ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Claudio Carvalho On 09 April 1865, John Wilkes Booth (Francis McDonald) breaks his leg after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (Frank McGlynn Sr.). He flees with an accomplice and once in Maryland, they seek medical treatment with the country Dr. Samuel Alexander Mudd (Warner Baxter) that does not know that his patient has murdered the president. Dr. Mudd is arrested by the army for helping John Wilkes Booth and together with seven other suspects, they are sent to a military court without civil rights. Dr. Mudd is a scapegoat and sentenced to life imprisonment in the hopeless prison in the Dry Tortugas, in Gulf of Mexico. When the prison is isolated due to a yellow fever epidemic, Dr. Mudd helps the guards and the other prisoners to cure the disease. "The Prisoner of Shark Island" is a great biographical drama by John Ford, telling a tale of injustice and recognition of a nation with a family man that is sentenced to a life sentence in a devil's island of the Nineteenth Century in Gulf of Mexico. The story is engaging and supported by magnificent performances and direction. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "O Prisioneiro da Ilha dos Tubarões" ("The Prisoner of Shark Island")

waynemillan Viewers can tell that "Prisoner" is the work of a great director, and some of the performances are indeed fine; but this film is a lie, and it did a great disservice to the understanding of US history. Samuel Mudd knew John Wilkes Booth and almost certainly was aware of the identity of the patient he treated on the morning of April 15, 1865. Mudd got caught up in his own lie, and he later tried to change his story - not once but twice. His role as a medical doctor is certainly important, but the reality is that the other two surviving defendants who had been sent to Ft. Jefferson were also pardoned by Andrew Johnson at the close of Johnson's term of office. The portrayal of blacks in this film is nothing less than disgusting - way beyond GWTW and into "Birth of a Nation" territory. Mudd remains a fascinating figure, and watch this film - but don't be fooled into thinking it is at all historical. (Also, couldn't the filmmakers have at least given Mrs. Mudd her real name? and stuck to the very real drama of the military commission voting by a margin of just one vote to preserve Mudd's life?)

FilmFlaneur Mmm… just saw this and noticed that there's an eerie correspondence between John Ford's slightly dated, but still superior, The Prisoner of Shark Island and some events today. Those unfortunates accused of Lincoln's murder are given a show trial (in which the judges are briefed to avoid such annoying legal niceties as considerations of guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt'), as they shuffle, chained, hooded, and without rights, from hearing to internment and back again. Railroaded on the back of belligerent public opinion after an outrage that shocked a nation, guilty by association in the hasty eyes of the establishment, Dr Mudd is denied true process of law in the special military court hearings and ends banged up on the far edge of the States, just outside of the place where the presentation of a Habaeus Corpus would, we are told, ensure a fair reassessment of his case.. Ford couldn't have known of course, but as a study of a controversial case from the past his film is somewhat prescient of the Guantanomo Bay shame, a current and larger stain over the face of American justice

MartinHafer In general, Hollywood bio-pics of the 1930s bore me. So many of them stray so far from the real story or attempt to canonize the subjects that they just seem too fake and sickly to watch. This movie is a good exception to this rule of thumb. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie was NOT all treacle and it was easy to find myself engaged in the plot. Plus, the subject matter of the movie is an enigmatic person in that NO ONE alive knows for sure what, if any, role he had in Licoln's death. It really got me thinking and as a result I did some research--and ultimately learned that this debate will probably never be decided! But, based on excellent writing and acting, I strongly recommend it. Plus, as a history teacher, I am happy that, in general, the facts seem to be presented well. THAT'S a rarity for any biographical movie!