keep him out of the way. The people meanwhile begin to rise up in protest at John's imprisonment and Salome learns the true nature of her evil mother when she asks her to perform the Dance of the Seven Veils, before Herod in return for the Bapist's head. Dancing before the King is simply another word for prostitution and Salome decides to leave the Palace. A visit with Claudius to the imprisoned John makes her see the power of what he is preaching about the Lord's word and she decides to save him by appeasing her father in law and performing the dance. However Herodias has her way and John is beheaded much to Salome's horror who now sets out on her own life as a Christian with Claudius.

Glitzy hokum? Perhaps, but highly entertaining nevertheless. "Salome", was for a long time a project dear to the heart of Cecil B. DeMille who would have been in his element with such an exotic story. He envisioned using Rita Hayworth as the legendary Salome however it never came to be. It was finally up to Columbia chief Harry Cohn fifteeen years later to finally put this project into reality. No expenses was spared on talent both in front of and behind the camera and it shows in the final film. Luscious costumes designed by Jean Louis, breathtaking colour photography and the typical trademarks of 1950's Epics, lavish sets and intrigue are poured on thick in "Salome". Rita Hayworth despite not resembling a Princess native to the Holy Land does well in the role and in her famous dance shows off the skills that served her well as a dancer earlier in her career. Judith Anderson as the evil Queen steals every scene she is in in another classic nasty performance and Charles Laughton performs to his hammy best as the decadent King Herod. These two veteran performers by their colourful playing really bring "Salome", alive in their scenes. "Salome", benefits from some truly superb camerawork for both the palace scenes and also for the actual locations in the Holy Land which were used for the first time with this film. These locations give a rich and realistic look to many of the outdoor scenes in "Salome", recreating the times of the New Testament perfectly.

Being a huge fan of these lavish biblical epics produced in the 1950's I can still see the obvious holes in this film version of "Salome". Rather than seeing them as faults however one has to just take the film at face value, not take it too seriously and just enjoy it for the great production it is. It has romance, intrigue, gorgeous sets and costumes and enough action to satisfy most epic movie lovers. For a "refashioned", look at one of the Bible's more famous stories you are sure to love Columbia Studios lavish "Salome", starring the legendary Rita Hayworth.

Of couse it's bad BUT
It's great fun to watch! Everything about this is wrong -- te story of Salome is changed to make Salome a victim of her evil mother Herodias. Rita Hayworth looks more like 1950's Hollywood -- complete with gold hair, -- than a first century Jewish-Mediterrenean princess. But the prize for giving the most unintended laughs goes to John the Baptist in the hammiest, most overacted role ever in ANY Biblical film -- and indeed Hollywood has dozens of overacted Biblical films them. This film is enjoyable, pure kitschy entertainment - don't expect any deep theological interpretations of the Gospel account. Don't even expect an accurate interpretation.

There will never be another Rita Hayworth
If there is one benchmark film that displays the timeless, ravishing beauty of Rita Hayworth then Salome is it. Salome serves more for its artistic as opposed to historical value, but what's wrong with that? (If you want to know the facts then read the Bible.)
The Dance of Seven Veils rivals any scene in filmdom for pure sensuality without need for gratuitous sex. (A close second might be the Holden and Novak dance in "Picnic".) Please treat yourself to an evening of lovliness.

Hayworth was made for color film!
Religious epics from the 50's ran the gamut from well-made and reverential films like "The Robe" and Academy Award-winning champ "Ben-Hur" to the camp entertainment of "The Ten Commandments" to downright awful productions like "The Silver Chalice"(Jack Palance at his overacting best).

Well, "Salome" falls somewhere in the middle. It is both historically inaccurate and captivatingly seductive while attempting to be as pious as audiences of the decade demanded in their Bible-based dramas.

This Rita Hayworth vehicle does well as a showcase for the actress/dancer whose natural beauty was enhanced in glorious Technicolor. As the daughter of King Herod, Hayworth's Salome is a study in contrasts: one that is torn between her duty to the monarchy and to the romantic advances of Christian-convert Stewart Granger.

Charles Laughton is somewhat hammy as Herod, but all great actors have their occasional over-the-top roles. Dame Judith Anderson adds another evil matriarch to her long line of "bad girls" as Heroditus, wife of Herod and chief catalyst behind the beheading of John the Baptist (Alan Badel).

Hey, the flick ain't Shakespeare, but it does hold the interest especially Hayworth's "Dance of the Seven Veils".

Salome
The screen play was very good. You will not waste your money on this vidio. The costumes are opulant and the scenery is good. Rita Hayworth put on a very good performance ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Intelligent, Idealistic, Lush
"Whatso it profiteth a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?" *Love Letters* follows nearly every permutation of this question. What is to be gained if you *lend* your soul to another man, by writing love letters for him? What does one gain by covering one's soul with another's, to win a woman? And what is left to seek in the world, when one discovers one's only value in the world to be a fraud?

These are some of the classic Ayn Rand bits that saved Chris Massie's original story.

But if the story isn't clever enough, the dialogue is inimitable Rand. "We commit unspeakable crimes, we kill each other, we go to war, we blast our cities to rubble, we blast all sense out of our brains. And yet, always there before our eyes is that vision of beauty--a beauty we've never seen, but which makes everything we do see, unbearable." Or: "When a man's been hurt pretty badly, and all open wounds inside, if he can say 'mine'--about anything at all--the wounds are healing." Or: "Thank you for seeing life, not as a burden or a punishment, but as a dream of beauty which we have made real."

In other words, here's a great love story. The people in love are actually smart and admirable. The villains have motives beyond "be bad." Suspense, mystery, and ideas charge the plot from start to finish.

AYN RAND SCREENPLAY!
"I think of you, my dearest, as a distant promise of beauty untouched by the world'-a promise to be reached in spite of the terror and ugliness around me. If I never see you again, my last thought will be that I had fought for you and lost'-but I had fought." So reads a letter penned by a British officer on the Italian front, in the 1945 movie "Love Letters." The story was based on a little-known novel by an obscure author, Chris Massie. The screenplay was written by Ayn Rand.

The movie, directed by William Dieterle, stars Jennifer Jones as the mysterious Singleton and Joseph Cotton as British officer Alan Quinton. Victor Young composed the lush, romantic music score, which was nominated for an Academy Award.

