Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Brendan Carroll I took the DVD of this famous film off the shelf the other evening and watched it again after 12 years, to see if it still held up or if I liked it an better. The answer is no. It is a typical well mounted Warner Bros "A" picture, with handsome production values and a good score from Steiner, but it has not worn very well as drama. Although attempts have been made to open out the original play with exterior scenes in Washington, at the Germam Embassy and also in the grounds of the Farrelly mansion (filmed at the old Busch Gardens) , the whole film is fairly set- bound, betraying its theatrical origins.Paul Lukas, a good actor if not a great one, repeats his much admired and very earnest Broadway portrayal as a German anti-Fascist and won the Best Actor Oscar, probably because of the times in which this film was shown. He has a few good moments but the performance is competent at best, not grippingly memorable.Bette Davis is woefully miscast as his wife. She took the role as a favour to Hal Wallis who needed a big name on the posters to ensure box office returns would justify the expense (the rights to the play had cost Jack Warner a whopping $150,000) She does her best to underplay and suppress her usual performance tricks, not entirely successfully (Interestingly, she does not smoke - along with DECEPTION, this is one of her few contemporary films where she does not),. But she is far too mannered and theatrical for the part, which was built up for her and expanded from the play. It is a pity that the great Mady Christians (who played the role on Broadway) was not asked to reprise her role.More pleasure is to be found in the supportng roles - especially Lucile Watson as the matriarch (also reprising her stage performance) and the superb English actor Henry Daniell as an icily cynical German Baron. Beulah Bondi is totally wasted as a French housekeeper.Much has been made by others reviewing this film on IMDB, of how it compares to Casablanca (released the same year) which is far superior in every respect. Comparisons are not really that relevant except that, while almost every line of dialogue in Casablanca is remembered and quoted, especially Humphrey Bogart's 'hill of beans' speech, not one line of Ms Hellmann's wordy, pompous screenplay is recalled today.It is a very wordy script indeed and there are many longeurs in the first half. Moreover, the world in which the Farrrelly's live seems almost like a Hollywood fantasy now, with a grand palladian mansion that would not look out of place in GONE WITH THE WIND, and a large staff of black servants all tugging their forelocks and saying 'Yes'm' at every opportunity. The only ingredient missing in all this is the great Hattie MacDaniel, who was under contact to Warners then and would surely have injected some much needed humour to the proceedings.At one point, the Nazi-sympathising Rumanian Count de Brancovis (George Coulouris) says to Kurt Muller (Lukas) that he cannot place his accent or from which part of Germany he comes. I am not surprised. Lukas was not German but Hungarian, born in Budapest. He was also Jewish, though no mention of his racial origins occur in the script.This film seems much longer than its 114 minutes running time, and I doubt it will get any better with the passing of time.

JohnHowardReid The stage play opened on Broadway in April 1941 and closed after 378 perfor¬mances on 21 February 1942. It starred Paul Lukas, Mady Christians and Lucile Watson. Here's where I and contemporary critics part company. Watch on the Rhine undoubtedly had an effective message for early 1940's America, but that message is now way out of date. In any event, nothing can disguise the play's many obvious shortcomings: Instant information preaching from characters who are no more than walking puppets, mouthing pretentious platitudes; situations that are pure soap opera; and, above all, dullness. The only piece of action in the entire play (and the film) occurs offstage. In this movie version, no attempt whatever is made to handle the proceedings cinematically. Herman Shumlin's direction is incredibly old-fashioned, with the players studiously hitting their marks and rattling off their lines. The groupings are stage groupings, with the actors standing around, stock still, while waiting for their cues to bring them to life. In my opinion, Lukas did not deserve his Academy Award (which should have gone to Bogart for Casablanca), but Lucile Watson should have defeated Katina Paxinou. Only Miss Watson (who admittedly has the most interesting character and dialogue) can fully overcome the play's dated propaganda, though George Coulouris makes a good stab at the impossible role in which he is miscast (he is able to convey the seedier aspects of de Brancovis effectively, but misses out on the charm). Donald Woods is ridiculously gauche (though few players would have fared better with such a part). Davis and Fitzgerald act in the somewhat overblown style then fashionable on the contemporary stage.

Tad Pole . . . notes Fanny Farrelly, long-widowed survivor of a U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice. She's just heard a house guest murdered in her garage, and provided a getaway car to the killer. With sons-in-law like that, who needs flower blossoms? Her young grandchildren remain upstairs, plotting their own future lives of violence. However, Fanny's biggest concern is that her good silver not be scratched. After all, house guests are a dime a dozen, but they may not make that pattern any more. WATCH ON THE RHINE went from Broadway to America's big screens in 1943, and something apparently got lost in the transition. There's neither a "watch" nor a "Rhine" in this film, but there is some pretty good acting (including the killer "Pops" Muller--who sort of combines Baron Von Trapp from THE SOUND OF MUSIC with Hannibal Lecter--for which Paul Lukas won an Oscar). WATCH ON THE RHINE came out when many Nazi sympathizers still sat in the U.S. Congress. That's why a character has to be so apologetic about killing Nazi sympathizers on screen. Evidentally, not enough films apologized to this extent, as Congress mounted a full scale assault on Tinsel Town a few years later.

inhonoredglory What a truly, truly rich, moving experience. I love those films made in the war years, as they mean so much and teach so much and have so much more depth and meaning. This movie is no exception. I can see why Bette Davis took the role "for its importance." It teaches so much to the American people of its time - and even now - how we don't really know what it means to be a European in an Old World so often used to the kinds of conflict that created World War II.The movie also strikingly doesn't feel like propaganda, even though the message was clearly to move its audience into action (aren't all worthwhile films aimed at personal change?). It presented a very enlightening, moving perspective on both the German menace and the Underground protagonists. Muller (Paul Lukas) explains how we will one day feel pity for those Germans who just "follow orders" and are really just fools, like De Brancovis (George Coulouris). And the perspective that Muller and the Underground may indeed be like the evil they fight - to see Muller admit he was bad. Situations like this are not black and white.The acting in this are also marvelous. Paul Lukas is an inspiration to watch. The children are so very precious, as is Lucile Watson's character.After seeing this, my sister wanted to learn more about WWII, the Underground, and the Holocaust. Through it, she's had the experience I've had so long ago.In that time, I see character, selflessness, and purpose greater than self. I love it so, and I am saddened by the blatant selfishness that defines today's society. Movies like this inspire me and make me see continually that ideals and convictions can be attained and are indeed beautiful.