SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

calvinnme but I think it split the difference between being entertaining to those casually interested in film history and those that are professional students of such material.I first saw this documentary on PBS, and it is highly recommended for anyone who is interested in film history and the history of the most successful entertainment empire today - Warner Brothers. It's much better than "Here's Looking At You", the documentary made in the 90's on the studio. For one, there is one consistent narrator - Clint Eastwood, rather than a series of personalities as there was in "Here's Looking at You". In "Here's Looking at You" it seems like these series of narrators are there to show themselves off rather than talk about studio history. Eastwood keeps the focus on the studio, its product, and its strategy.Of course, as the studio moves into the era of special effects the documentary can't help but show off a little bit with some of their superhero and fantasy films, but I'll grant them that. Because so many of the directors that were around when Warners transformed from an upstart playing with sound to a major studio have passed on, they have interviews from the 60's and 70's with directors such as Mervin Le Roy talking about what it was like in the early days. Of course, there is a big focus on Jack Warner who turned out to be a much shrewder studio head than his nemesis Louis B. Mayer over at MGM. It shows how Warner made the decisions that got the studio through the depression, the war, and the competition of television.I might have missed it, but I don't think the documentary talked too much about a very bad move that Jack Warner made that only the good fortune of the future managed to rectify. At one point Jack Warner sold the pre-1949 Warner film library to raise capital. Warner Bros. would today remain a studio with the finest part of its legacy no longer under its control had it not been for Ted Turner purchasing the RKO/pre-1949 WB/pre-1986 MGM film library in the 80's and then reuniting it under Warner Bros. control at the turn of the century when Ted Turner sold his interests in his cable network and film library back to Time-Warner. This is mentioned in "When the Lion Roared", the sister documentary on MGM, also recommended.In conclusion, this is a very good documentary on the history of Warner Bros. and its lasting film legacy. Highly recommended.

Rod Duncan As a fan of Warner Bros.' 'Golden Age of Hollywood' productions, it was a huge disappointment to watch this documentary. One would expect that a historical study of a movie studio with such a rich past would be based on serious research of its archives and presented in a coherent and organized matter.On the contrary – this documentary's editing jumps back and forth in time making it incomprehensible for a first timer on the subject to understand anything (and irritating for anyone with an average knowledge on the subject). The statements presented by the different interviewees are mostly related to the specific film clips shown (nothing we haven't seen before) and its main star than to the studio that produced it and the behind-the-scenes reality. The production process, the writers, costumers, cinematographers and composers behind these films aren't even mentioned - who can imagine Warner Bros. in the late 30's and early 40's without the Epstein brothers, Orry-Kelly, Sol Polito and Max Steiner (composer of the well-known introduction fanfare) just to name a few? Bette Davis, who spent 18 years of her career as a contract player and sometimes referred to as the 'Fifth Warner Brother' (her movies were huge money makers), is superficially mentioned. The studio system, the introduction of Technicolor and the entertainment business in the pre-TV environment aren't even explained.Besides the poor topic coverage, the presentation gets to the point of annoyance: it is almost impossible to read interviewees names/titles or the film clips' titles due the amazing speed which the tiny font size subtitles are flashed on the lower part of the screen (when they are actually shown, since sometimes no identification appears whatsoever). And that's the review of the first half/disk – I slept through the second half….Unfortunately, a work presented in a careless matter with no respect to chronology or in-depth research on such an interesting topic. Don't waste your time and money on the rental.