"Love Letters" contains scenes of an emotional intensity found in no ordinary story-'scenes that no one short of a Victor Hugo or an Ayn Rand could have conceived. I can never forget Jennifer Jones seated before her cottage fireplace, dazed, as the love letters she treasured go up in flames'-a knife in her hand, blood smeared across her dress, and her husband dead at her feet. Or her scream, years later, as she sees red berries crushed against her white dress, and remembers.

Seeing "Love Letters" is like discovering a new work of fiction by Miss Rand'-for the movie departs so radically from the unfocused novel it was based on that it almost constitutes an original work. She took a few suggestions and situations from Chris Massie's sprawling, unfocused book, and developed them entirely along her own lines: intensifying the moral conflict inherent in one man writing another man's love letters, and building events logically to a stunning climax.

It was she who conceived of the central event of the movie, the horror of which Alan Quinton first learns of in the basement of a London newspaper. Following up mysterious hints about the woman he is trying to trace-'the unknown woman he wrote love letters to'-he searches through the back issues that the office boy brings him, until he finds the article he is looking for, yet dreads to find: "Officer Murdered; Wife Held." He sits there for hours, reading it over and over, stubbing out one cigarette after another in dead silence. "Who was the murderer?" the office boy asks him, as he finally walks away. "I was," he says.

It was Ayn Rand, who in 1945 was just mapping out the plot of "Atlas Shrugged," who invented the central situation of the screenplay: the irony of an impossible love, in which a woman cannot be told that she is her own rival who is stealing her husband's love away. And it was Miss Rand who invented the horrendously powerful climax-'in which we see the murder of the man who "tried to get happiness by stealing another man's soul"-'with Singleton sitting before the fireplace, staring dazedly at the knife in her hand, her hands and dress smeared with her husband's blood-'as the camera zooms in on the words of a burning letter: "I think of you, my dearest, as a distant promise of beauty untouched by the world ..."

Miss Rand, believe it or not, brings this tragedy to a benevolent conclusion.

"Love Letters" is full of joy, tragedy, idealism, and ultimate triumph. I urge everyone who wants to preserve a glorified view of life, to try to see it.

One of the best romantic movies ever made.
Love Letters is one of the best romantic movies ever made. The plot, though simple, is ingenious and quite moving, and the writing is excellent. Jennifer Jones is as beautiful as I've ever seen her in films, and she and Joseph Cotten convincingly play the roles of two tormented people who slowly come to realize that they are each other's ideal lover. I suppose that to some people Love Letters will be hopelessly romantic mush. However, to everyone with a sense of romance -- including me -- Love Letters is a classic to be savored over and over again. I hope it will be released on DVD soon. It certainly deserves to be readily available in the latest format.

Another Cotton/Jones Classic
Josephy Cotton and Jennifer Jones appeared together, I believe, in either four or five movies. This is probably the least known of their movies together. As I once heard a TV reviewer remark, Cotton brought out the best in Jones, who was twice nominated for the Best Actress Oscar when teamed with Cotton.

Cotton plays a sensitive, sincere WWII soldier who, while in France, writes love letters on behalf of a shallow, callous fellow soldier. The Cyrano-like gesture brings only torment, madness, and death after the woman falls in love with the latter soldier.

After being wounded in combat, Cotton is sent back to England for the duration of the war. He quickly finds out that the soldier he wrote the letters for was killed shortly after marrying the girl to whom the letters were addressed. At that point, the movie shifts gears into a murder mystery, with the guilt-ridden Cotton attempting to discovery what happened--and what role he played in the events.

While Cotton is a bit stiff in the role of Alan Quinton, he does ably exude a quiet, calm determination to piece together the truth. The ever-radiant Jennifer Jones plays a mysterious woman known only as Singleton, who may or may not be the key to unraveling the mystery.

Highly recommended for fans of an old-fashioned murder myster/love story.

FOR THE TRUE ROMANTICS!
This was Jones' third major film and she is ethereal and breathtaking! She is starred with Cotten who would be co-starred with her more than any other leading man and they do make a fine team!

The film is a 'moody' and 'gothic' piece which is enhanced by the performances of the leads. Particularly refreshing is the fact that Jones' performance holds none of the 'facial contortions' that marred many of her later portrayals. She truly deserved the Oscar nomination that she received for this film and in my opinion, should have won over Joan Crawford's tepid and overrated portrayal of "Mildred Pierce" that year.

This film is great to watch on a rainy day, cuddled up in front of the fireplace with your sweetheart. Truly a film for the true romantics....from its cinematography to the 'haunting' musical score.

It is one of the best from the "Golden Era" of Hollywood! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Mark Twain, Warner Brothers' Style
I've never read Mark Twain's novel to be able to say how closely this movie follows to the original story. It certainly has the Warner Brothers' touch. Errol Flynn is his usual dashing, dauntless self, perfectly at home with a sword in hand. Claude Rain again is the cunning, cultured villain, and Alan Hale is a welcome face, although this time he is Flynn's foe instead of friend. As Prince Edward and his look alike beggar friend, the Mauch twins are occasionally annoying, but for the most part quite effective as the victims of a switch that learn to appreciate the other side of life. The story is fun and played with a lot of energy and humour. Don't assume that this is an Errol Flynn video, because he really isn't the star - the twins are the stars. However, there is enough of Flynn to keep his fans happy, and a good enough story and movie to keep everyone happy (including children).

CLASSIC TWAIN ADVENTURE - GREAT LOOKING TRANSFER!
The Prince & The Pauper is based on the much loved Mark Twain classic. In a nutshell, the plot centers around twins, one the spoiled heir to the English throne, a other a begger with a heart of gold. When the two accidentally cross paths they become best friends and secretly trade places, much to the chagrin of one of the king's advisors (Claude Rains) who is plotting to kill the heir and take over himself. Enter into this fray a fortune hunter (Errol Flynn) who vows to set everything right for king, country and a healthy financial reward. It all ends pleasantly enough in a sword and swashbuckling sort of way.
WARNER HOME VIDEO gives us a handsome looking transfer that is sure to please. The gray scale has been impeccibly balanced with solid blacks and very nice renderings of fine detail. Certain scenes exhibit a touch of edge enhancement and a hint of pixelization, but nothing that will distract from this visually stunning film adaptation. The sound elements are somewhat disappointing by contrast. The main title sequence in particular sounds as though the music track was discovered under a rock. Nevertheless, dialogue - for the most part - is presented at an adequate listening level with only the slightest of pops, scratches and hiss.
EXTRAS: An essay and theatrical trailer - BIG DEAL!
BOTTOM LINE: The Prince & The Pauper is a visually stunning movie that, although straying somewhat from Twain's original intent, is nevertheless faithful enough to remind us why his name continues to be among America's greatest literary talents. The transfer is solid. I recommend this DVD!

