Reviews (339)

A true masterpiece! A 5 star winner and a true classic!
The Wizard of Oz has got to be one of the greatest movies in classical and musical cinema history. For sixty years this movie has been the perfect choice for childeren and adults to watch and enjoy. The story is about Dorthy Gale who lives in Kansas with her aunt and uncle. When Dorthy decides to run away from home because of her feelings being empty a tornado hits and she and her house are taken to another world, the Land of Oz. A place where she finds friends like she never imagined like Glinda the good witch of the north, the beautiful witch who gives her the rubey slippers which posses power like any unknown. The scarecrow, a friendly man of clothing and straw who wants a brian, the tin woodsman, a sweet man made of tin who wants a heart, the lion, a kind and cowardly forest animal who wants courage and the wicked witch of the west, a evil witch who wants the rubey slippers and revenge on Dorthy for accidently killing her sister, the wicked witch of the east. As Dorthy and her friends follow the yellow brick to the emerald city, the place where the great and powerful and mysterious Wizard of Oz lives the magic of this film can tell the rest.

A true masterpiece! Excellent polt, characters, music and more. It holds an emotional presents that will touch everyone's heart and wish they were in the Land of Oz! See it and live through the magic of this timeless classical film of wonders.

An OZ-some DVD Experience
Like most baby boomers, I've watched this film dozens of times in the past on broadcast TV, then VHS tape, then LaserDisc ... but I had never actually SEEN "The Wizard of Oz" until this newly restored DVD came out. It's an amazing transfer. The sepia-tone Kansas sequences are startlingly sharp and clear, and the Technicolored world "Over the Rainbow" is truly dazzling. I found myself fascinated by details I had never noticed before: the glittering corn stalks in the Scarecrow's field; the mirror-like floors of the Emerald City; the polished buttons on the guardsmen's uniforms. Incredibly, even the individual grains of red sand in the Witch's hourglass stood out and glistened! All these minor-but-sumptuous visual details served to heighten the magical spell that the film has always woven, enhancing the performances, the story, and the music.

The DVD extras are a mind-boggling embarrassment of riches. The "Making Of" documentary hosted by the incomparable Angela Lansbury is worth the price of the DVD alone, but there's so much more: an international poster gallery, interviews with cast members, deleted scenes, production stills, radio clips, etc, etc. There's enough material to keep even the most casual viewer fascinated for hours, and a true Oz buff will be occupied for days!

If you only bought a DVD player to watch this one disc, it would well be worth the expense. Treat yourself, and fall in love with this classic film again ... for the first time.

The Wonderful Movie of Oz
I have been enchanted as I now watch the movie as an adult. It is not just a story about a girl from Kansas trying to get back home - actually, that was added into the movie: "There's no place like home" wasn't in the book even. I think it was a story of things that we want, and that we imagine these things may be granted by the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow wants a brain, the tinman a heart, and the lion courage. On their journey off to see the wizard, they encounter the wicked witch of the west - who is determined to get the ruby slippers off of Dorothy's feet. Now, the thing I am puzzled by is at the beginning, Glinda is the one who reminds the wicked witch about the shoes. Then she is the one who places them on Dorothy's feet: "There they are and there they'll stay." Had she not had the shoes, her journey to the wizard would not have been so troublesome. Not to mention that the "good witch" sent Dorothy on a journey to a phony wizard. I wonder now if there was some kind of irony in that - since she was also the one who in the end tells Dorothy that all she has to do is click her heels together and say "there 's no place like home." While the movie is totally a classic I love and will watch over and over again, I am wondering about the book: Were the "ruby slippers" (which were silver in the novel) as magical - and - if there was no "no place like home" in the novel then I am wondering how Dorothy got back to Kansas. I think that because each time I watch this film I realize something new, it will always remain one of my favorite movies ever.

The Wizard of Oz is wonderful
The classic film! The Wizard of Oz is wonderful. Judy Garland's breakthrough performance. Beautiful.

Growing Up, Growing On
I knew every line of this as a kid. I loved the books. I even loved the sequel that everyone else hated because I love OZ. I tried to be "over" this movie for a long time as an adult. But every time I see it I re-remember why I couldn't get enough before. The quintessential fairy tale. All kids and all adults should watch it again to remind them that a movie can work without sex, violence or graphic anything really. It's scary -- touching -- and completely engrossing -- more so each year I grow older. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

David O. Selznick wanted Gone with the Wind to be somehow more than a movie, a film that would broaden the very idea of what a film could be and do and look like. In many respects he got what he worked so hard to achieve in this 1939 epic (and all-time box-office champ in terms of tickets sold), and in some respects he fell far short of the goal. While the first half of this Civil War drama is taut and suspenseful and nostalgic, the second is ramshackle and arbitrary. But there's no question that the film is an enormous achievement in terms of its every resource--art direction, color, sound, cinematography--being pushed to new limits for the greater glory of telling an American story as fully as possible. Vivien Leigh is still magnificently narcissistic, Olivia de Havilland angelic and lovely, Leslie Howard reckless and aristocratic. As for Clark Gable: we're talking one of the most vital, masculine performances ever committed to film.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (481)

One of the Most Overrated Films Ever
Gone With the Wind is remember as a great movie because of it's epic scope and excellent production values. But 60 years later when the big budget no longer thrills us, we are left with a decent film but nothing special.

To begin with the entire film is very campy and melodramatic. The whole film is very heavy-handed and over-done. Scenes like where Scarlet crys "I'll never be hungry again" are just plain ackward. Someone should have tatooed the word "subtlty" on Selznick's head.

The script is fairly weak too. It presents a very narrow, one dimensional view of the Civil War. Worse, the Civil War ends half way through the movie and the rest of the film lacks the first half's energy.

Another major flaw is that the characters lack any real depth. Scarlet is cold and nasty through the whole movie. She never changes untill the last two minutes of the movie. There is simply no development. Ashley is noble and his wife is so nice and sweat that it makes me sick. These characters simply aren't human and don't feal real. Probably the only character in the whole movie who actually developes at all is Ret. Sadly, Clark Gable's strong performance isn't enough to carry the rest of the cast.

It should also be noted that Gone With the Wind is very racist at some points. The scene where all the slaves are going off to fight the "evil yankees" is enough to turns one's stomache. Most of the black characters are portrayed as child-like and stupid. The only exception to this is Mimi who does an excellent job and deserved her Oscar.

Gone With the Wind is still an example of fine production values but when you strip away all the lavish sets and money spent on the film, you're left with a rather hollow experiance. While there is no denying that it is a very pretty movie, even today, and it does have it's moments, Gone With the Wind is simply an over-done and campy movie. This film does not deserve to be ranked up there with the likes of Citizen Kane or the Godfather. It's just not that good.

After more than 400 reviews...
...you can't say much else!! A spectacle to end all spectacles; the epitomy of costume, art direction, and cinemagraphic grandeur (Technicolor film was still rare in the 1930's, and the industry was already engulfed in production of at least one *other* color movie that same year). I wasn't enthralled with this film when I first saw it years ago but I have come to appreciate its epic presentation and gothic, almost soapy, storytelling. And the cast is entirely first-rate, from the leading lady (whose historical casting was a mini-series in itself) to the supporting roles (Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell, Ona Munson, Laura Crews, Ann Rutherford, Harry Davenport, Oscar Polk, 'Superman's' George Reeves, et al) to the hundreds (thousands?) of extras who populated the pre-and-postwar South (the tracking shot of the Twelve Oaks mansion at the start of the barbecue and the sprawling, widening shot of Scarlett walking amidst all the wounded soldiers come to mind). It is a great script ("Waste always makes me angry;" "Do you ever shy away from marrying men you don't love?") and great direction (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood- anyone else?). It is a record-holder of sorts among Oscar nominated (or Oscars won) films, but it came out in an extraodrinary year of films. 1939 also saw the releases of, among others, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, DARK VICTORY, THE OLD MAID, GUNGA DIN, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, JUAREZ, ON BORROWED TIME, THE WOMEN, GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, AT THE CIRCUS, BABES IN ARMS, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, LOVE AFFAIR, MADE FOR EACH OTHER, and THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Lesley Howard is brilliant and a strong character
In his role of Scarlett O'Hara's (initially) true secret love. I had been a fan of Mr. Howard's for many years. His performance here is among his finest. Also check him out in The Petrified Forrest. As for the rest of the film. When he's not in it it's a little strong on the romantic side.