jlewis77-1 This 3-part documentary covers the history of Warner Bros. in greater depth than the previous HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, WARNER BROS., with dedicated film critic Richard Schickel providing a more highbrow tone. Somewhat light on studio politics and the personal lives of the mogul family, it nonetheless makes good use of classic film clips from the early silent features (My Four Years In Germany) to the Batman series. All of the important high-points are covered: the canine exploits of Rin Tin Tin, the Vitaphone "talkie" revolution, Al Jolson in THE JAZZ SINGER, the gangster roles of Robinson/Cagney/Bogart, the glossy star vehicles of Bette Davis and Errol Flynn, the company's role in World War II, the 1953 arrival of 3-D and CinemaScope, the belated move into television production the following year, the short career of James Dean, the "new cinema" of the sixties as represented by BONNIE AND CLYDE, the rise of independent directors like Scorsese and Kubrick, and the franchises of Superman, THE MATRIX and Harry Potter. The narration by Clint Eastwood fits in nicely, often maintaining a low-key tone amidst eventful and sometimes violent screen clips. Most of the interviews provide great fodder; I particularly liked Carroll Baker's comments on the troubled 1950s period and Molly Haskell's perspective on Doris Day.The selection reflects the director's personal tastes. On the one hand, the inclusion of such off-beat pictures like STORM WARNING and THE BEAST OF 20,000 FATHOMS and interesting flops like NOAH'S ARK and THE SILVER CHALICE are a definite plus. On the other hand, Schickel's preference for monochrome in Part 1 gives the false impression that Warners did not shoot in Technicolor prior to THE ADVENTURES IN ROBIN HOOD, while the studio was, in fact, a major leader in that process starting in 1929. As expected, the emphasis is on features and not short subjects; although a few early Vitaphone shorts of the '20s, Joe McDoakes and Bugs Bunny do get some recognition. Praise must also be given to the restoration quality of the sequences, making one wish Warner Home Video would hurry up and get many of these great films on DVD as soon as possible.The basic "problem", as indicated in previous reviews on this site, is the overemphasis on the studio's crime dramas. The Busby-Berkeley sequences are too short and, apart from the demanded inclusion of YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, there is little fun and music until the arrival of Doris Day in Part 2. Excluding A STAR IS BORN (a serious and depressing musical that would fit quite well with the many social commentaries that DID make the cut), we zip through the late '50s/'60s like lightning (obviously skipping MUSIC MAN) in order to focus more on the then-shocking scenes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, DELIVERANCE and THE EXORCIST. There's little question that the 70s were more productive at Warner's than other studios (i.e. MGM), but the overall tone (as represented in these clips) is quite sadistic. The arrival of DRIVING MISS DAISY couldn't come soon enough.It is wonderful that both the producers and PBS took on this subject. (The companion book is quite good.) Unfortunately, it could use some of the "fun factor" of previous anthologies like Hollywood THE GOLDEN YEARS (RKO), MGM: WHEN THE LION ROARS and 20TH CENTURY FOX: THE FIRST 50 YEARS & THE BLOCKBUSTER YEARS. I remember once thinking Patrick Stewart's coverage of MGM was a bit hammy and over-the-top. This series could certainly use him to lighten the load, as clarified when I re-watched that series on DVD last month.

tavm Just finished watching this five hour version of the film history of Warner Bros. on the PBS "American Masters" series. Lots of fascinating clips of various pictures from the studio over the years starting with their first one from 1918 called My Four Years in Germany. From there, we hear of a young man named Darryl Zanuck and his early days as a writer on the studio's "Rin-Tin-Tin" pictures, to the triumph of the first feature talkie The Jazz Singer and the tragedy of Sam Warner's death the day earlier, to the "gangster movies" that made stars of Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney, to the eventual stardom of Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart. When we get to the '50s, we're briefly shown titles of Warner's TV shows as well as highlight clips of classic cartoons like Duck Amuck and What's Opera Doc? along with Doris Day's musical heyday and Elia Kazan's discoveries of Marlon Brando and James Dean. By the last two hours comes various titles from the '70s to now that show how committed Warner Bros. is to compelling dramas from big stars like Clint Eastwood (who narrates here) and George Clooney as long as they also provide crowd pleasing blockbusters. Perhaps the way this documentary glosses over some bad times and flops makes this less than ideal as a definitive history of one of the greatest movie studios of all time, but still You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story should provide plenty of reasons while watching all those scenes to want to go to the nearest library or video store and check many of their movies out!