Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

whpratt1 Never realized that Cary Grant appeared in a film which concerned the American Revolution or that he even was willing to give his talents to this type of film. I later found out that Cary Grant did not like this role he was playing in the film and made it a point to never appear in such a film. Many people felt that Cary Grant was not suited for his role in this film and felt he should have turned down this role. There are great supporting actors in this film which are Martha Scott, (Jane Peyton Howard) and Cary Grant, ( Matt Howard) and also Cedric Hardwicke,(Fleetwood Peyton). This film deals with the Boston Tea Party which means that the British were enacting a tax on the people of Boston and the people of Boston were very rebellious against such legislation and made the statement, "No Representation with out Taxitation." You must agree this is not really a Cary Grant film, he was placed in a film which he should never had appear in.

LadyWesley What a disappointment! I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake. And poor, dull Martha Scott -- who could believe that she inspired such love and devotion after one meeting. Personally, I could have done without quite so much "Tom" Jefferson.The plot was simplistic; the dialog mundane. I couldn't take it for the entire two hours.

ldavis-2 This premiered yesterday on TCM. In his intro, Robert Osborne said this was one of Cary Grant's least-known films. Ten minutes in, you know why. Matthew was 9 or 10 when he loses his father. A title card then moves us forward 12 years, meaning Matthew should be 21 or 22, but is played by the 36 year old Grant! It doesn't help that Matthew is an a-hole! He rejects his first son because he is crippled. So instead of naming the kid after his dead father, Matthew sticks it to him by naming him after the hated Fleetwood! The irony that Matthew becomes the very kind of man he despises Fleetwood for being - landowner (and slave owner), politician, member of the upper-crust - is completely lost on Z-Grade director Frank Lloyd.As if he knew he was horribly miscast, Grant tears through this like he's on crack! Martha Scott struggles mightily. Only the great Cedric Hardwicke emerges from this unscathed. Fleetwood is a snob, but one with an innate sense of civility who tries to walk a fine line between love of his King and love of his adopted home. He makes you feel Fleetwood's bitterness as his world crumbles around him, betrayed, through no real fault of his own, by the very people he thought of as his own.Did anyone pick up on that Roger was gay? Fleetwood gives Jane the family's necklace because he knows Roger will never marry! And Tom-Cat Jefferson was SO effeminate, I was waiting for him to hook up with Roger! Boy Howdy!

spcummings We really found this an interesting movie, since we lived near Williamsburg, and are familiar with Virginia history, especially in the Albermarle County and Wiliamsburg/James River areas. It was interesting to see so much use of the Colonial Williamsburg settings. And the story was a good encapsulation of some early American social and political currents. Unfortunately, the script is weak, the acting uneven, and the moral lessons are not subtle. If you are looking for a sweeping drama, historical epic, or subtle story lines--skip this one. If you want a look through a simplistic lens, then it will be worth your 90 minutes investment.