Worth Another Look for this Fan of Classic Film
Gone with the Wind creates many strong opinions, but I daresay many of them by people who haven't seen the film, or at least not in many years. It is sort of an amalgamation of both Margaret Mitchell's book and a reworking of DW Griffith's even more controversial silent blockbuster Birth of a Nation.

I had written this off as a silly commercialized Hollywood fairly tale but recently decided to give it another look. Basically, I think the claims of racism are far overblown, especially compared to other films of this era. It seems to me that Selznick and company went to great pains to stamp out the more overtly racist themes of Griffith's famous 1915 film. For instance, Scarlett's attempted rapists were all white; real black actors have menial but still important roles; those black actors are treated with dignity and respect; and finally the "n" word probably more frequent in southern parlance of the day was replaced with the more delicate term of "darky", and never used in a scornful fashion. And while establishment opinion in the North still clings to belief that the Civil War was a most noble and unselfish effort, the truth was something much less certain. Surely slaves in the prewar South were not all treated as gingerly as in this film; but just as certainly they were also brutally repressed in the North as well (just watch Gangs of New York for a history lesson on Northern feelings towards African Americans). All wars have a side people would rather forget, and this one was certainly no different. Also on the positive side, the film does a good job of capturing this broad historic period with smart scenes amidst well designed sets. It's really quite a grand production, in color no less, with a marvelous historical and cinematic scope.

On the less positive side, the heralded performances I think are a bit overrated. Clark Gable's presence helps considerably, but he is certainly not nearly as natural or comfortable as he was in It Happened One Night. And Mitchell's sappy, soap operaesque story frequently slips nearly into the preposterous, especially in latter scenes of the film when the historic takes a back seat to the dramatic. But maybe that's what gave the film its broad appeal, as it has a little of something for everyone. I think another factor may have really launched its success: released during the cold winter of 1939, its four-hour sitting time gave depression-weary Americans a warm night on the town for a cheap price that they could all afford.

Regarding the standard edition DVD, its very serviceable but the extras are appallingly poor for a film of this esteemed history. Also, Spanish subtitles would have been nice (only has English and French).

The Best of the Best
A total classic...everyone should own this film. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Nominated For Best Picture in 1937
THE GOOD EARTH is a screen adaptation of Pearl Buck's story about a poor Chinese farmer (Paul Muni) and how he is lifted out of poverty by the efforts of a sturdy wife (Luise Rainer) who was formerly a slave. After becoming prosperous Muni acquires a young second wife (Tilly Losch), an event which leads to considerable turmoil and scandal for him and his family.

Performances by Muni and Rainer were excellent. Both incidentally were born in Austria. Rainer had already won an Oscar in 1936 for THE GREAT ZIEGFELD in only her second Hollywood role. Much has been made about the lack of Chinese actors in the lead roles but the fact that there were still so many Asian actors in the cast was rather unusual for the times. Soo Yong, Keye Luke and Roland Lui filled important supporting roles.

Keye Luke plays Muni's elder son. He is best remembered for his numerous appearances in Charlie Chan movies. Luke is also respected for his fine acting in more than one hundred films and thirty television shows during a distinguished career which lasted over forty years.

The movie was produced at the height of the Sino-Japanese War. The special effects were outstanding for that period just before the outbreak of World War II.

THE GOOD EARTH received Oscars for Best Actress (Luise rainer) and Cinematography. It was also nominated for Best Picture, Director (Sidney Franklin) and Editing. The main competition for Oscars in 1937 came from THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA, CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS and THE AWFUL TRUTH.

You must see this movie
I am an American born Chinese, and I am very impressed by this exceptionally fine production of "The Good Earth". I am also not bothered by the casting of Caucasian actors, Paul Muni and Luise Rainer, in the lead roles. This was an expensive production for MGM. They understandably sought well-known stars who could draw audiences into movie theaters. Muni and Rainer were both Oscar winners with the name recognition and prestige that MGM needed to make this project viable.

I give enormous credit to Thalberg and MGM for hiring a mostly Chinese cast and for bringing a story about Chinese peasants to the screen in the first place. In the 1930's, the world was much more provincial than it is today. It took courage for MGM to undertake such a project as "The Good Earth".

As it turned out, the studio's foresight paid off because this movie achieved both critical and popular success when originally released.

The 1937 version of "The Good Earth" most assuredly stands the test of time. As other reviewers have so eloquently expressed here, every aspect of this production is superb with emphasis on the skillful direction and special effects. The special effects in this movie are even more realistic than alot of the effects you see in today's movies. Mercifully, they used REAL locusts in the 1937 version of "The Good Earth". If "The Good Earth" were filmed today, "animatronic" locusts or computer generated images of locusts would be used instead. Those generally are not as convincing as the real thing.

But what really sets this movie apart from other great films are the quality of the two lead performances by Paul Muni and Luise Rainer. Muni's character, Wang Lung, is a poor, unsophisticated farmer. Muni could have easily portrayed him as a caricatural "hick from the sticks" or as a bumbling ethnic stereotype. Instead, he gives the farmer depth and universality as a decent, hardworking man who has not had the advantages of education or travel, but who wants to make life better for his family. Wang Lung is basically a simple man, yet he is not simple-minded. Muni is able to convey the keen intelligence and drive beneath the farmer's lack of worldly experience.

Luise Rainer is a revelation as the farmer's wife, O-Lan. O-Lan's quiet strength, selflessness, and dignity are poignantly suggested by the gifted Miss Rainer whose slightest gestures, glances, or whispers can make the audience feel tidal waves of empathy and emotion.

I only wish that more people were familiar with this brilliant and ethereally beautiful actress. Miss Rainer's performance as O-Lan seems to transcend acting and enter the realm of spiritualism. It's truly one of the great performances by any actor in any medium.

For that alone, you must see this movie.

Fascinating Stereotypes
THE GOOD EARTH is fascinating today because of its blatant portrayals of Chinese stereotypes. Neither of the leads are Chinese but are Caucasians dressed in "yellow face" make-up which was supposed to make them look Chinese but in fact makes them look more like space aliens from another planet. The film deserves attention today because of the atrocious performance by Luise Rainer of Pearl Buck's heroine, the long-suffering peasant wife O-Lan. Originally, Anna May Wong was up for the role but deemed "not Chinese" enough for the part. Ha ha! Today, Rainer's performance which won an Oscar at the time has not withstood the test of time. Yet her cowering, passive, pathetic Chinese woman performance has influenced generations of Americans to view Chinese women as passive and docile. Books written by Chinese do not show any such thing! Check out Mo Yan's RED SORGHUM (there's a book and movie version starring Gong Li) to see the portrayal of a brave Chinese peasant woman. The movie is still worth seeing because it helps us to understand the stereotypes of yesteryear when the Chinese were seen as very exotic, but don't expect a realistic portrayal of Chinese rural life. For that, check out Zhang Yimou's films, such as Qiu Ju, Not One Less, and of course Red Sorghum.