Errol Flynn in Support of Mauch Twins in Classic Twain Tale!
In 1937, the WB, capitalizing on Errol Flynn's spectacular performances in CAPTAIN BLOOD and THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE, cast him in four films, with varying degrees of success. The best, by far, was William Keighley and William Dieterle's production of the Mark Twain classic, THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER, where he supported new WB 'discoveries' Billy and Bobby Mauch, portraying London urchin Tom Canty and his look-alike, Prince Edward Tudor. The twins were gifted, young (12 at the time of the filming) actors, with a Freddie Bartholomew-like quality of engaging innocence, and they gave this version of the oft-filmed tale a sense of reality that split-screen performances by a single actor could never achieve.

The story is an engaging one, as young Canty, inspired by his mother and a local priest to dream of a finer life than his father, an ill-tempered beggar (Barton MacLane) could provide, sneaks onto the grounds of Buckingham Palace. There, he meets young Prince Edward, who is thrilled to meet a boy his own age...and, after cleaning him up a bit, is astonished to discover that the pair could pass as twins. Edward decides this is a golden opportunity to see what life outside the Palace is really like, so, against Canty's misgivings, the two exchange clothing, and the Prince leaves...creating far more of an uproar than either boy could ever imagine!

Canty is soon considered 'mad', as he insists he is not Edward, and the Prince, abused and ridiculed by Tom's father, is unceremoniously thrown off the Palace grounds when he attempts to return, by a disbelieving Captain of the Guards (Alan Hale, in the first of 12 films he'd make with his friend, Errol Flynn). The ambitious Earl of Hertford (the always brilliant Claude Rains) investigates Canty's claim, and realizes, after interviewing the Captain, that the boy is telling the truth, giving him a golden opportunity to seize power. Ordering the Captain to find and kill the Prince, the Earl then threatens to kill Canty if he doesn't obey his commands.

Things grow desperate for the young Prince, as he attempts to evade his murderous 'father' on the streets, until Miles Hendon (Flynn), a roguish but good-natured 'soldier-for-hire' comes to his aid. Offering his protection to the lad, Hendon thinks him a bit balmy, as well...until events (the child's obvious despair over the death of Henry VIII, the Palace search party, and a sword duel with the Captain, where Flynn KILLS Alan Hale!!!) convince him otherwise. Then it becomes a race against time to smuggle the real King into the Coronation, before Canty is crowned, and the Earl assumes "the Power behind the Throne".

Blessed with a gifted cast, including wonderful character actor Montagu Love as the dying Henry VIII, the film offers a truly exceptional film score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (who would eventually expand the theme into a symphonic work). Audiences have always been surprised that Errol Flynn's role is not larger, but as a faithful Twain adaptation, the focus had to be on the two boys, and not on the impoverished soldier. Flynn had fun playing Hendon, and the Mauch twins were nothing less than superb as the leads.

With THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD less than a year away, and Errol Flynn's star continuing to ascend, the WB had every reason to celebrate, and THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is a pleasure to watch, to this day!

Good film based on The Prince and the Pauper
I saw this move years ago and decided to watch it again after getting the part of Lady Jane Grey in a local production of Prince and the Pauper. I also bought the book and read it and I would say it is now a favorite! I'm not sure how but they were able to make an enjoyable movie based on a general outline but completely changing the story, but they did! I would recommend this movie but don't expect Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper.

The Mauch Twins are a delight.....!!!
I loved this movie as a kid and still do as an adult. The Mauch twins, Billy and Bobby are outstanding in every way. When they look into the camera and laugh as they do in several scenes, it is pure magic! This film is highly recommended to both young and old. Too bad "Warner Brothers" did not appreciate their talents and build future films around these extremely talented kids. They were as talented, if not more so,than any other young stars of the period. See for yourself and enjoy the film! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Of the many film versions of Victor Hugo's novel, this classic from Hollywood's golden year of 1939 remains the best, rivaled only by the 1923 silent version starring Lon Chaney. In his triumphant attempt to create a performance as memorable as Chaney's, Charles Laughton played the lovelorn Parisian hunchback Quasimodo under a disfiguring costume and gruesome makeup that rendered the actor almost unrecognizable. The result is a gripping and heartfelt portrayal of the misshapen bell ringer who falls desperately in love with the beautiful gypsy Esmeralda (played by Maureen O'Hara). The lavish production also greatly benefits from exquisitely moody black-and-white cinematography, brilliant medieval set design, and the atmospheric direction by German expatriate William Dieterle, whose style was heavily influenced by German films of the era. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Laughton is Amazing
Charles Laughton is one of the great actors of all time. Watching this version of Vitor Hugo's novel it is not hard to see why. Laughton looks like he was born to play Quasimodo, the deaf and disfigured bell keeper of Notre Dome Cathedral. Wearing heavy face make up and a body suit, Laughton literally transformed himself to play the part. This novel has been adapted several times for the screen , but this is the best one. The performances are on the whole excellent. Particularly Cedric Hardwicke as the cold Chief Justice of Paris. Maureen O'Hara also gives a strong performance as Esmeralda. The direction of William Dieterle is very good, although he concentates a little too much on the subplots at times. On the whole this is an excellent film, that despite it's age, hardly seems dated. The story is a timeless classic and so is this film. Watch it just for Laughton's performance.

Grim,filled with pathos and terrific acting!!
This version of "THoND" is in my opinion,the best ever made.Charles Laughton epitomizes all the sadness,frustration and anguish the Hunchback feels when he falls in love with the beautiful Gypsy girl who showed him kindness..The supporting cast is wonderful,with Sir Cedric Hardwicke excelling as the Chief Justice who falls under the spell of the lovely Gypsy girl,Esmeralda,played gently and kindly by Maureen O'Hara.
When you begin watching this movie, you forget it is Charles Laughton.The make-up he wears is grotesque,and he is unrecognizable,but even through all the make up you can feel the gut-wrenching emotions he so ably portrays to the viewer.
Any classic film lover will most certainly already have this masterpiece on his/her DVD shelf.If you don't already have it,please give it a try.You will not be disappointed.Then,after you watch it,check out"The Beauty and the Beast," by Jean Cocteau,1948.Another classic love story not to be missed.

