GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Lawbolisted Powerful

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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

richard-1787 It seems strange to give a 3 to a movie with such fine talent in it: Charles Laughton, Maureen O'Hara, Walter Slezak, George Sanders, Jean Renoir. But this just isn't a good movie. Worse, it's a confusing and very disappointing movie, given the talent at hand.The biggest problem, for me, was Laughton's initial character. He is portrayed as a cringing coward, a "man" completely unable to control his fear of violence and loud noise. He cowers like the most spineless of worms during an air raid, and clings to his mother, though he is a middle aged man. This makes him extremely unsympathetic.Then, at the end, we are supposed to believe that the sight of ten men being shot by a Nazi firing squad is able to transform him into the most heroic of men. Everything, including his cringing demeanor, changes 180 degrees.He could well have been played as Pierre Average, not getting involved in the Resistance attacks on the occupier until he was moved by the shootings. But the transformation from abject coward to mighty hero is simply too great, and too unprepared, to be moving.There are also historical inaccuracies, but nothing really glaring.The argument of this movie is very noble, very well-meaning: to show that, despite the Armistice, there are indeed Frenchmen who are still fighting the Germans, so the U.S. should indeed come to their rescue. But this argument is not made convincingly, so it doesn't have the effect it was trying for. Even movies like *Reunion in France* do a better job of this.

Cheese Hoven Although I consider myself a film buff, I confess I had never of this film until I saw being broadcast last night at 1.30 in the morning. I was expecting some pedestrian war time propaganda but the presence of Charles Laughton convinced me to watch it. I am astonished that such a powerful film is so little known and broadcasting only rarely.One could argue (as had been done in the comments here) that Laughton's transformation from mouse to man is rather too swift. I myself found it totally convincing but it is in the nature of Hollywood to exaggerate these things to make a good movie.The comparison to "inherit the wind" and "To Kill a mockingbird" is well made here, but the question remains, why is this film so little known? The answer, I think, is that those films make the middle classes feel good about themselves. Everyone fancies themselves to be an Atticus Finch who can recognise the ignorance of 'common people'. But TLIM points the accusing finger at the Atticus Finch's of the world, the men of learning and intelligence who are quite prepared to justify working with evil and persuading themselves that it is not so bad. As such it is as relevant (sadly) as it ever was.

redhairedlad I am sure that there are many reasons why the brave and exceptional men and women of the "greatest generation" where able to leave their lives behind and put themselves in harms way to defeat the Axis Powers. One reason however must have been films like this one produced by Jean Renoir and directed by Nichols.I usually cringe at blatant propaganda, but I was quite moved by this one, and I'm sure it is due to the expert direction and also due to the fine performances turned in by Laughton, O'Hara, Slezak, Sands and O'Connor. It is basically a retelling of "The Scarlett Pimpernel", but not so directly as to be called a remake by anyone.If Maureen O'Hara (at that point in her career)would walk in and give me such a kiss, I would happily go to my death. French Resistance films may just have become my newly favorite genre (along with race-track movies, boxing movies, Irish movies and submarine movies.)

mark.waltz From what I knew about this film, I wasn't expecting all that much since the critical reception I've read wasn't all that good. However, it is actually a rather good story about the Nazi's invasion of France. A milquetoast teacher (Charles Laughton), dominated by his harridan mother (Una O'Connor), finds he must fight for his principals and beliefs when the Nazis take over his town. He is in love with a fellow school teacher (the beautiful Maureen O'Hara---who wouldn't be?) whose brother (Kent Smith) is doing his best to sabotage the Nazis and ends up being betrayed by O'Hara's fiancée (George Sanders), who secretly supports the Nazis. Laughton is accused of his murder and put on trial. He decides to face his fate with dignity and departs his classroom after making a riveting speech to his students that is pure propaganda but magnificent drama! O'Connor may grate on the nerves at times, but everything she does for the obsessive love for her son is believable. O'Hara as always is a combination of graceful beauty and indestructible feistiness. Sanders makes the most scary civilized villain-the worst kind. He makes a good pair with Nazi Walter Slezak (later the Nazi villain in Hitchcock's "Lifeboat"); To see one clean hand (Sanders) washing the other one (Slezak's) and becoming equally filthy (metaphorically speaking) is very interesting, and makes Sanders' downfall most gratifying.