Claude-Rains Movie Reviews

The movie promises all the action you can stand but it was
not what I was lead to believe. I will say that this would be
a very good added VHS to someones Bogey collection. All in
all a not bad.

Great character actors doing what they did best - - ACT. No pretty boys; just superb acting and character development. A wonderful investment of your time.

Ever since Casablanca, this movie made in its wake was considered a disappointment, but I enjoyed it just as much, if not better! I'm not a particular Bogart fan, but I really liked him in this movie...his role befits him: hardened, determined, yet with deep passion in spite of his steely exterior. During the film, his life takes several turns: as a newspaper printer, a hard labor prisoner, a refuge on a French military ship, and a hero for France. He loves his wife, and he loves his country, and in spite of the injustice he suffered in France, he vows to fight against the Nazis to save her.

The first few minutes of the film in which there is a lot of talk is somewhat dull, but then we are launched into the telling of the adventures and dangers of sentenced men escaping from French Guyana in a little boat provided by another older prisoner, who gives up his own escape to allow the few younger men the room in the boat, and a chance to fight for France. There is plenty of adventure, and some sweet romance which our hero has with his wife, and a touching ending.

Is the movie unrealistic? Is it melodramatic? Is it wartime propaganda? Maybe to some people, but I loved it!

The movie promises all the action you can stand but it was
not what I was lead to believe. I will say that this would be
a very good added VHS to someones Bogey collection. All in
all a not bad.

Great character actors doing what they did best - - ACT. No pretty boys; just superb acting and character development. A wonderful investment of your time.

Ever since Casablanca, this movie made in its wake was considered a disappointment, but I enjoyed it just as much, if not better! I'm not a particular Bogart fan, but I really liked him in this movie...his role befits him: hardened, determined, yet with deep passion in spite of his steely exterior. During the film, his life takes several turns: as a newspaper printer, a hard labor prisoner, a refuge on a French military ship, and a hero for France. He loves his wife, and he loves his country, and in spite of the injustice he suffered in France, he vows to fight against the Nazis to save her.

The first few minutes of the film in which there is a lot of talk is somewhat dull, but then we are launched into the telling of the adventures and dangers of sentenced men escaping from French Guyana in a little boat provided by another older prisoner, who gives up his own escape to allow the few younger men the room in the boat, and a chance to fight for France. There is plenty of adventure, and some sweet romance which our hero has with his wife, and a touching ending.

Is the movie unrealistic? Is it melodramatic? Is it wartime propaganda? Maybe to some people, but I loved it!

My expectations weren't very high for this movie. I was expecting it to be much like THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE, having a few creepy scenes, but no good acting to make the rest of the movie interesting. EDWIN DROOD, however, succeeded on all levels. It was surprisingly funny (usually intentional) and light in certain scenes, and suberbly moody and dark in the others. The acting was excellent. I was especially impressed with Douglass Montgomery as Neville and Zeffie Tilbury as the old opium lady. But, if you're like me, you'll pick up this movie because it stars Claude Rains. And you won't be disappointed! If you think Claude Rains is talented at playing creepy, wait until you see him playing stoned and creepy!

Film adaptation of Dicken's Byzantine novel about an odd, tortured, drug-addicted choirmaster who vies for the affections of an attractive young woman who is visiting his village. But when things don't go his way, he decides to eliminate what he perceives to be his only obstacle, her fiance (and his nephew), Edwin Drood. Dicken's novel was left half completed at the time of his death and simply ended with Drood missing. In both film versions (there's a 1993 British remake), it's decided that Drood is murdered, and, rather ironically, they picked the same murderer from among Dicken's stable of eccentric characters. Rains is superb in his fourth film as a opium addict (who's a cathedral choir master!) who lusts after delicate Heather Angel. During a raging storm on Christmas Eve, Rains strangles Manners and after dumping the corpse in a quicklime pit, tries to pin the murder on Montgomery. A gothic film with shadowy photography, it's pretty creepy due to its very unusual storyline and twists in logic.

The always intense John Garfield stars as a boxer framed for the murder of a newspaper reporter who was about to expose the real story behind his carefully crafted public image. Conveniently, the real killer and the only witness to what really happened are both killed in a car accident, leaving Garfield without a defense. So he takes off, ends up in California and gets mixed up with the Dead End Kids, a girl, and an old lady who befriend him, not knowing his real identity. There's a lot left to luck in this film as dogged detective Claude Rains chases after the boxer. The Dead End Kids are an acquired taste, although in this film they aren't as grating as they would become in later years. Garfield, as usual, is very watchable and believable. Rains, on the other hand, is miscast as the detective and never for a moment seems convincing. Ann Sheridan is equally miscast as Garfield's drunk girlfriend, although she makes a quick exit in the film, despite her uncalled-for high billing. Gloria Dickson, the girl he falls in love with, has a few good moments, but lacks star quality. The script has a number of holes in it, but it also has some good moments. I particularly enjoyed the dramatic water tower sequence, as the boys must try to escape from a water tower where the water is going down. This is very much an old fashioned movie, especially in the boxing scenes, but that is also part of its appeal, since it is a great example of the kind of film Thirties audiences enjoyed.

