Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

JohnHowardReid I'm going to make myself unpopular and side with the previous reviewer of 5 July 2014. In fact, I'd go further and say it's a surprise to find Warner's top director, Michael Curtiz working on a movie of such limited potential. Despite the fact that it was photographed in pleasing Technicolor, production values are extremely limited. There are few, if any, photographic flourishes. In fact the camera seems to have been bolted to the floor. I'll admit that many Warner short subjects were made on the cheap, but they moved fast and were generally most agreeable. This one doesn't move at all. Unlike Curtiz's usual camera flourishes, this one seems to employ a camera that is not only bolted to the floor but incapable even of the slightest movement, right or left. Or maybe it's simply that the sets are so small, there's nowhere for the camera to go? The atmosphere is claustrophobic rather than intriguing and the tone of the movie is patronizing rather than stimulating. Claude Rains is woefully miscast. Available on DVD as an extra with Curtiz's superbly fast-moving, big budget western actioner, "Dodge City"!

nwinski-1 It was great that they honored the story of Haym Solomon, an under credited hero of the American Revolution. However, Claude Rains plays Solomon with a very British accent. Haym Solomon immigrated from Poland. There is nothing about Rains portrayal that indicates that he is of either European extraction or Jewish descent. Given that this short was made by Jewish Warner Bros and Jewish Michael Curtiz, it raises many questions as to what they were thinking and what were their motivations? Could it have been, as implied by some of the other reviewers, that Hollywood wanted to remind Americans, given the situation in 1939, that Jews were instrumental in the Amercian Revolution that led to our Freedom and that we should be prepared for a possible threat to our freedom? But, as was often of the mind set of pre-WWII Hollywood, they wouldn't want to make our Jewish protagonist too Jewish in fear of an American anti-semitic back lash. This walks a hypocritical tight rope. Oy Vey!

bkoganbing This fine short subject from Warner Brothers won an Academy Award as the Best Short Subject in 1939. An honor for its director Michael Curtiz who would win another Oscar for Best feature film four years later with Casablanca and one for himself as Best Director.This film should be put in the context of the times. One of the criticisms of the Jewish movie moguls is that they did not use their influence to combat anti-Semitism in the USA. IF that was the the case the Brothers Warner redeemed themselves in a small way bringing the story of Haym Solomon to the screen, the Jewish individual among America's founding fathers.Solomon had quite a career during the revolution as a spy and later helping to finance the American Revolution with Robert Morris. The expenses they personally signed for these two men dear in personal wealth and health. Claude Rains is a fine Haym Solomon, the part is almost a dress rehearsal for his later role in Mr. Skeffington.I've a feeling that this might have started out as a feature film project for Paul Muni. It would have certainly been a perfect fit for him. Around this time Muni and Jack Warner were coming to a parting of the ways.It's good short subject and kids you can actually use it as the basis of a book report.

refuge316 A refreshing little short about a little known element of our Revolutionary History. Someone who almost single handedly financed the Revolution should have gained a larger place in our history books, but sadly, he was relegated to the footnotes section. This short began by showing the Jewish Congregation in Philadelphia - the oldest synagogue in America. I was perplexed by the previous user from England who felt it was made as a slap in the face of the British as they were about to go to war. Ironically, the British were not heavily represented in this short at all, unless the subject of the Revolution, merely by its existence, is an insult to the British. If that's the way they felt at the outset of war I'm surprised they didn't deny our help feeling the insult would be too great to allow yanks to come to their assistance...or should I say win the war.As Haym was represented gathering his funding and moving it around the country, it was ironically shown that his greatest antagonist was pursuit by the Hessian Soldiers...sure they were employed by the British...but if someone wanted to point out some pre-WWII propaganda elements in this film, you couldn't look any further than the brave little group of Jews being chased after by the Germans! I'm not a student of Haym Solomon history, but this element might even have been solely added for political effect and perhaps to cushion any anti-British sentiment in this subject. America has always been proud of its beginnings, and has made many movies/shorts in celebration. You also forget that even at this early point, it was a serious possibility that we could soon be entering a war. Patriotic symbolism in Hollywood was not aimed at the British, regardless of the British actors who obviously didn't think this was a slap.The production was fine, nice color, acting was fine...nothing out of the ordinary, but still very enjoyable and very valuable for pre-WWII American cultural studies.