Hugo's Hunchback: Outer Ugliness Hides Inner Beauty
When director William Dieterle transformed Victor Hugo's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME to fit the big screen, he succeeded in capturing the power and sweep of an age that was characterized by individual examples of humanity lost in a sea of inhumanity. Much has been said about the universality of the Beauty and the Beast theme that has marked many past and future books, movies, and television series. Here, Dieterle makes use of the considerable talents of Charles Laughton as Quasimodo, Maureen O'Hara as Esmeralda and Sir Cedric Hardwicke as Frollo, all of whom play out their lives against a brute Parisian government that seemed determined to crush any opposition. One of the less acknowledged aspects of the Beauty versus Beast contrast is the theme that the beauty of Esmeralda and the beastiness of Quasimodo are not limited to those two alone. The very system that wrecks the lives of the poverty-stricken populace puts on a facade of saintliness that makes its inner core of corrupt ugliness all the more stark.

O'Hara's Esmeralda is sweetness personified. She is a lovely gypsy woman who unhappily catches the eye of a lecherous Chief Prosecutor, sanctimoniously played by Hardwicke, who commits a murder only to frame Esmeralda, who has rejected his advances. Hardwicke plays the Chief Prosecutor in a way that brings to mind every corrupt official who has ever been caught with his hand in the till. He sees nothing wrong with using the full weight of his office to humiliate and condemn a woman who has done nothing to deserve this. Enter Quasimodo, a hunchbacked and deaf bell ringer whose appearance frightens others to the same extent that Esmeralda's captivates these same others. Early on, she takes pity on him by giving him water after a savage lashing. Later, he shows that his inner being is far more decent and sensitive than the hypocrites that cry out for his blood. The trial that condemns Esmeralda as a murderous witch says a great deal more about the repressed ugliness of the judges even as they mouth pious and empty phrases that can only caricature but not capture the spirit of their criminal justice system, which in any event, stacks the deck against anyone whom the church accuses of misdeeds. Frollo's perfect diction,his sonorous phrasing, and his impressive robes linger in the audience's mind as a truly terrifying symbol of evil. The people of Paris themselves have two faces as well. As Quasimodo is being whipped, nearly every voice is raised against him. The mob of Paris was as unthinking then as when, centuries later, Madame Guillotine lopped off countless heads during the French Revolution. Yet, these same Parisians could storm a church where they mistakenly believed the King's soldiers were headed to arrest Esmeralda and take her for hanging. The theme of outer appearances hiding its inner opposites makes an unexpected appearance when Quasimodo intervenes and kills many of these same Parisians who want only to save Esmeralda from the King's soldiers who have been given new orders to save her. The final scenes of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME are full of unforgettable savageries made even more unforgettable by their lack of necessity. Quasimodo laughs maniacally as he repells the church door crashing mob. At the end, only Esmeralda finds a measure of closure as she is reunited with her lover. But for Quasimodo, all he has is the certainty that Esmeralda is safe from the rampaging mob, the lecherous criminal justice system, and an uncaring royal army. Quasimodo's closing line as he addresses the stone gargoyles atop the bells of his beloved church--"Why can't my heart be as stony as thee"--well evokes the paradox that often virtue comes with a high price tag. For good-hearted men--even human gargoyles like him, Quasimodo emerges as a man whose humanity dwarfs all those around him.

Good movie
Charles Laughton's performance of Quasimodo is excellent, instilling not only sympathy for the character, but also a sense of how the character's deformity caused him to be abused by not only the common people, but by a clergyman also.

It's not really fair to compare this version with the Lon Chaney silent. Chaney's performance is the stuff of legend, but this version is excellent. The visual quality is much better. The Chaney version is a classic, but it was a one-man show practically. Laughton's version has many fine performances by other actors also.

Recommended

Movie acting doesn't get any better than this!
Charles Laughton delivers what is,unequivocally, one of Hollywood's greatest performances. His "Quasimodo" embodies all of an actor's craft. Hidden and hard unrecognizable under heavy makeup, the performer manages to convey the spectrum of human emotion.

A young Maureen O'Hara as the beautiful "Esmeralda" and Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the sinister "Frollo" are equally as mesmerizing.

Acting 101 should make this required viewing and no film library is complete without it. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

"He was a moment in the conscious of man" - Eulogy
There are 3 great speeches in this movie including the ending eulogy by Cezanne and the rest of the film moves along admirably, the mood is even a bit in the same way, as "Les Miserables", aficionados of that book-stage play, music and/or film, will find a great and similar message in this movie as well.

Yes, this was made in about 1936; expect that and not something from the '80s, '50s or the present. An outstanding movie, somehow, as one who has read a number of Zola books, I think he would be pleased.

