VividSimon Simply Perfect

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

charlesem Lloyd C. Douglas, Lutheran pastor turned novelist, was in some ways the anti-Ayn Rand. His Magnificent Obsession, published in 1929 and first filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor directed by John M. Stahl, advocates a kind of "pay it forward" altruism, the obverse of Rand's laissez-faire individualism. Douglas preached a gospel of service to others with no expectation of rewards to oneself. Fortunately, director Douglas Sirk and screenwriters Robert Blees and Wells Root keep the preaching in the 1954 remake down to a minimum - - mostly confining it to the preachiest of the film's characters, the artist Edward Randolph (Otto Kruger), but also using it as an essential element in the development of the central character, Bob Merrick (Rock Hudson), in his transition from heel to hero. This was Hudson's first major dramatic role, the one that launched him from Universal contract player into stardom. Not coincidentally, it was the second of nine films he made with Sirk, movies that range from the negligible Taza, Son of Cochise (1954) to the near-great Written on the Wind (1956). More than anyone, perhaps, Sirk was responsible for turning Hudson from just a handsome hunk with a silly publicist-concocted name into a movie actor of distinct skill. In Magnificent Obsession he demonstrates that essential film-acting technique: letting thought and emotion show on the face. It's a more effective performance than that of his co- star, Jane Wyman, though she was the one who got an Oscar nomination for the movie. As Helen Phillips, whose miseries are brought upon her by Merrick (through no actual fault of his own), Wyman has little to do but suffer stoically and unfocus her eyes to play blind. Hudson has an actual character arc to follow, and he does it quite well -- though reportedly not without multiple takes of his scenes, as Sirk coached him into what he wanted. What Sirk wanted, apparently, is a lush, Technicolor melodrama that somehow manages to make sense -- Sirk's great gift as a director being an ability to take melodrama seriously. Magnificent Obsession, like most of Sirk's films during the 1950s, was underestimated at the time by serious critics, but has undergone reevaluation after feminist critics began asking why films that center on women's lives were being treated as somehow inferior to those about men's. It's not, I think, a great film by any real critical standards -- there's still a little too much preaching and too much angelic choiring on the soundtrack, and the premise that a blind woman assisted by a nurse (Agnes Moorehead) with bright orange hair could elude discovery for months despite widespread efforts to find them stretches credulity a little too far. But it's made and acted with such conviction that I found myself yielding to it anyway. (charlesmatthews.blogspot.com)

Hitchcoc The whole plot to this thing is so contrived that from the get go it's not going to work. A man gets saved from a reckless act at the expense of another man's life. He then woos the guys widow. Filled with guilt he goes to medical school. He begins to learn about things she can do to help others. The wife goes blind. Hmmmm! I wonder what is going to happen. The thing that is missing is the ability to bring the husband back from the dead. I know I'm being sarcastic, but there are so many lame plotting contrivances and virtual impossibilities here, and the sappy conclusion. I'm sure this all played well with people who want a happy ending at all costs, including believability. Rock Hudson was a handsome guy and Jane Wyman was also a good actress. Too hokey for my tastes, however.