"Good Earth" on CD
Would you purchase this movie on CD? Perhaps we can get them to make it available on CD if enough people rate this movie. Need I say more?

The Good Earth
I think this was the most terrible movie I've ever seen. You should run, run as fast as you can away from this movie.... Now! ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Dated my arse
Schmaltz? Schmaltz!? What do you think hollywood is?? This movie is quality cinema.

Schmaltz Fest
Unfortunately, this 30's schmaltz-fest seems pretty dated by now. I guess the Depression-era audiences needed some fluff
to forget their troubles, but it just hasn't aged well. Music
is still great, Korjus the real gem-beats McDonald any day-but
good for schmaltz-festers to wallow in and listen to good tunes.

A FANTASIA ON STRAUSS.
The highly fictionalized fantasia on the life of the great Johann Strauss. This 1938 film is a sacher torte of pleasure for anyone who loves his music and, in the lead, Fernand Gravet does a commendable job acting-wise. The very attractive - albeit large-boned - Polish soprano Miliza Korjus sings with a truly brilliant voice & she became the object of intense jealousy from M-G-M's reigning diva, Jeanette MacDonald! Because it was decided that there wasn't room for two Prima Donnas at the studio, the firmly established MacDonald was kept on the payroll while the European Korjus virtually went into American obscurity. Backgrounds for the film were shot in Chino, California. It is rumoured that portions of this underrated gem was indeed directed by Josef Von Sternberg.

Hollywood operetta at its best
Take the story of a man torn between two women, add the music of Johann Strauss and the scenery of 1840's Vienna and you have The Great Waltz, an irresistible cream puff of a movie. Miliza Korjus-rhymes with gorgeous and she is-portrays the fictional opera singer Carla Doner in a delicious performance that verges on May West camp, murmuring most of her lines through a perpetual full-toothed grin and waltzing herself giddy while singing absolutely impossible sounding obliggatoes to Strauss's walzes-never loosing a beat and never out of breath! Luise Rainer's innate sweetness and vulnerability are perfect for Poldi, Strauss's devoted wife. Watch her silent reaction when she realizes that the song she thought he wrote for her was actually intended for Madame Doner-incredible acting. On the other hand, Fernand Gravet, as Strauss, is unexceptional and a bit bland. Among the excellent supporting cast, Hugh Herbert as the befuddled music publisher and Curt Bois as the comic, but wise violinist are outstanding. The movie does require a temporary suspension of belief. It is full of improbabilities, including the all-female orchestra that performs Tales of the Vienna Woods in a biergarten--wearing evening gowns, Madam Doner's apparent ability to glance at a piece of music once and perform it word and note perfect (the citizens of Vienna take this one step further by singing along even though the waltzes in question have yet to be published!), and the most peculiar version of Die Fledermaus ever performed. If you are looking for historical accuracy or musical purity, this is not your movie, but if you want a delightful Hollywood operetta, you can't do much better than The Great Waltz.

vocal and musical masterpiece
the voice of miliza korjus is the most redeeming reason for having this video. She was a rare gift to the vocal world...and hated by Jeanette Macdonald, because she knew Ms Korjus had a better voice and was most certainly more beautiful! It is not to be missed for the glorious singing of Miliza Korjus! ... Read more

Reviews (481)

One of the Most Overrated Films Ever
Gone With the Wind is remember as a great movie because of it's epic scope and excellent production values. But 60 years later when the big budget no longer thrills us, we are left with a decent film but nothing special.

To begin with the entire film is very campy and melodramatic. The whole film is very heavy-handed and over-done. Scenes like where Scarlet crys "I'll never be hungry again" are just plain ackward. Someone should have tatooed the word "subtlty" on Selznick's head.

The script is fairly weak too. It presents a very narrow, one dimensional view of the Civil War. Worse, the Civil War ends half way through the movie and the rest of the film lacks the first half's energy.

Another major flaw is that the characters lack any real depth. Scarlet is cold and nasty through the whole movie. She never changes untill the last two minutes of the movie. There is simply no development. Ashley is noble and his wife is so nice and sweat that it makes me sick. These characters simply aren't human and don't feal real. Probably the only character in the whole movie who actually developes at all is Ret. Sadly, Clark Gable's strong performance isn't enough to carry the rest of the cast.

It should also be noted that Gone With the Wind is very racist at some points. The scene where all the slaves are going off to fight the "evil yankees" is enough to turns one's stomache. Most of the black characters are portrayed as child-like and stupid. The only exception to this is Mimi who does an excellent job and deserved her Oscar.

Gone With the Wind is still an example of fine production values but when you strip away all the lavish sets and money spent on the film, you're left with a rather hollow experiance. While there is no denying that it is a very pretty movie, even today, and it does have it's moments, Gone With the Wind is simply an over-done and campy movie. This film does not deserve to be ranked up there with the likes of Citizen Kane or the Godfather. It's just not that good.

After more than 400 reviews...
...you can't say much else!! A spectacle to end all spectacles; the epitomy of costume, art direction, and cinemagraphic grandeur (Technicolor film was still rare in the 1930's, and the industry was already engulfed in production of at least one *other* color movie that same year). I wasn't enthralled with this film when I first saw it years ago but I have come to appreciate its epic presentation and gothic, almost soapy, storytelling. And the cast is entirely first-rate, from the leading lady (whose historical casting was a mini-series in itself) to the supporting roles (Hattie McDaniel, Thomas Mitchell, Ona Munson, Laura Crews, Ann Rutherford, Harry Davenport, Oscar Polk, 'Superman's' George Reeves, et al) to the hundreds (thousands?) of extras who populated the pre-and-postwar South (the tracking shot of the Twelve Oaks mansion at the start of the barbecue and the sprawling, widening shot of Scarlett walking amidst all the wounded soldiers come to mind). It is a great script ("Waste always makes me angry;" "Do you ever shy away from marrying men you don't love?") and great direction (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood- anyone else?). It is a record-holder of sorts among Oscar nominated (or Oscars won) films, but it came out in an extraodrinary year of films. 1939 also saw the releases of, among others, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, DARK VICTORY, THE OLD MAID, GUNGA DIN, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, JUAREZ, ON BORROWED TIME, THE WOMEN, GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, AT THE CIRCUS, BABES IN ARMS, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, LOVE AFFAIR, MADE FOR EACH OTHER, and THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Lesley Howard is brilliant and a strong character
In his role of Scarlett O'Hara's (initially) true secret love. I had been a fan of Mr. Howard's for many years. His performance here is among his finest. Also check him out in The Petrified Forrest. As for the rest of the film. When he's not in it it's a little strong on the romantic side.

Worth Another Look for this Fan of Classic Film
Gone with the Wind creates many strong opinions, but I daresay many of them by people who haven't seen the film, or at least not in many years. It is sort of an amalgamation of both Margaret Mitchell's book and a reworking of DW Griffith's even more controversial silent blockbuster Birth of a Nation.