The Life of Emile Zola: Stuffy but Stately
In 1936, Paul Muni was on a roll. He had just won an Oscar for best actor in THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, so it was no surprise that a year later, director William Dieterle chose him for the lead in THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA. Zola, as Muni plays him, is a man who brings to mind a stuffy but morally centered grandfather type who sees his mission in life as the only man who is willing to stand up for what is right and root out corruption and evil when all others turn away claiming one valid excuse after another.
TLEZ is your standard but exceptional Hollywood bio-movie then so popular. Typically, such films begin 'en medias res', thrusting the hero into a series of lesser adventures that prefigure his later, more heroic ones. Zola and Paul Cezanne (Vladimir Sokoloff) are two poverty-stricken friends sharing a dumpy apartment in Paris. Each dreams of using his talent, Cezanne with art, Zola with words, to shake a complacent world with the immediacy of their need to force others to re-evaluate some given bedrock assumptions. Zola is a mudracker, but he cannot find it in himself to lead the fight alone. At critical points in the movie, others step in and out of his life to fire his conscience. Zola and Cezanne meet a streetwalker, Nana, who pours out a tale of economically blighted woe, the result of which is to fire Zola's imagination to write a novel exposing the corruption of a society that allowed such otherwise decent women to go astray. The first half of the movie sets up the character of Zola as one who, when convinced of the rightness of his cause, would boldly put in print inflammatory words that more than once would place him in peril. The second half focuses on the relation that Zola had with Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jew who was a captain in the French army. Zola and Dreyfus never met, but their interaction set the stage for some political fireworks that rocked the very core of the French government. Dreyfus was wrongfully accused of spying for the Germans, and a kangaroo court-martial found him guilty of treason and sent him to Devil's Island as punishment. In historical truth, Dreyfus's Jewishness was a significant factor in arousing France's widespread anti-Semitism against him. Director Dieterle sidesteps this controversy by using the word 'Jew' only once, and then briefly in a personal file on Dreyfus. At first, Zola does not care very much for Dreyfus' protestations of innocence. However, when the wife of Dreyfus makes a personal appeal to him for help, he agrees and the movie then turns into a battle between Zola and a corrupt, entrenched French High Command who are collectively willing to see Dreyfus rot on Devil's Island to save their own skins. Zola's 'I Accuse' harangue rings with the sincerity of a man who is willing to take on the Powers That Be to save a country's honor when those very corrupt Powers argue that their own sense of honor requires the opposite. Louis Calhern leads a fine supporting cast as one of the lying officers who see honor only in lying to the French public about their own shortcomings. Joseph Schildkraut as the accused Dreyfus brings considerable dignity to the role of a man who is forced to endure a public and humiliating ritual of dishonoring. By the film's end, the audience can see that virtue and honesty are not enough to ensure the ongoing vitality of a country's nobility. For that, the occasional pecking gadfly is needed. Zola was such a gadfly. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA serves to remind us that such gadflies are often in short supply, especially when they are most needed.

Two Great Speeches by Muni, But Skip The Rest
As a child in the 1930s I thought Paul Muni one of Hollywood's best, but I can't recall the movies on which this judgment was based. I don't know whether I saw this film then or not.

Now I find the depiction of "great writer (Zola) and great painter (Cezanne) in Paris during the 1800s" to be a grade school or Sunday school version of life. Hollywood's description of the Dreyfus affair lacks complexity, sophistication, reality, accuracy. The true story abounds in dramatic interest, excitement, conflict and power quite beyond the movie's reach.

But we do have two marvelous speeches, one when Muni as Emile Zola is reading his pamphlet, "I Accuse," to his friends and allies. And the other, when he is defending himself on a charge of slander in a hostile court. These alone are worth more than the price of admission. Spend your time hearing them again and again and then get yourself a copy of Zola's pamphlet and a good book from Amazon.com on what the Dreyfus affair was all about.

1937 PRESTIGE PICTURE
An unknown young Parisian writer suddenly becomes famous for penning the sensational NANA. Paul Muni, the great Polish actor who specialized in playing great men of history (seemingly taking the place of the elderly English stage-trained George Arliss) is terrific in his characterization of Emile Zola. It took Warners nearly a year to prepare the "Zola project". The screenplay went through various re-writes and a great deal of research was done to ensure historical accuracy; the result was a showcase for the unique Mr.Muni. The picture may seem a trifle dry, stodgy and drawn-out today, but it has long been esteemed as one of the greatest historical biographies Hollywood ever put on film. Variety called it "a vibrant, tense and emotional story about the man who fought a nation with his pen" It has followed not merely the spirit but, to a rare degree, the very letter of his life and of the historically significant lives around him. The racial theme involving the Jewish Dreyfus is tastefully handled; not once is the word "Jew" mentioned. The movie brought not only great financial success to Warner Bros., but prestige as well. And it solidified Muni's superstardom.

A brilliant story as relevant today as ever
To be honest, I rented this video to do some period costume research, but forgot all about that after getting involved in the story. Paul Muni portrays Zola most realistically, from his rise from the cramped, cold apartment of his early career to becoming the literary toast of France. And just when it seems that life is as good as it can be, along comes the "Dreyfus Affair" to challenge his conscience. All he has to do is keep quiet, and he can live a life of luxury right to the end. However, "all" becomes too much for the man who has spent his life developing the social conscience of his country through literature. Muni is brilliant in the role of Zola, and all the supporting cast give believable and stirring performances. This film holds you in its grip from start to finish, as it examines the worth of social institutions versus the lives of the people who uphold and venerate them, and sometimes become their victims. A definitely timeless piece of art. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Paul Muni's Oscar winning performance as Louis Pasteur
The 1930s were very much the glory day of Hollywood bio-pics, a fact amply evidenced by "The Story of Louis Pasteur" a 1936 production from Warner Brothers. Paul Muni in his Oscar winning role plays the French scientist who had to convince a skeptical scientific community that germs were the cause of disease. The one thing that can be said for modern science is that at least they are not dogmatic enough to threaten their opponents with execution, so this is not exactly a replay of the story of Galileo before the Inquistion. The scene where Pasteur instructs his chief opponent Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber) on how to wash his hands to prepare for surgery seems so strange when you consider that everybody today knows what doctors are supposed to do, it is so ingrained in both medical practice and popular culture.

The film tells of a time when science was about to achieve its ascendancy, which is ironic because in today's world of the Internet, that which is true is not scientific fact but rather that which is more easily accessible. "The Story of Louis Pastuer" is one of fighting each battle twice, for he not only has to find a cure for anthrax and rabies, he has to convince the scientific community that he is right. The fact that we know Pasteur is right does not take away from the drama of the story, and it does not hurt to be reminded of society's immense capability for stubbornly insisting on being stupid in the fact of evidence of a brave new world.

"The Story of Louis Pasteur" also won a couple of Oscars for the screenplay by Pierre Collings and Sheridan Gibney, but lost out on the Best Picture award. It is the sort of picture that can inspire younger viewers to think about what can be accomplished in the world of science and can certainly claim to be educational in terms of teaching us about how to prevent and cure disease. The film is filled with noted character actors in supporting roles, such as Akim Tamiroff as Dr. Zaranoff and Halliwell Hobbes as Dr. Lister, but I especially like the performance of Henry O'Neill as Dr. Emile Roux, who publicly challenges Pasteur on the question of the anthrax vaccine and does not bat an eye on changing his views when he is proven wrong.