disinterested_spectator There is a spiritual premise underlying this movie. Ultimately, it is Christian in nature. We know this in part because Edward Randolph refers to Jesus at one point in the movie, and in part because it is based on a book by Lloyd C. Douglas, who was a devout Christian. But it is more than that, because whereas everyone knows about Christianity, the particular spiritual principle in this movie seems to be known only to a few, as if there were a secret society. Why it is a secret is not explained, which is hard to understand, because if more people knew about it and applied that knowledge, the world would be a much better place.The secret principle is karmic in nature, and is explained by analogy with electricity. The way it works is that if you do good things for people without letting other people know about it, and you refuse any attempt on their part to repay the debt, you build up a spiritual charge of good karma that rewards you. If you allow them to repay the debt, the spiritual force is discharged. Most people are grounded, never accumulating a charge, because they allow people to return the favor. If you tell other people about your kindness or charity, the spiritual force will dissipate, as with a wire without insulation. This need to keep one's good deeds a secret is to be distinguished from the secrecy surrounding the principle itself. Even if you accept the former, that still does not explain the latter.The story begins when the reckless behavior of the rich, irresponsible playboy Bob Merrick inadvertently causes the death of Dr. Wayne Phillips, who we later find out was the one who initiated Randolph into the secret spiritual principle. Dr. Phillips was such a good man that he used up all his income and borrowed against all his assets to do good deeds, leaving his wife, Helen, and his daughter, Joyce, nothing. Merrick tries to make amends, but Helen is insulted by his efforts to use mere money to atone for the death of her husband. Later, Merrick learns about the karmic principle from Randolph, but he is a bit crude in his attempt to put it to good use. He helps someone out who needs money, and then, figuring he is all charged up with a lot of good karma, tries to make a dinner date with Helen, whom he now has the hots for, even though she is a widow of only a few weeks. In trying to get away from his persistent advances, she is struck by an automobile and blinded. Thoroughly chastened, Merrick decides to go back to medical school, becomes a doctor, and then has to perform an emergency operation on Helen, which saves her life and restores her vision, allowing them to marry and live happily ever after.If the spiritual metaphysics of this movie is just too incredible to suspend disbelief, it becomes an outrageous melodrama of coincidence. Furthermore, we are appalled that Dr. Phillips did not provide for his wife and daughter in the event of his death. We get the sense of a man who was so caught up in the idea of helping strangers that he neglected his family. But given what he believed in, I guess he figured his spiritual estate would take care of them, on the assumption that good karma can be inherited.In any event, even an atheist can understand that helping out one's fellow man can be rewarding, that one is paid back, in a way, for one's kindness and charity. And thus, the movie can be accepted allegorically and enjoyed as a good tearjerker.

JLRMovieReviews Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman star in Magnificent Obsession, a remake of an Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor film. Both movies in fact catapulted their male stars into stardom. Before their respective films, neither Hudson or Taylor had been a household name. I am not prepared to discuss the differences, as I haven't seen the older version recently. But in this film, Rock plays an obnoxious, rich, and reckless bachelor, known for his frivolous lifestyle and his lack of regard for anyone else. When a skiing accident causes him to need a resuscitator, one is taken from the home of local doctor, who has it for a heart condition, and therefore it is not at the house when the kind doctor has a heart attack. Therefore the life of a self-absorbed bachelor was saved, instead of a doctor who saves lives. This point is brought up 4 or 5 times in the first 30 minutes. When he tries to apologize to the doctor's widow, Jane Wyman, another accident happens. From there on, it swerves into left field and goes beyond the point of no return with developments and contrivances to prolong the film and defy logic. To explain any details would be too exacting. But for all the grade-A production values that producer Ross Hunter and director Douglas Sirk use in retelling this story, basically I just don't buy it, or buy into it. I think the far-fetchedness of it is what I don't buy, plus some of its over-the-top acting and dramatics and corny dialogue in parts. Most of the acting I'm referring to Barbara Rush's performance as Jane's stepdaughter, in the first half of the film. But, Ms. Wyman's performance was very restrained and she was Oscar-nominated for it. And, Rock gives a very earnest try in his performance. In the commentary of this film, they mention that "Written on the Wind," another Hunter/Sirk film, is regarded as the most overblown film of theirs, but I think this has to be the second. Then, there's the philosophy of the kind doctor, in helping his patients and asking nothing in return for it and to keep it secret. While this is basically a Christian attitude that should be more prevalent today, it doesn't come across as real or genuine here; instead it comes across as forced and hokey. Otto Kruger is a believer of it and was a good friend of the deceased, and thought he was a wonderful man. And, character actress Agnes Moorehead's presence gives the film a little more credence. With all these comments thrown in, where are we now? I felt overall that the film was artificial and manipulative and therefore I was not emotionally invested in the characters; in consequence I don't think it's the great film it's purported to be. But I will give it a '7' (I think I'm being kind for doing so) for good actors on the whole who weren't given a very credible story for the viewers to accept.