I had written this off as a silly commercialized Hollywood fairly tale but recently decided to give it another look. Basically, I think the claims of racism are far overblown, especially compared to other films of this era. It seems to me that Selznick and company went to great pains to stamp out the more overtly racist themes of Griffith's famous 1915 film. For instance, Scarlett's attempted rapists were all white; real black actors have menial but still important roles; those black actors are treated with dignity and respect; and finally the "n" word probably more frequent in southern parlance of the day was replaced with the more delicate term of "darky", and never used in a scornful fashion. And while establishment opinion in the North still clings to belief that the Civil War was a most noble and unselfish effort, the truth was something much less certain. Surely slaves in the prewar South were not all treated as gingerly as in this film; but just as certainly they were also brutally repressed in the North as well (just watch Gangs of New York for a history lesson on Northern feelings towards African Americans). All wars have a side people would rather forget, and this one was certainly no different. Also on the positive side, the film does a good job of capturing this broad historic period with smart scenes amidst well designed sets. It's really quite a grand production, in color no less, with a marvelous historical and cinematic scope.

On the less positive side, the heralded performances I think are a bit overrated. Clark Gable's presence helps considerably, but he is certainly not nearly as natural or comfortable as he was in It Happened One Night. And Mitchell's sappy, soap operaesque story frequently slips nearly into the preposterous, especially in latter scenes of the film when the historic takes a back seat to the dramatic. But maybe that's what gave the film its broad appeal, as it has a little of something for everyone. I think another factor may have really launched its success: released during the cold winter of 1939, its four-hour sitting time gave depression-weary Americans a warm night on the town for a cheap price that they could all afford.

Regarding the standard edition DVD, its very serviceable but the extras are appallingly poor for a film of this esteemed history. Also, Spanish subtitles would have been nice (only has English and French).

The Best of the Best
A total classic...everyone should own this film. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Excellent early depiction of Chicano life
Very interesting to see 1942 Hollywood's depiction of Chicano life.The neighborhoods looked realistic enough, like an earlier version of Mi Familia's barrio.
Spencer Tracy was excellent as Pilon. Unfortunately, a real lack of Latino actresses and actors at the time.

Actually a decent adaptation of Steinbeck's novel
John Steinbeck's novel was adapted to the big screen in this 1942 film directed by Victor Fleming. "Tortilla Flat" is a small fishing village in which there is not much money and actually working is the last thing anybody wants to do. Danny (John Garfield) inherits two houses and tries to woo the lovely Dolores Sweets Ramirez (Hedy Lamarr). His friend Pilon (Spencer Tracy) moves in with several of his friends (Akim Tamiroff & Sheldon Leonard). Pilon plans to rob "The Pirate" (Frank Morgan) of his money, until he learns the money is being saved to buy a candlestick for St. Francis. Pilon's interest then turns to Dolores as well and the contest is on to see who will end up with the lovely lady. This is actually a decent adaptation of Steinbeck's novel, which manages to capture some of the earthy, amoral spirit of these Mexican-Americans without slipping into caricature. Morgan received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his performance, the best in the film. The screenplay by John Lee Mahin and Benjamin Glazer deserves special mention for actually providing some continuity to the incidents from Steinbeck's novel.

An Outstanding Translation from Book Form
It's true that it's nearly impossible to make John Steinbeck's stories into movies. I had the advantage of having read Tortilla Flat before seeing this movie version. In cinema you have the visual facet of storytelling. You cannot go verbatim into film. Some things get mis-translated. Those who had a hand in making this film knew exactly where to take it. That or it was plain old blind luck. I could tell they knew the story well. They knew how to retell it in movie form. That was their strength. Black and white is like alchemy for many nowadays, but back then it was already a refined art. For the whole movie i hadn't noticed that it was in black and white. You don't yearn for color when all the elements of lighting, composition, tonal range, everything, tricks your mind into perceiving color. All of the characters were engaging and alive. The story took me in, into Monterey. It's a story of people who have very little, but in their friendships are more well off than the very wealthy. If you watch this movie before you read the book, it is just as well. You won't miss much by not reading the book. The movie is that good.

IT HAPPENED IN MONTEREY
This simple Steinbeck story takes place in the Monterey, California of the early forties. A little slow and drawn-out, the story involves Tracy and Garfield and their paisano friends and their adventures. Garfield's inheritance of two houses bring him instant respectability yet estranges him from Tracy and his other pals. Both Tracy and Garfield vie for the affections of lovely Lamarr and become near-enemies in the process. An entertaining little picture which has Garfield unfortunately miscast as Danny (his Spanish accent was pretty unconvincing) and the part lacked the dynamism for which Garfield was famous for.

I read the book, too-- this is a movie! MGM's masterpiece
I read the book also like the critic below me but this is a film and one of MGM's finest. It is a wonder to behold. Spencer Tracy's performance as the hapless Pilon is a highlite and John Garfield as Danny is a performance to treasure. Buying this movie off of Amazon was a refreshment. It has always been one of my favorite films and will always be. The comments below mine is from an old book-crone from a person who spends time looking at the negative points of the film and cannot sit back and enjoy a real classic.

Victor Fleming's direction ("Gone With the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz") is truly fashioned in its true existential film about the life of the "paisanos" and Hedy Lammar's performance as "Sweets" Ramirez is her best. See this movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Red Dust is the second of six movies Clark Gable and Jean Harlow made together. As usual, he plays a rugged man's man whose devilishly sexy good looks and deep-rooted gallantry make him irresistible to women; she, a tough, no-nonsense broad with a smart mouth, champagne hair, a body that won't quit, and a heart of mush. Their presence elevates this otherwise melodramatic soaper to the rank of classic. Directed by Victor Fleming (who, at Gable's insistence, took over the direction of Gone With the Wind from George Cukor), it definitely bears Fleming's macho mark.

Dennis Carson (Gable) runs a Southeast Asian rubber plantation. Vantine, a "woman of easy virtue" (Harlow), drifts into camp looking for a place to evade the law. One look at Dennis and she falls, hard. Her incessant chatter drives him nuts--and out of sheer impudence she insists on calling him "Fred"--but she finally wears him down. "You talk too much, but you're a cute little trick at that," he grins, pulling her onto his lap as the camera cuts away...

Then Dennis falls for Babs Willis (Mary Astor), the genteel wife of visiting surveyor Gary Willis (Gene Raymond). (The couple arrives at the dangerous, ramshackle camp with tennis rackets.) Babs can't help but succumb to Dennis's raw masculine power. Come the monsoons, he carries her in out of the rain. Their ensuing first kiss is one hot movie moment--and her a married woman! Of course this can't last: Gable and Harlow have to end up together. Dennis takes pity on Gary and abandons his plan to run away with Babs. "I've been noble," he tells Vantine, taking her in his arms. "Well, it's about time!" she replies. --Laura Mirsky ... Read more

Reviews (10)

PRE-CODE DELIGHT
RED DUST has become a classic primarily because of the romantic teaming of Gable and Harlow in roles perfectly suited to his virile charm and her unique brand of earthy humour. The sexy team generated a lot of chemistry between them and the public was enthralled! Dennis Carson (Clark) manages a rubber plantation in Indochina. Vantine (Jean) is a shrewd, wisecracking blonde tart with a heart of gold who shows up unexpectedly and her sardonic wit is rampant throughout the film. Gable as the stalwart plantation overseer further solidified his reputation as a romantic leading man - but it's Harlow's portrayal of Vantine which really lingers in the memory. Shrewd, brassy, honest and sensuous, she is the quintessential tart with a golden heart; this is one of her prime roles. Mary Astor does okay in her role as the lady-like Barbara whereas Gene Raymond's interpretation of her husband verges on being trite as he hero worships Gable (until the conclusion). The Chinese houseboy would not be seen in todays films but Donald Crisp and Tully Marshall are fine as the guys who share their quarters with Dennis. Victor Fleming, who had persuaded a reluctant Gable to accept the role of Dennis skillfully directed the film with a primary emphasis on characterisation and atmosphere - the result is a movie which broke box office records in 1932 and remains unforgettable today.