However, ultimately this is Muni's film, when he was considered the premier actor of his generation. The actor would team up again with director William Dieterle two years later on another bio-pic, "The Life of Emile Zola." I think Muni's performance is a bit better in that film, mainly because Zola gets to give a very impassioned speech during his trial, but of course once you win an Oscar for playing a French national hero it is hard to get comparable acclaim for doing it again so soon.

An amazing story about a towering figure in history!
This movie not only powerfully tells the story of one of the greatest minds in human history, but of the ordeals of one of history's greatest human spirits. The Story of Louis Pasteur didn't just teach me about Pasteur's brilliant insights and scientific accomplishments - it portrayed the incredible drama of a man who doggedly fought for truth and the relief of human suffering against incredible opposition, ridicule, and derision. Einstein said that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from men with mediocre minds" and no truer words could be spoken about Pasteur and his career. His bravery and self-sacrifice as portrayed in this classic movie could not be more poignant or inspirational. A must see for everyone!

An excellent telling of this amazing scientist's story
An entertaining and reasonably accurate depiction of the triumph of Louis Pasteur over the entrenched naysayers in the French medical establishment of the day. The movie covers his support of the germ theory of disease and early efforts at antisepsis, but mostly focuses on his development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies. I can't think of another person in the history of biology and medicine who had a greater impact upon the human condition than this man. He laid the groundwork for modern microbiology as well as scientific method. This is a really entertaining movie that has you rooting for the focused and determined Pasteur through all of the ridicule and derision of the medical "luminaries" of 19th century France. A great movie for anyone with an interest in microbiology, medicine, or epidemiology, but just a terrific story for everyone.

Paul Muni: The Master of Historical Biography
Just as the world of science and medicine owes a debt to Louis Pasteur for his cures of anthrax and rabies so does the world of entertainment owe a similar debt to Paul Muni for dramatising the work of a much reviled French chemist in THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR. Director William Dieterle brought to the screen the essence of a man who was not afraid to speak out against the political correctness of his day, as collectively symbolized by the French Academy of Medicine who refused to see the very evident proof of Pasteur's claims that he lay right under their arrogant noses. Dieterle and Muni were to collaborate again one year later in filming the life of yet another great Frenchman in THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA. Pasteur, as Muni plays him, is a doctor who insists that cleanliness, if not next to godliness, is at least next to safety during surgery. The louder Pasteur claims that unwashed surgeons' hands and unsterilized scalpels cause patients to die with infection, the more viciously he is attacked by the Academy, symbolized by the haughty Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber). Pasteur later finds a cure for anthrax, and one would think that Charbonnet and the other Academy members would recognize Pasteur's genius, but even after a conclusive experiment proves his claims, his colleagues still ridicule him. It is only when Pasteur finds a cure for rabies that even the nearsighted Academy must hail his results.
THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR is the kind of movie bio that lets you know from the first scene that the hero will meet and later overcome considerable obstacles on the way to an upbeat ending. Dieterle was old-fashioned enough to end the film on a rousing call by Pasteur to the younger generation of scientists and doctors to work ceaselessly to find cures for mankind's illnesses. Muni won an Oscar for Best Actor and the film won a Best Story oscar. Further, it was nominated for Best Picture. At the closing credits, what I took away from this inspiring film was the assurance that whenever highly placed doubters say that a thing which may help humanity cannot be, there will always be a Pasteur to argue otherwise.

Fighting The Establishment
Paul Muni stars in another one of his famous biographical roles, this time as scientist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur became famous for his involvement, in among other things, demanding that doctors sterilize their instruments and wash their hands, in finding a vaccine for anthrax, and developing a treatment for rabies. In this film, we see how Pasteur struggled not only with the science behind these issues, but also with the medical establishment that did not want to give credit to a mere scientist. Muni is very good in the title role, impatient, demanding, wise, and impassioned at various moments. The screenplay manages to take a topic that could have easily been made boring (a scientist staring into a microscope looking for germs) and makes it great entertainment instead. ... Read more

Description

Hailed as an instant classic, this Academy Award®-winning film adaptation of Stephen Vincent Benet's folk story is an American version of the Faust legend.In 1840's New Hampshire, a young farmer signs a seven-year contract with the Devil in exchange for gold.Walter Huston's brilliant performance as the mischievous Mr.Scratch (the Devil) is equaled by Edward Arnold's fine portrayal of Daniel Webster, the famous 19th-century advocate who, in a memorable climax, fights to save the young farmer's soul before a jury of the damned.This acclaimed restoration has been pieced together from various existing print sources to provide the most complete version available.The result is a finer film, richer in detail, drama, and magic.Digitally remastered at The Tape House, New York City, supervised by Bruce Eder and Karen Rosen. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

THE DEVIL and DANIEL WEBSTER is a "heavenly" movie treat!!
When it was first released in 1941, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY) found itself buried under the controversial shadow of Orson Welles' classic film, CITIZEN KANE, which came out at the same time. Adding insult to injury was the fact that this classic adaptation of the Stephen Vincent Benet tale would suffer cuts and trims that would dissipate the film's impact. Now, thanks to a first-class restoration effort by Criterion, this stylish quick-witted film can be seen in all its original glory.

The film tells the story of Jabez Stone (James Craig), a struggling New Hampshire farmer, who curses his ill-luck to the point of offering his soul to the devil. No sooner does he voice his wish, when a sinister little man named "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston) appears. Needless to say, the seven year deal for good luck and money is struck and the kindly farmer is soon corrupted, despite the best efforts of his wife and his mother. Eventually, Jabez comes to bitterly regret his deal and it is up to famed orator Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) to defend him in a hellish court before a jury of the damned.

Director William Dieterle (who previously helmed the classic 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) does a wonderful job in presenting his tale through the powerful use of shadow and contrast. Bernard Herrmann compliments the film with a stellar score which won him the Academy Award that year. The acting, for the most part, is also top-notch. While not the best actor in the world, James Craig is solid enough as the hapless Jabez. Ann Shirley is equal parts warmth and steel as his loving wife. Jane Darwell, who earned praise as Ma Joad in the classic THE GRAPES OF WRATH, is solid in another "salt of the earth" role as Ma Stone. Simone Simon is absolutely sexy and appropriately sinister as Belle, the demon lady that Scratch recruits to keep Jabez in line. Edward Arnold, who replaced Thomas Mitchell after an on-set accident, is top-notch as the larger-than-life Daniel Webster. Used to playing ruthless businessmen and pompous fathers, Arnold makes the most of this plum role, and his final speech to the unholy jury is a definite highlight. When all is said and done, however, it is Walter Huston's marvelous portrayal of the Devil that will remain in the memory long after film's end. With a folksy, puckish demeanor, Huston creates a fun-loving, even likable character. However, when Jabez tries to wheedle out of the deal, Huston drops the smiling facade, showing us the true nastiness of his character. It is a definitive performance.

