ThiefHott Too much of everything

Micitype Pretty Good

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

JohnHowardReid Sober, respectful, beautifully photographed, impeccably acted, reasonably dramatic, skilfully directed, but lacking some of the fire and passion of earlier Warner biographies like Pasteur and Zola. In fact, in many ways, Ehrlich is a sort of watered-down Pasteur. Once again, the conflict lies between the scientist and an ultra-conservative medical profession. In theory, Ehrlich should have been even more forceful because it introduces an additional conflict: Jew versus Gentiles. But in practice, these two conflicts counteract instead of reinforcing each other. The reason is that the film's makers seem peculiarly afraid to call a spade a spade. Oh, they can bandy words like "syphilis" around all right (but significantly without once alluding to the fact that it is a sexually transmitted disease — in fact Ehrlich actually says in one scene that the disease can be contracted by other means), but when it comes to calling Ehrlich a Jew, the best the writers can manage is an oblique reference to Ehrlich's "faith" in a report from Rumann to Love. It's a reference that few moviegoers will even notice, let alone appreciate. Yet the writers obviously see the Rumann character as a crystallization of anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany, with obvious contemporary parallels. But they don't actually come right out and say so. They hint. They speak slyly to those few picturegoers that are in the know. There were doubtless good political reasons for this. But all this hiding behind a veil, waters down the essential drama. What we have left is a conflict between a big team of experts led by Ehrlich and a few disgruntled, ignorant but powerfully-placed bigots. Not exactly the stuff of high drama. A bit of tension there certainly, but 250 volts compared to a possible 25,000.These restraints in the scripting are echoed by the players. In the key central role, Robinson's acting can be, was and is justly described as restrained. That's fine. But is restraint what his fans expect and want? To my mind, Edward G. Robinson stands for full- blooded power, charismatic playing with all gloves off. This dignified, selfless, persistent, undiscouraged, turn-the-other-cheek Ehrlich is not the Robinson we know and love. In short, a very classy production, with marvelous technical credits, always very appealing to look at (a special bow to Perc Westmore for his wholly credible make-up work on Robinson), but one that seems, despite good pacing and attractive production values, to be operating at half-steam. Robinson dominates the film. Aside from the ever-reliable Otto Kruger and the hissingly villainous Sig Rumann and Montagu Love, most of the other players, talented as they are, fail to get much of a look-in . Even Madame Ouspenskaya figures in only a couple of scenes. OTHER VIEWS: Among all the plays and films in which I've appeared, I'm proudest of my role in Doctor Ehrlich's Magic Bullet. It was, I think, one of the most distinguished performances I've ever given. I say that not only because the critics said it and the mail and the box office said it, but most of all because that inner voice, that inner self, that captious critic Emanuel Goldenberg said it. And others said it, people who, in the end, meant the most: Dr Ehrlich's family. — Edward G. Robinson.

robert-temple-1 This film, the original title of which was simply DR. EHRLICH'S MAGIC BULLET, is a biographical film about Professor Paul Ehrlich (1844-1915), a Nobel Prize Winner who revolutionised medical science in many ways. His scientific and personal adventures are vividly portrayed in this dramatic film. He is played by Edward G. Robinson, in one of his finest performances. Robinson's makeup as he ages over the decades is superb, and the real Ehrlich's beard is exactly copied. Eddie Robinson was perfect casting for such a part, as he was a genuine intellectual himself. His favourite way of passing the time on film sets between takes was to study grammars of numerous languages, ancient and modern. He was a master linguist and philologist, a renowned art collector, and one of the most sophisticated people in Hollywood. But until the age of ten he could not speak a word of English. It was then that he was put on a boat at Bucharest to sail to America, where he arrived as a penniless Romanian Jewish immigrant. The story of his life is even more amazing than that of Ehrlich's. I have met numerous members of the Robinson family, though alas I never knew Eddie himself. Robinson certainly had the brains to appreciate someone like Ehrlich, which does help in portraying someone on screen. Ehrlich found the first cure for syphilis, discovered how to stain the tubercle bacillus so that TB could be conquered, brought a diphtheria epidemic to a halt, discovered serums for snakebite, and much more. Those interested in Ehrlich can find plenty about him on the web. This film was directed by the German immigrant William Dieterle, who four years earlier had directed another scientific biopic, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR (1936), the same year also directed a film about the life of Florence Nightingale entitled THE WHITE ANGEL (1936), and the following year directed THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA (1937). So he was already well known for biopics and probably made more biographical feature films than any other director in cinema history. Immediately after finishing EHRLICH, he and Robinson teamed up to make THIS MAN REUTER aka A DISPATCH FROM REUTER'S (1940), about Julius Reuter, the founder of the Reuters News Agency, and two years later, Dieterle directed THE MAN ON AMERICA'S CONSCIENCE aka TENNESSEE JOHNSON (1942), about the life on Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, who became President of the United States after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. One of the Dieterle's finest films was LOVE LETTERS (1945), with a screenplay by Ayn Rand. The famous Maria Ouspenskaya, who worked under the direction of Stanislavski himself in Moscow, appears in this film in a supporting role as Frau Speyer, and of course is superb. Donald Meek does a particularly good job of playing the sceptic Mittelmeyer, Ruth Gordon is excellent as Mrs. Ehrlich, and all the cast do well. It is a rousing story of how Ehrlich rose from being a general practitioner in a hospital to become a famous research scientist, overcoming countless obstacles and struggling to find funding for his revolutionary research. John Huston was one of the three writers of the excellent screenplay. This is something of a classic, and, frankly, films of this sort should be shown in the science classes of schools in order to inspire young people to become heroes of science in the service of humanity. Or is that a hopeless notion in today's Society of Narcissism?

utgard14 Grand biopic as only Old Hollywood could do so well. An excellent performance from Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who works to create a cure for syphilis while battling tuberculosis and his peers' small-mindedness. With direction by the great William Dieterle and a script co-written by John Huston, this is an exceptional film. It's not easy to make a great movie out of what is essentially a medical research story, but they pull it off. Terrific supporting cast including Ruth Gordon, Donald Crisp, Otto Kruger, Donald Meek, Henry O'Neill, Maria Ouspenskaya, Albert Bassermann, Louis Calhern...so many more. Just a great lineup. Pretty daring to make a movie about syphilis at a time when the Production Code was in full effect. Wonderful biopic you should definitely check out.

Christopher jones How I long for the era when Hollywood was capable of producing films based upon the lives of great scientists and physicians. Current moguls may consider the material too trite, but that just proves how they misjudge quality cinema.Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet is a great old biographical melodrama that probably does overstate certain emotional moments, nonetheless it helps recall the bigger-than-life accomplishments of scientists who otherwise would be forgotten.Edward G. Robinson, though apparently too mature for the role, knew a good script when he read it, and ended up with the finest performance of his long career. Credit goes to the Warner Studio, too, for making a film about the cure for syphilis when even the mention of the disease was prohibited in motion pictures. Those who enjoy films like Edison, The Man will find this more involved with science and less with personal matters than the MGM/Spencer Tracy epic.This is grand Warner's entertainment with a lesson or two for all of us.