Harlow's Best Film!!!
Red Dust made Clark Gable a household name and gave Jean Harlow the opportunity to display her comedic talents. This is Harlow's best film! The scene in which Harlow explains to Gable how cheese is made is one of the funniest moments in the history of film! This movie is a must for any Jean Harlow or Clark Gable fan.

Harlow steals the show!
As a diehard fan of Clark Gable I rented this movie for him and came out of it completely under the spell of Jean Harlow. Who cares what their personal lives were like, does it really matter? No, when they're on the screen together everything else just disappears. While some actresses seem to shrink in the presence of legends like Gable, Harlow actually steals scenes from him. Her tough talking Vantine is the one you're rooting for from the beginning. And when she's not on the screen the story gets a bit sappy and diluted. But as always she returns to save the day (and the picture) with her wise-cracking unapologetic manner. Hooray for Harlow and Gable! Whatever genius got them together on the screen did film fans everywhere a favor!

Good movie, but did Clark have to be so cruel to Jean?
I thought overall "Red Dust," the first on-screen pairing of Clark Gable and Jean Harlow was a good movie. Clark's character, Denny, is definitely a man's man, and I thought Jean Harlow was adorable and lovable as Vanteen, the tough hooker with the heart of gold. Clark and Jean have great chemistry, but it's all ruined thank's to Mary Astor's prim and prissy character, "Babs." Denny falls hard for her, and is a total jerk to Vanteen, which really annoyed me. But in the end, you can't help loving Clark, and Jean is always great. Her sarcastic comedy is terrific. It is so sad that Jean had to leave us so soon. Who knows how many more great movies we would have had?

Jean Harlow & Clark Gable are Awesome!!!
I thought this was a awesome movie!!!!! The chinese guy was hilarious!!!!! I really thought their on screen chemistry was very real & easy to belive. Its too bad Jean Harlow didn't live longer becuase I think she was a wonderful actress. I felt really bad for Gary & Vantine. :) I thought this was a wonderful movie & that you should buy it ... Read more

Reviews (13)

STORYBOOK CLASSIC.
The film opens in a rough pub on the sea coast. Cooper meets drunken Barrymore who has a great secret in the form of a treasure map of an island in the Caribbean where there is supposedly trove left by a well-known pirate...A beautiful production, good music by Herbert Stothart, and a strong Mahin script all come together to make this a respectful filmed version of Stevenson's story. Jackie Cooper had been a child star, and here at the ripe old age of 12, he began to demonstrate his manhood in this film. Beery, who was known to chew the scenery with his hamminess, was kept in check (more or less) by the great director Victor Fleming. Few people got along with the frankly rude and gruff Beery in real life, and little Cooper was no exception (they had made THE CHAMP together in 1931). Although Fleming's direction is perhaps a bit flagging in spots, it must be noted that this man directed two timeless and legendary films: GONE WITH THE WIND & THE WIZARD OF OZ. Shot four times previously as a silent, this first talkie version of the classic Stevenson tale perhaps pales slighty when compared to the 1950 Disney version - in production values and authentic English actors - but this version has enough going for it to merit viewings for young and old alike.

I wish this black and white movie was on DVD!
I watched this version of Treasure Island in black and white on one of those classic movie channels and I liked it and thought Wallace Beery was a great Long John Silver, the rest of the cast was great too, including Jackie Cooper as Jim Hawkins, Lionel Barrymore as Billy Bones and Charles "Cic' Sale as Ben Gunn. I liked the movie so much I searched Amazon.com hoping to find it on DVD but unfortunately it hasn't been transferred to DVD and I was disappointed to find that the video that has the movie in black and white seems to be out of stock and it appears that the colorised version is the one that is being sold new and I wish they would restore the old black and white film instead of just colorising it. I could buy a used black and white video but I would really rather have the movie on DVD!

Treasure this Version
I enjoy most versions but to me this is the best. The great cast, sets, music, screenplay, and directing made it a wonderful adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson book. A pity it wasn't done in color only because I think it would gain more recognition with todays youth. Many still appreciate this wonderful adventure with pirates, sailing, and treasure hunting. The battle scene at the stockade is very exciting. One of the best family movies you can find these days. Any fan of Disney adventure movies will probably enjoy it.

Like really living it
I liked this movie way more than Pirates of the Carribean. It makes you feel like you are really watching actual Pirates. OK so they are not as hot as Johnny Depp..but this movie scared me and and gave me a feeling of adventure.Why are modern movies so boring? I loved this movie!!

The best Ben Gunn ever!
The often ovelooked character, Ben Gunn is the true hero of Treasure Island. "Nobody minds Ben Gunn," yet he'd done them all, including the fearsome Long John Silver. Sure, he's strange, but "a man who has been three years biting his nails on a desert island, Jim, can't expect to appear as sane as you or me. It doesn't lie in human nature."

Charles 'Chic' Sale creates the best image of Ben Gunn in the history of cinema. His Ben Gunn is hilarious and believable. The scene near the end with a huge wheel of cheese is a great find. Very inspirational performance, and definitely an influence on the Ben Gunn Society...

Overall the film is good too, pretty well rooted in the book. Some new dialog falls in quite nicely with the source, and Jackie Cooper delivers a few great lines, like the parodical "says them, says he, says I." The relationship of Jim Hawkins and Long John Silver is the main emphasis of this production, and the ending diverges a bit from the book, but that doesn't spoil the story. Another winner from the great Victor Fleming. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A Movie Lover's Delight
While it takes many liberties with the Baum story, it is a great movie. For Oz purists like myself, it would have been nice to see more of the original story in this movie (like Oz being real and not a dream!), but this movie is, on its own, wonderful. With a beautiful score (including "Over the Rainbow"), very funny dialogue, an amazing cast, special effects, and a charming story, who can ask for anything more?
What the movie does not lose is the magic of the Oz books, and it is this magic that has kept the movie fresh for over 60 years. And it almost wasn't this way. The movie, in its planning stages, almost turned into a starring vehicle, with Shirley Temple as Dorothy, and Fanny Brice or a similar commedienne as Glinda, at another time an operetta; in both cases it would have certainly lost any of the original Oz material.
Anyone who likes this movie should purchase the "Making of" video, which sheds light on the creation of this classic, and includes tons of deleted footage, home movies of backstage goings-on, and more! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

A different film than "ALWAYS"
"A guy named Joe" (AGNJ) should not be compared to Spielberg's "Always", because they are different pictures. AGNJ in the first half is about flying and Spencer Tracy's love for IT, not so much Irene Dunne. Its highly amusing to see him die by crashing into a German aircraft carrier when the Germans never put one into service. In Always, you really do sense that Richard Dreyfuss loves Holly Hunter. Its Irene Dunne's character that is stuck on Joe, and its wonderful to see her in the movie maintaing her professional poise as a ferry pilot while Van Johnson is hitting on her. In fact, I know a young woman who reminds me exactly of her, who holds a deep loss in her heart but maintains a professional bearing.

Its Van Johnson who makes her want to live again, and in the best scene of the movie, she realizes he ain't gonna make it when he's assigned a suicide attack mission in his P-38. What's amazing is this in the 1940s, but Irene Dunne jumps into his P-38 and flies the mission INCLUDING dropping bombs and firing machine guns at the enemy. Its startling to see and you don't see any feminists rushing to praise this picture. Its because she's a professional, a sexy woman AND a warrior, not a bitter man-hater. Like I suspect many from "America's greatest generation" she knew the enemy had to be defeated or else tyranny would rule the earth and instead of complaining pitched in and helped. Her goal was to help not be a female version of a male "Top Gun" egotist. Ahhh, that we had more women like her today!