As with many of Criterion's DVD releases, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER has extras that will please both fans of the film and the original story. Along with an informative film commentary by noted film historians, there is a wonderful audio recording of the original tale read by Alec Baldwin, along with 2 old radio dramas covering both the original and another, "Daniel Webster and the Sea Serpent." There is also an excellent essay feature focusing on Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score which uses clips from the film to highlight certain points in the essay.

Overall, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is a classic that definitely is a must-have for your film collection and one that I highly recommend. It's a "hell" of a movie!

Classic DEVIL film gets classic DVD treatment
When it was first released in 1941, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY) found itself buried under the controversial shadow of Orson Welles' classic film, CITIZEN KANE, which came out at the same time. Adding insult to injury was the fact that this classic adaptation of the Stephen Vincent Benet tale would suffer cuts and trims that would dissipate the film's impact. Now, thanks to a first-class restoration effort by Criterion, this stylish quick-witted film can be seen in all its original glory.

The film tells the story of Jabez Stone (James Craig), a struggling New Hampshire farmer, who curses his ill-luck to the point of offering his soul to the devil. No sooner does he voice his wish, when a sinister little man named "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston) appears. Needless to say, the seven year deal for good luck and money is struck and the kindly farmer is soon corrupted, despite the best efforts of his wife and his mother. Eventually, Jabez comes to bitterly regret his deal and it is up to famed orator Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) to defend him in a hellish court before a jury of the damned.

Director William Dieterle (who previously helmed the classic 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) does a wonderful job in presenting his tale through the powerful use of shadow and contrast. Bernard Herrmann compliments the film with a stellar score which won him the Academy Award that year. The acting, for the most part, is also top-notch. While not the best actor in the world, James Craig is solid enough as the hapless Jabez. Ann Shirley is equal parts warmth and steel as his loving wife. Jane Darwell, who earned praise as Ma Joad in the classic THE GRAPES OF WRATH, is solid in another "salt of the earth" role as Ma Stone. Simone Simon is absolutely sexy and appropriately sinister as Belle, the demon lady that Scratch recruits to keep Jabez in line. Edward Arnold, who replaced Thomas Mitchell after an on-set accident, is top-notch as the larger-than-life Daniel Webster. Used to playing ruthless businessmen and pompous fathers, Arnold makes the most of this plum role, and his final speech to the unholy jury is a definite highlight. When all is said and done, however, it is Walter Huston's marvelous portrayal of the Devil that will remain in the memory long after film's end. With a folksy, puckish demeanor, Huston creates a fun-loving, even likable character. However, when Jabez tries to wheedle out of the deal, Huston drops the smiling facade, showing us the true nastiness of his character. It is a definitive performance.

As with many of Criterion's DVD releases, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER has extras that will please both fans of the film and the original story. Along with an informative film commentary by noted film historians, there is a wonderful audio recording of the original tale read by Alec Baldwin, along with 2 old radio dramas covering both the original and another, "Daniel Webster and the Seas Serpent." There is also an excellent feature focusing on Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score which uses clips from the film for emphahsis.

Overall, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is a classic that definitely is a must-have for your film collection and one that I highly recommend. It's a "hell" of a movie!

The clever devil challenges you
Walter Huston as the devil gives a knock out performance in this classic film. Filmed in the middle of the WW2 , the film is a well made adaptation of the famous Fausto , but set in a little town, where the greed and the ambition transforms the soul and the character of a very good farmer.
The script turns around the hunger for power who lives in all human being. He makes a contract with the devil and the promise will allow him seven years of richness . Suddenly he changes his old habits and becomes cruel and insane mood , he becomes in a no mercy pawnbroker and he reachs the peak like the most hated man of the town.
The story will lead us to a twist of fate about a famous politician (who else?) who will have his verbal duel with the devil in an unforgettable and surrealistic place with a weird jury. Wonderful defense with a powerful reasoning.
This picture became in a cult movie due his expressiveness and his flamboyant rhytm .
This one may be the best achievement of Willam Dieterle as film maker.
The ending sequence is anthological!

What Doth It Profit a Man...?
If you could summon old Beelzebub up from the pits of Hell and trade your soul for seven or so years of wealth and good luck, would you do it? And if you DID do it but later had second thoughts, would you have any course of redress? These are the questions that--on the surface, at least--are explored in the 1941 cinematic masterpiece THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY and shown to preview audiences as HERE IS A MAN).

Based on the popular 1937 short story by Stephen Vincent Benét, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER extends far beyond the scope of its source material to become more than just a facet of the legend of larger-than-life U.S. 19th-century American statesman and orator Daniel Webster. The film is actually a satire of Depression-era perceptions of unfettered capitalism and moneylender institutions like banks, mortgage companies, and pawnbrokers, and it even manages to take a few jabs at blind patriotism and the idealistic American conception of personal freedom. The character of Webster, though important to the plot, is ancillary to the film's overall Populist message.

The movie covers a slice from the life of one Jabez Stone (James Craig), a mid-19th-century New Hampshire farmer who seemingly has no respite from his perpetual run of bad luck. Under the shadow of the impending foreclosure on his farm, Jabez enters into a Faustian agreement with a certain "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston), who promises the farmer seven years of good luck and prosperity in exchange for his soul.

Jabez takes to his newfound wealth like a fish to water, and it isn't long before his lifestyle and behavior mirrors that of the greedy moneylenders he once so despised. But as the end of his 7-year contract draws nigh, he starts to worry about his ultimate fate. When his wife, Mary (Anne Shirley), senses that something evil is tormenting her husband, she appeals to the famous statesman and lawyer Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) for help. Always willing to assist a fellow New Englander, Webster rises to the occasion and engages Mr. Scratch vis-à-vis in the most hellish court of law ever assembled. But can Daniel Webster save Jabez from eternal damnation, or has the great agrarian champion and statesman finally met his match?

