Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

realtybytes-1 I just discovered this glorious film. How I wish I had someone near me with whom to discuss it. My contemporaries don't watch these "older" films -- not even my older friends (I am 62). Unlike some of the reviewers, I could not find any actor to criticize -- I thought they were all excellent, particularly when today's movies are punctuated with obscenity and special effects.I would love to obtain the book, and its sequel ("Parris Mitchell of Kings Row") published posthumously by the primary author's wife. I hope that by reading these, I do not lose my affection for the characters gleaned from the film version. One of the delights of this movie was the lack of blatantly taboo subjects, evidently expressed in the novel. While not a prude, I do tire of sex constantly being shoved down my throat in every movie I watch. The topics are not missing from the movie, but rather are referred to with notable discretion, e.g. when Randy is speaking to Parris about her earlier physical attraction to Drake (before his double amputation). She speaks of her love changing, rather than diminishing. The implication is clear to any viewer remotely capable of reading between the lines: she is talking of the sexual aspect of marriage, and how that is either changed or eliminated completely by her husband's injuries. It is not necessary for her to spell it out in black and white, which would violate the Hays Code. The meaning is clear for anyone seeking to understand.I can add nothing to other reviewers' comments regarding the fabulous music, except to say that it wasn't surprising when I researched a bit about the author Henry Bellamann. Prior to focusing exclusively on his writing, he was a noted professor of classical music.If your haven't seen this yet, you owe it to yourself to get a copy, or find it on Amazon. I stream, rather than watch cable, and it was available on Warner Archive streaming media.

lewis-51 Many people have already written reviews of this notable film, so I'll skip the plot summary. Most of the reviews are extremely positive. I'm afraid I can't be as laudatory, though I did enjoy the movie and it prompted me to write this.There are some really fine acting performances. Unlike some, I like Robert Cummings. Yes, he is a bit "one note" as someone wrote, but I think that makes sense. Cummings has accurately portrayed a believable personality. Yes, I agree that Ronald Reagan was excellent. He almost becomes the lead role, and that's part of the problem with this movie. Ann Sheridan I would just say was good, not excellent. She does not deserve to have top billing in this movie. Maybe she was the best known star of the three main actors at that time, and she was given top billing for that reason. Betty Field as Cassandra was good, but overacted a bit in a difficult role. Claude Rains was excellent, as usual.Two other actors deserve mention, even though they had lesser roles. I thought that the actress who played Louise (Nancy Coleman) was very convincing. And I thought the performance of Henry Davenport as Skeffington was remarkable. He really seemed to be a completely authentic lawyer from the 1890s. It's hard to believe that that was someone acting.The basic situation and plot were intriguing. Sounds like the novel would be a good read. But the movie disappoints in several ways.First, it is disjointed. Too many scenes happen quickly or end abruptly. For example, there is a scene about half way through where Parris and Duke are reading a journal of Dr. Tower, soon after someone important dies (don't want to get too specific here). Suddenly Parris says, "but I'm tired." Duke immediately jumps up and says "I'll get the light." He blows it out and they leave. That's just unreal. It's too abrupt. It's jarring. This sort of thing happens again and again.Second, a major love interest of one of the main characters is introduced with only about 20 minutes to go. That is very awkward and off-putting. A veritable Deus ex machina.Third, the movie builds up a major romance and conflict between Parris and Cassandra, only to have it suddenly resolved barely half way into the movie (again, don't want to get too specific). Really, the movie should have ended there. It's as if it were really two movies, parts I and II. It would have been better as two.Fourth, the character of Randy, played by Ann Sheridan, is very briefly in the beginning of the movie as a child, then abruptly (there's that word again) reappears about half way through the movie and becomes a major character.Fifth, comparatively minor but still jarring, the actresses playing Cassandra (Field) and Randy (Sheridan) looked amazingly alike. Maybe it would not have been so in color, but in black and white, I was astonished when Sheridan abruptly appeared in the middle of the movie and seemed to be Cassandra! Was this planned by the director? So I appreciate the basic story. It's very creative. I appreciate the fine acting. But with so many flaws, I can rate it no higher than 7.henry

classicsoncall With the passing of years and the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Ronald Reagan and Bob Cummings might have been better off in each other's roles in "Kings Row". Reagan doesn't strike me as the playboy type, while the impression I have of Cummings is just that from watching all those 'Love That Bob' (The Bob Cummings Show) episodes back in the day.Still, the movie tells an effective story, attempting to handle a number of different subjects. For 1942, many of them seemed to be pushing the envelope of acceptable film topics, issues like psychiatric treatment for insanity and the willful amputation of a patients' legs as a duty to punish wickedness. The entire time I felt Dr. Tower (Claude Rains) was a demon for keeping his wife and daughter under some sort of desperate control, then became shocked to learn that he was shielding them from the harsh reality of a world that would be unable to accept them. Yet it takes the form of a murder/suicide to bring that revelation to the viewer, with an intrigue that leaves one baffled until the story is revealed.Even though it happens time and again, I'm always surprised to hear a character from an old film talking about how life isn't getting any simpler. That happens here in a conversation between Dr. Tower and his student Parris Mitchell (Cummings) as they discuss the new medical field of psychiatry. I imagine future movie watchers will get a kick out of the way we whine about our complicated life today. But seriously, I can't imagine things getting much more complex. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.In hindsight, the question that puzzles me is seeing Ann Sheridan's name at the top of the film's credits. It seems to me she joined the story about half way through, so being the top Warner's star at the time was probably the reason. Sheridan is actually my favorite actress of the Golden Era so I'm not being critical here. It just seems like it's Cummings' picture all the way and he's second billed, on loan from Universal, so again it's political. Most folks consider Reagan a less than gifted actor, so it's good to see him in a role that has some range in which he does a creditable job. Excellent support here as well from Claude Rains, Betty Field and Maria Ouspenskaya, even with their limited screen time.

moonspinner55 Two boyhood pals from the 1890s grow into young adults with tumultuous lives: Robert Cummings is the studious kid who moves away from small town America to study psychiatry in Vienna (!), while Ronald Reagan loses all his money in a bank swindle and has to find work on the opposite side of the tracks. Intelligent, if melodramatic, adaptation of Henry Bellamann's novel isn't particularly well-directed (nor is it sharply edited, as the scenes and transitions could use more verve and snap); however, it does have Reagan at the peak of his acting charms, and his strong performance really carries this a long way. Cummings, whose make-up job causes him to resemble an actor from the silent era, is less interesting, and the supporting performances are variable, but film is still quite absorbing and entertaining. Excellent music score by Erich Korngold, handsome cinematography by James Wong Howe. Though a Best Picture nominee for 1942, the movie was originally set for release the year before, with Warner Bros. getting cold feet and putting it on ice. Once they did release it, the film failed to find much of an audience. **1/2 from ****