Not his greatest, but still interesting
This movie is sort of like the flying-ace version of Angels on My Shoulder. It's unusual for a Spencer Tracy film in that he dies in the first half of the movie, goes to heaven, comes back to earth to help rookie pilots, and doesn't get his girl. Instead, Van Johnson, the young flyer he's sent to shepherd, gets her and they live happily ever after, presumably.

There are some unusual aspects to the plot. Tracy is assigned to assist Van Johnson during training, but Johnson isn't the sort of guy Tracy would normally hang out with or even like. For example, we're told he's rich and just inherited 4 million dollars. When Johnson gets sent to New Guinea to fly in the south Pacific, he meets Irene Dunne, Tracy's former love, and Johnson starts putting moves on her, another reason for Tracy to dislike his assigned pilot.

But Johnson turns out to be a better guy for Irene than Tracy was, and Tracy even seems to sense or realize that, and at the end of the film, he finally lets her go.

There are some nicely done battle scenes in the movie, and the one where Dunne takes up the P38 and successfully completes a solo suicide mission Van Johnson was sent to do is notable in that this was a long time before women's lib. Dunne shows that she can fly as well as any man, and along with the scene where Tracy goes down taking out the German aircraft carrier (which the Germans never had), is one of the two most climactic battle scenes in the movie. Dunne shows she can be as good as any man, but still feminine, a role contemporary feminists don't seem to approve of.

All in all a decent movie with some interesting aspects to the characters and plot. Big Steve says go see it (or in this case, buy it) and don't Bogart the popcorn.

A Bit Sad but a Well Done Movie!
A Guy Named Joe was a well done movie! There are some some very sad parts (e.g Pete Dies in Air Mission). Pete becomes an Angel who guides young piolits on there missions. Pete becomes jealous at first, but things work out in the end. (Don't ask me why its not called A Guy Named Pete)

A great love story with a lot of great aircraft pics
Yellow Airplane Book, Video, and Toy Review: If you would like to see some great flying scenes showing the AT-6 Texan or the P-38 Lightning combined with a beautiful human interest story, you will love this film. C. Jeff Dyrek

i search this movie for more time
I'd like to buy this movie "A guy named Joe" but have a problem. It's no available by the PAL system,usually in Spain. Can you help me to buy a copy in this system. Thanks for all. ... Read more

Reviews (339)

A true masterpiece! A 5 star winner and a true classic!
The Wizard of Oz has got to be one of the greatest movies in classical and musical cinema history. For sixty years this movie has been the perfect choice for childeren and adults to watch and enjoy. The story is about Dorthy Gale who lives in Kansas with her aunt and uncle. When Dorthy decides to run away from home because of her feelings being empty a tornado hits and she and her house are taken to another world, the Land of Oz. A place where she finds friends like she never imagined like Glinda the good witch of the north, the beautiful witch who gives her the rubey slippers which posses power like any unknown. The scarecrow, a friendly man of clothing and straw who wants a brian, the tin woodsman, a sweet man made of tin who wants a heart, the lion, a kind and cowardly forest animal who wants courage and the wicked witch of the west, a evil witch who wants the rubey slippers and revenge on Dorthy for accidently killing her sister, the wicked witch of the east. As Dorthy and her friends follow the yellow brick to the emerald city, the place where the great and powerful and mysterious Wizard of Oz lives the magic of this film can tell the rest.

A true masterpiece! Excellent polt, characters, music and more. It holds an emotional presents that will touch everyone's heart and wish they were in the Land of Oz! See it and live through the magic of this timeless classical film of wonders.

An OZ-some DVD Experience
Like most baby boomers, I've watched this film dozens of times in the past on broadcast TV, then VHS tape, then LaserDisc ... but I had never actually SEEN "The Wizard of Oz" until this newly restored DVD came out. It's an amazing transfer. The sepia-tone Kansas sequences are startlingly sharp and clear, and the Technicolored world "Over the Rainbow" is truly dazzling. I found myself fascinated by details I had never noticed before: the glittering corn stalks in the Scarecrow's field; the mirror-like floors of the Emerald City; the polished buttons on the guardsmen's uniforms. Incredibly, even the individual grains of red sand in the Witch's hourglass stood out and glistened! All these minor-but-sumptuous visual details served to heighten the magical spell that the film has always woven, enhancing the performances, the story, and the music.

The DVD extras are a mind-boggling embarrassment of riches. The "Making Of" documentary hosted by the incomparable Angela Lansbury is worth the price of the DVD alone, but there's so much more: an international poster gallery, interviews with cast members, deleted scenes, production stills, radio clips, etc, etc. There's enough material to keep even the most casual viewer fascinated for hours, and a true Oz buff will be occupied for days!

If you only bought a DVD player to watch this one disc, it would well be worth the expense. Treat yourself, and fall in love with this classic film again ... for the first time.

The Wonderful Movie of Oz
I have been enchanted as I now watch the movie as an adult. It is not just a story about a girl from Kansas trying to get back home - actually, that was added into the movie: "There's no place like home" wasn't in the book even. I think it was a story of things that we want, and that we imagine these things may be granted by the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The scarecrow wants a brain, the tinman a heart, and the lion courage. On their journey off to see the wizard, they encounter the wicked witch of the west - who is determined to get the ruby slippers off of Dorothy's feet. Now, the thing I am puzzled by is at the beginning, Glinda is the one who reminds the wicked witch about the shoes. Then she is the one who places them on Dorothy's feet: "There they are and there they'll stay." Had she not had the shoes, her journey to the wizard would not have been so troublesome. Not to mention that the "good witch" sent Dorothy on a journey to a phony wizard. I wonder now if there was some kind of irony in that - since she was also the one who in the end tells Dorothy that all she has to do is click her heels together and say "there 's no place like home." While the movie is totally a classic I love and will watch over and over again, I am wondering about the book: Were the "ruby slippers" (which were silver in the novel) as magical - and - if there was no "no place like home" in the novel then I am wondering how Dorothy got back to Kansas. I think that because each time I watch this film I realize something new, it will always remain one of my favorite movies ever.

The Wizard of Oz is wonderful
The classic film! The Wizard of Oz is wonderful. Judy Garland's breakthrough performance. Beautiful.

Growing Up, Growing On
I knew every line of this as a kid. I loved the books. I even loved the sequel that everyone else hated because I love OZ. I tried to be "over" this movie for a long time as an adult. But every time I see it I re-remember why I couldn't get enough before. The quintessential fairy tale. All kids and all adults should watch it again to remind them that a movie can work without sex, violence or graphic anything really. It's scary -- touching -- and completely engrossing -- more so each year I grow older. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The award-winning l937 version of Kipling's classic Captains Courageous finds spoiled-rotten brat Harvey Cheyne (Freddie Bartholomew) well on the way to becoming a horrible adult, under the illusion that money can buy all happiness. The little monster falls off a cruise ship, and is fished out of the drink by Portuguese fisherman Manuel (Spencer Tracy) and brought back to his fishing boat. Though the overprivileged lad initially chafes at being put to work aboard the smelly vessel, he eventually learns the value of a day's work and learns lessons in life that make him a functional person and bring him several steps closer to manhood. Despite Tracy's indeterminate accent, he excels in his role as the boy's friend, and enthusiastic performances from the rest of the cast bring this coming-of-age tale to life. It's a film that has lost none of its sentimental appeal (or occasional hamminess) over the years and should have an all-ages appeal to fans of Hollywood classics. --Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (18)