Excellent performances from the cast, especially the great Walter Huston's portrayal of Mr. Scratch and Edward Arnold's depiction of Daniel Webster; beautiful cinematography, which includes a combination of new, groundbreaking camera techniques with lighting styles that hearken back to German Expressionist cinema; clever, stylish special FX that still stand up well, even against today's CGI stuff; a fantastic musical score that includes elements of Americana folk music and experimental electronic techniques; and a well written script all serve to elevate THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER to the level of a minor masterpiece. Yet despite this fact, the film was an unfortunate box-office flop during its initial release.

Part of this failure was due to bad timing. CITIZEN KANE (1941) was released only a few months before, and the hype and controversy generated by Orson Welles' magnum opus pushed many other great films to the background. In addition, the film was simply ahead of its time. The subtle left-wing subtext, the sometimes enigmatic depiction of the supernatural, the strange lighting, and the obvious allusions to blasphemy and infidelity were not as common in that era as today, and critical reviews of the era indicate that THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER's literate script was over the heads of the average moviegoer in 1941. Nonetheless, Walter Huston was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the bedeviling Mr. Scratch, and though he didn't win, the film DID beat out CITIZEN KANE in the category of best musical score.

(Film buffs might be interested in the following bits of trivia: Both CITIZEN KANE and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER were scored by Bernard Herrmann, so he was competing against himself for the 1941 Oscar. Herrmann also later scored Hitchcock's VERTIGO (1958) and PSYCHO (1960), as well as numerous other films and TV shows. The film editor on THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER was Robert Wise, who would later go on to direct genre greats like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951), THE HAUNTING (1963), and THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971), among others. And more recently, this film was also parodied in an episode of TV's THE SIMPSONS entitled "The Devil and Homer Simpson.")

In later years, the film was heavily cut for re-release, and this butchery pared the original 106-minute running time down to approximately 84 minutes. Of course, that much loss of screen time made the film's plot confusing and vague, and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER never received the appreciation it deserved.

But now, thanks to the wonderful Criterion Collection release, contemporary audiences can see the film as the filmmakers intended. Cut elements, many of which were once thought to be lost, have been replaced and the film cleaned up as much as possible, and this restored version is what is now available via DVD. Some minor wear is still noticeable, but overall the DVD transfer is beautiful. Extras include a fascinating commentary from film historian Bruce Eder and composer Bernard Herrmann's biographer Steven C. Smith, actor Alec Baldwi's cool reading of Benét's original short story, old-tyme radio dramatizations of the story, and much more! This is a disc that all lovers of great classic films or fans of older, milder horror films should add to their collections.

The Best Big Screen Satan
Who is YOUR favorite on-screen devil? Surely not John Ritter or George Burns? Not when there's Max Von Sydow in "Needful Things" and Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate." Yet these two recent superb performances pale beside Walter Huston's "Mr. Scratch" in "The Devil and Daniel Webster." Huston is a jolly Scratch, one who never misses an opportunity for petty sin, be it swiping a pie or a bunch of carrots, guzzling hard cider, or encouraging a bit of lethargy. Through it all he never forgets his big mission of corruption and soul-gathering. He also takes his losses in stride.
As he battles for the soul of one Jabez Stone, a hapless New Hampshire farmer, he must battle a stern but likeable Daniel Webster, ably played by great character actor Edward Arnold. The culminating trial by 'the quick and the dead' is eerie and touching.
The film has an awesome Bernard Herrmann score and effects and cinematography that still look good over half a century later.
This film is profound yet intensly witty, much like the original Stephen Vincent Benet short story.
This is one film you should have no hestitation in buying. You will want to watch it again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Three Good Stars Do Not a Hit Guarantee
Well, I don't usually say this, but I agree with review karen kullers, who really pans this film--it really isn't a good picture at all. It should have been, though, with Colman as a beggar pretending to be a prince, Dietrich as a harem lady, and Edward Arnold as the wily villain.

You can also tell it was an expensive movie, with costly sets and costumes, but it is ineptly directed and negligently cast in its supporting roles. Colman makes repeated statements about the magnificence of his daughter, and the shame is that his boasts would be completely unfounded. The daughter is played by the same actress who appears in "Casablanca" as the young wife that Claude Rains almost seduces in exchange for transporting her and her husband to safety. She is really not much to write home about. A sweet-looking girl in some shots, but without any star appeal at all. She struck me as the REALLY poor man's Linda Darnell. And the caliph, her lover who disguises himself as a gardener's son, has no bearing and no talent to boot. He isn't even handsome.

Ronald Colman has long stretches where he doesn't encounter the other two talented stars, but must instead interact with the bad supporting cast. This strain is too much to be borne. Marlene Dietrich turns in possibly the worst performance of her career. And as for the gold paint on her legs, I thought that missed by about a mile. Her legs looked heavy and dirty consequently--and the choreography looked like it was for a WPA mural. Only Edward Arnold made out okay (he even looked slimmer, thanks to the unusual tailoring), but the final climactic grappling with Colman drew hoots from me and the other watchers, one of whom remarked that it looked like two fathers-in-law fighting at a wedding reception. Very undignified and unconvincing.

Perhaps my brother said it best: "TutorGal, this ought to teach you--there are no forgotten masterpieces."

You have heard of the word, now see the movie "Kismet"
"Kismet" is an Arabian Nights fantasy about Hafiz (Ronald Colman), a scheming beggar in the court of the Caliph (James Craig), who wins the hand of the dancing girl (Marlene Dietrich), the mistress of Mansur, the Grand Vizier (Edward Arnold). There are all sorts of palace intrigues going on, but Hafiz has an edge because knows magic. This 1944 film, directed by William Dieterle, cost $3,000,000, which was considered by many to be extravagant given the wartime shortages. "Kismet" had been filmed three times previously and while it is a luscious production, the main problem is, surprisingly enough, the two stars. Colman is not well suited to this particular role and Dietrich does not really have much to do besides dance and look good. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The musical version, featuring the song "Stranger in Paradise," was filmed in 1955. It is a toss-up as to which one is better.

The shame of Marlene
In this picture Marlene looks stupid. The costumes and the dance are silly. The story is not original and the script is bad. Only the colors are good. Just for Marlene's lovers. ... Read more