I Urge You To See This Film!
This is a marvelous movie about a spoiled, insecure child who brags, manipulates, and uses his wealth & positon to feel strong & good about himself (sound like anyone you know?). After being suspended from school for his antics he is dragged to Europe to accompany his father on a business trip. En route, he accidentenly falls overboard from the oceanliner (that's how they travelled in those days) and is rescued by a fisherman. He learns his lesson, matures and acquires integrity through his association with the crew of fisherman & in particular Spencer Tracy's character.
This fine cast consists of legends who give wonderful performances: John Carradine, Lionel Barrymore, Mickey Rooney, Melvyn Douglas and of course, Spencer Tracy.
The film also gives you a rare glimpse into a way of life past. Today we have huge fishing ships that net miles of fish and have the canneneries right on board. Without it being intentional, the movie shows you what life was like when people still cared about the work they did and had pride in the honest work they had accomplished (rather than life being a succession of "jobs").
You may show this movie to your children without fear;not only is there nothing unseemly in it, it has a valuable lesson to teach us all. And it is of much better quality than any of the so-called "family films" that have been produced in the last two decades.
HOLLYWOOD TAKE NOTE: you don't need punchy soundtracks, death defying stunts and high tech wizardry to make a good movie - - just an honest story, a good script and a fine cast. This movie proves that. It was made 70 yrs ago and we're still buying it.
My only complaint with this film is that it's not availabe on DVD.

Lord, what a film!
I don't profess to be an experienced movie critic, but this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. A wonderful story of a spoiled rich kid who gets taught some values by a lowly Portugese fisherman. I actually thought, after reading other reviews, that this might push the hammy side of things a bit, but I was wrong. The bond that develops between the two characters - slowly at first, and then stronger as the boy Harvey learns gets attached to Manuel and starts developing into a real person - is one of the greatest 'love' stories to ever hit the silver screen. Spencer Tracy won an Oscar for his performance, and Freddie Bartholomew's performance will move you to tears.

I still am impressed by the timeless screenplay (based on the Rudyard Kipling novel), the convincing special effects (remember this movie was released in 1937). The racing scenes and the storm scenes are still completely convincing.

Why this movie has not been restored and out on DVD one will never know. On one viewing it has become one of my all time favorites. It is a real gem.

A marvelous tribute to fathers, sons, and friends.
Thank God this is in TCM's library; it was just aired this past Father's Day weekend, and I watched it for the first time in twenty years. It still resonates as a father/son film, a buddy film, a coming-of-age film, and an adventure story. Even the film's moment of transition (roughly 24 minutes in) seems to be paying homage to 'other world' adventures like THE WIZARD OF OZ and ALICE IN WONDERLAND- except that Alice is a bratty little boy this time- easily the brattiest kid you'll ever meet in Freddie Bartholomew. Once Bartholomew begins his adventure with fisherman Spencer Tracy so does an amazing battle of wits, dialogue, great script, most of all, awesome performances. (Who would've thought the macho Victor Fleming would direct a story with such sensitivity and warmth amidst not only the leads but supporting castmembers Melvyn Douglas, Lionel Barrymore, and the up-and-coming Mickey Rooney?) Even though Tracy capped (and deserved) the Oscar, 12-year-old Bartholomew is a revelation as he learns about humility, honor, friendship, and growing up throughout the entire film. (A bewitching sequence shows Bartholomew play a prank which backfires on him and nearly costs him his friendship with Tracy.) The film could be accused of datedness, but it is a testimony to the basic Kipling story that it has been filmed three times, twice for television. (Can a Broadway musical be far off?) Full of wonderful black-and-white cinematography and ocean-fog special effects, it needs to come to DVD immediately. And I guarantee you'll cry like a baby with a smile on your face.

A True Classic for it's Day. .. and today
This movie is a favorite of mine. I hope that someday it will indeed be released in DVD format. I'll be waiting. Obviously dated, it is still an excellent movie and it really gets to me. I guess it's just one of those movies for me. I can't rate it high enough.

Captains Courageous
I do not particularly care for black-and-white or old movies, but this has got to be my family's all-time favorite movie. It has several great messages running throughout the movie. If you have children, you may want to pick this movie up. If you enjoy Spencer Tracy, you would undoubtedly want to pick this movie up. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in1941, and in fact its production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ended uplooking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood ofRobert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in SpencerTracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role,although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde areconvincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story isthe young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy of Casablanca. Bergman was cast in thegood-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in herHollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thussecuring a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in themore respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a littlenumber called Gone with theWind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influencedhis work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose withthe kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, whichwon Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather thanHyde. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Is Evil Necessary?
In the horror films of the 30s and 40s, a common thread was often the question of the limits of knowledge. Was there truly an area that man was supposed to not go? The novel DR. JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and the various filmed versions have each attempted to answer, however imperfectly, that question. The 1941 version with Spencer Tracy as Dr. Jekyll sidesteps this issue, instead focusing on the consequences of splitting a human into his good and evil selves. Director Victor Fleming sets up the eventual fall of Mr. Hyde by stages. He uses both the dreariness of fogged London streets and the considerable talents of Spencer Tracy to suggest a noble but flawed Henry Jekyll. The dark corners of the twisting avenues surrounding Jekyll's house suggest a lurking evil. The smiling earnest face of Henry Jekyll suggests a similar unsettling moment as he contemplates that all men have within themselves a duality of morality that can be brought out by man's technology and science. The two female leads, Lana Turner as Jekyll's fiancee and Ingrid Bergman as Hyde's forced paramour, are seen as reduced female images of Jekyll-Hyde. Turner is the pure Jekyll--loving, caring, endlessly forgiving. Bergman is the rougher, more edgy version of Turner. Various critics have been harsh in their condemnation of these two women, both in the characters portrayed and the acting involved. Yet, these actresses' performances are exactly right. Turner's innate goodness is associated with Jekyll; each supports the other even when family and circumstance dictate otherwise. Bergman's acting role requires more subtlety. Her beauty allied with her working class image is what attracts Hyde in the first place, but she has to shed her edginess each time she and Hyde interact. The dramatic center of the movie is Jekyll, rather than Hyde. It is he who gives form and substance to a plot that allows him to branch off to become the monstrous Hyde. All of Hyde's evil is more a reflection of what Jekyll could have done rather than what Hyde did. Spencer Tracy shows a Jekyll that needs his dormant Hyde to make life's difficult decisions. Before his first transformation, Jekyll lived a life that was normal, yet bland. It was only after his exposing to himself of his Hyde personality, that his Jekyll side was able to become more confident. When Hyde is killed by bullets, of course Jekyll too dies, but the death of both is more than the closing of a police blotter of crimes now solved. Hyde's death indicates that Jekyll's goodness was incomplete without a recognition of the dark side that has existed deep within all humans since the apple eating incident of the Garden of Eden. DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE points out that undirected good needs directed evil to avoid plucking that apple from the tree in the first place.

A disappointment
I must say this movie is a waste of time. Even though I enjoy Ingrid Bergman in everything I have seen her in thus far, I can honestly say I didn't really like this role she plays in this film. Though I must say she is the reason I give it 2 stars and really she is the only reason I can give anyone to take the time and watch this movie. She's not bad, she just didn't impress me. Anyway, I definately must say that I DID NOT like Spencer Tracy as Jekyll and Hyde. He is not a leading man in my mind!! He did not fit this role at all. (I guess I will always think of him as a priest in Boy's Town). I don't think he had enough charm and charisma and good looks Jekyll should have possessed. His Hyde character was evil enough, he did seem scary and cruel. I guess I am biased because I first watched the 1930's version with Fredric March and I found that to be a very good film, very satisfying, and this one just did nothing for me. I highly recommend you see the one with Fredric March, and skip this one.

Boring Doctor wakes up to discover he's Richard Nixon
I remember the night well. I had read a story about Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde at the age of seven or eight and knew it was a horror story. So when I saw it was going to be on TV I pleaded with my dad to let me watch it. He did and I did. My first ever horror movie, so it has a kind of special place in my heart.

Spencer Tracy plays the infamous London doctor. My goodness, if I were as dull and uncharismatic as Tracy, I'd want to change into another person too. As it happens, he comes across a chemical potion that allows him to do exactly that-and so he metamorphosizes into an evil brute who looks uncannily like you would expect President Nixon to look first thing in the morning (these days, anyway). At least as Hyde he gets to be a bit nasty with a few people, which more than makes up for the inane dialogue the cast are forced to deliver.

Amongst Hyde's most abominable traits are his tendency to violence and his rather rude habit of spitting grape pips out onto the carpet (by far his worst offence-ask any housewife). Also of concern is the way his face wobbles about and blurs every time he metamorphosizes. He should really see a doctor about that, or at least get a better guy to do his special effects. Corny SFX have always been the downfall of the worst villians history has offered us.

The amateur freudian psychology of the dream/transformation sequences is an amusing diversion, and the sight of a naked Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner down on all fours being whipped by Spencer Tracy is a sight you will never forget (one wonders what was going through the director's mind). Oh, and anyone who has ever been to London will immediately recognize all those shadowy alleyways, narrow streets and thick fog, and will be familiar with the everyday sight of cloaked villians running across London Bridge pursued by bobbies whose thick accents betray their East London/Irish/Australian/South African/Yankee origins.

To be fair, this is kind of a fun film, and in between the banal chat there are some memorable moments where the photography, direction, editing and music suddenly combine with great style. The bedroom scenes with Ingrid Bergman (don't get excited-nothing too racy) are fascinatingly photographed, the camera rarely seeming to notice anything other than her beauty ('the camera was in love with her' I guess some camp film critic might say). The pace picks up considerably in the last half an hour, so it just about qualifies as a 'horror' despite the fact that the only thing horrific about the other three quarters of the film is Spencer Tracy's coiffure.

Perhaps it is just the nostalgic memory of staying up late to watch my first horror flick that renders the film worthy of three stars (for gosh' sake, Dad could have shown me DUMBO and it would have held the same appeal as long as I THOUGHT I was watching a horror movie). Maybe something in there will hook you too.

Disappointing
I found this version disappointing. It's as though Robert Louis Stevenson's short story was turned into a novel by somebody other than him. In other words, I was left wondering whether the director ever read the story.

First, one of the great things about the story is Stevenson's description of London. A dark, Victorian, setting, generates a mood that helps create the drama. In this production, mood is practically nonexistent.

Second, Hyde assaulting a young child on the sidewalk helps define Hyde's brand of evil early in the story. That scene does not appear in this movie, leaving the audience guessing at his character.

Third, as others have noted, the women were miscast and Bergman's British accent made me wince.

But the greatest flaw is the change, or rather, the betrayal of the ending. Stevenson's ending dramatizes Jekyl's despair over what he's unleashed - an increasingly important theme as the story progresses. This production ignores that entirely.

While a director should not feel bound by an author's every word, they should honor the spirit of the original, particularly when the original ranks as one of the best of its genre. Here, there are a few dramnatic moments but, in general, it's a two dimensional movie that does a disservice to a great story.

I give this 3 stars because of the cast, not because of the production.

"A good example of a misguided effort"
This version from Victor Fleming, the director of The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone with the Wind (1939), was made only nine years after what is still recognized as Rouben Mamoulian's definitive version, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931) - a relatively short time period for a remake. This version was made at the height of the 1940s vogue in Freudian psychology. But instead of opening the story up the Freudian interpretation ends up completely embalming it. Instead of a fight between civilized man and his animal nature the story has taken on the view that evil does not exist, merely insanity - a potentially intriguing interpretation. But the Freudian emphasis ends up being rather laughable - like the dream visions during the transformation with Spencer Tracy whipping a carriage with one white and one black horse, or the rude crude sexual symbolism represented by the one virtuous and one loose girl, and images of the girls seen superimposed swimming in the bottle as he is tempted to take the potion again. It is often stated that Tracy played the Hyde part without makeup as a contribution to the more psychological interpretation - such is not the case, he does use makeup - however he may well have. Tracy plays the part more as a slavering Scotsman - rather than representing man's baser nature, his Hyde comes across more as a malicious prankster. All one ends up being struck by is the patent theatricality of the performance, rather than any threat it should hold. Although there is one good scene with Tracy at a piano spitting out grape pips and forcing a terrified Ingrid Bergman to sing for him.

A better director could have made something out of it but Fleming directs this as though it were a big-budget musical. Any potential atmosphere is wrung out of the film it by the production design - the film is lavish but entirely stagebound, the streets of the West End are empty and bare of any lived-in quality. Fleming's handling is quite clumsy - the pace deadly slow. The crucial transformation sequence is entirely without impact - just a closeup on the bottles and liquids being poured and facial lap dissolves, all to canned music, no sound effects. It should have been the film's dramatic climax. The entire film is a good example of misguided effort. Everything appears to have gone wrong. The casting of Ingrid Bergman as the Cockney tramp and Lana Turner as the virtuous fiancee is disastrous. Both were cast in the other's role but decided to swap because they were tired of being typecast. It is probably the only bad performance Bergman ever gave. Halfway through the Cockney cheekiness gets forgotten and Bergman returns to something more introverted and passive, the type of role she should have been cast in in the first place. On the other hand Lana Turner is totally miscast as the fiancee, perpetually looking as though she wants to drag the good Jekyll away for some less reputable fun.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Grade: B 87% ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Rossellini's Best but So Far Most Obscure Film
West Coast Editor, Film Journal International

Enthusiasm has got the better hold of me. I cannot believe that this stark, formally brave, one-of-a-kind film directed by Roberto Rossellini, his next-to-last feature starring then-wife Ingrid Bergman, will find its way onto home video. Here, Rossellini insists on a completely inward performance from Bergman. The setting is deliberately theatrical, Bergman is seldom seen closely, and in fact much of the time what we see of her is a ghostly superimposition. There may never have been a less fleshly performance in the history of cinema, and yet Bergman's passion is tremendous, and she overcomes obstacles that would seem to prevent communication with us, as Joan fled imprisonment and the shackles of this world to unite with God. While I love the film versions of Joan of Arc directed by Carl Dreyer, Robert Bresson, and Jacques Rivette (the complete five-hour-plus version), this one is my favorite. If I were to select the ten best films ever made, this film, translated as "Joan at the Stake," would be one of them.

Rossellini's Joan of Arc
I haven't seen Rossellini's Joan of Arc but have wanted to very much--I think, however, that the other reviewers are referring not to this film but to Victor Fleming's 1948 version, also starring Ingrid Bergman. That is a more conventional, Hollywood production; Rossellini's is said to be a rather austere film of a stage production of Honegger's oratorio, made when Bergman was still Rossellini's wife.

I AM a teenager who loves classics, and this is MY FAVORITE!
I enjoy good movies by good actors. It is somewhat of a hobby. I was a little boy the last time I saw this movie, and I would do just about anything to see it again!!! Ingrid Bergeman made a SPECTACULAR performance in this EPIC ADVENTURE that people of all ages should see. If you are interested in the type of acting and performing that is superior to "modern Hollywood," then you need to see Ingrid at her best! I would put in a plea to the producers to re-release this film to a deserving audience!