This is the forth Dead End Kids film. (Dead End [1937], Crime School [1938], Angeles With Dirty Faces [1938]). A boxer (John Garfield) has a little party after his fight. In a apartment, Johnnie trys to swing a punch at a nosy reporter, but he is so drunk he misses and ends-up passed out in a chair. Another man hits the reporter over the head with a whiskey bottle. The reporter McGee ends up dead. Later, they decide to make Johnnie take the fall. Johnnie is innocently drunk-sleep. The bad man and woman try to make there getaway, but with the police catching them, they go off the road and instantly die. They think it is Johnnie who is dead. But one detective is on the hunt. Johnnie runs away and he comes across a farm where the delinquent Dead End Kids (Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan, Gabriel Dell, Bernard Punsly) have been sent to work. There he meets the boys who he trys to reform. Also a woman at the date farm, Peggy (Gloria Dickson), softens his heart too. Meanwhile a detective (Claude Rains) is close on the trail. This is a good film for Billy Halop, who practically steals the film. Great acting from Halop. Good performances by May Robson who played the Grandma on the farm. Filmed at Palm Desert, California. Great ending. Get a hankercheif. On this DVD version, Alpha Video only offers an "index" which is a chapter selection. Very good print of film.

Future superstar, John Garfield, is cast as a boxer on the lam from a (false) murder rap.
Claude Raines is miscast as the detective who pursues him.
Garfield winds up at a farm where the ever-popular Dead End Kids are too.
There's plenty of action, drama and intrigue as Garfield gets involved with the farm's gorgeous owner and the Dead End Kids, who come to idolize him.

The always intense John Garfield stars as a boxer framed for the murder of a newspaper reporter who was about to expose the real story behind his carefully crafted public image. Conveniently, the real killer and the only witness to what really happened are both killed in a car accident, leaving Garfield without a defense. So he takes off, ends up in California and gets mixed up with the Dead End Kids, a girl, and an old lady who befriend him, not knowing his real identity. There's a lot left to luck in this film as dogged detective Claude Rains chases after the boxer. The Dead End Kids are an acquired taste, although in this film they aren't as grating as they would become in later years. Garfield, as usual, is very watchable and believable. Rains, on the other hand, is miscast as the detective and never for a moment seems convincing. Ann Sheridan is equally miscast as Garfield's drunk girlfriend, although she makes a quick exit in the film, despite her uncalled-for high billing. Gloria Dickson, the girl he falls in love with, has a few good moments, but lacks star quality. The script has a number of holes in it, but it also has some good moments. I particularly enjoyed the dramatic water tower sequence, as the boys must try to escape from a water tower where the water is going down. This is very much an old fashioned movie, especially in the boxing scenes, but that is also part of its appeal, since it is a great example of the kind of film Thirties audiences enjoyed.

This is the forth Dead End Kids film. (Dead End [1937], Crime School [1938], Angeles With Dirty Faces [1938]). A boxer (John Garfield) has a little party after his fight. In a apartment, Johnnie trys to swing a punch at a nosy reporter, but he is so drunk he misses and ends-up passed out in a chair. Another man hits the reporter over the head with a whiskey bottle. The reporter McGee ends up dead. Later, they decide to make Johnnie take the fall. Johnnie is innocently drunk-sleep. The bad man and woman try to make there getaway, but with the police catching them, they go off the road and instantly die. They think it is Johnnie who is dead. But one detective is on the hunt. Johnnie runs away and he comes across a farm where the delinquent Dead End Kids (Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan, Gabriel Dell, Bernard Punsly) have been sent to work. There he meets the boys who he trys to reform. Also a woman at the date farm, Peggy (Gloria Dickson), softens his heart too. Meanwhile a detective (Claude Rains) is close on the trail. This is a good film for Billy Halop, who practically steals the film. Great acting from Halop. Good performances by May Robson who played the Grandma on the farm. Filmed at Palm Desert, California. Great ending. Get a hankercheif. On this DVD version, Alpha Video only offers an "index" which is a chapter selection. Very good print of film.

Future superstar, John Garfield, is cast as a boxer on the lam from a (false) murder rap.
Claude Raines is miscast as the detective who pursues him.
Garfield winds up at a farm where the ever-popular Dead End Kids are too.
There's plenty of action, drama and intrigue as Garfield gets involved with the farm's gorgeous owner and the Dead End Kids, who come to idolize him.

The always intense John Garfield stars as a boxer framed for the murder of a newspaper reporter who was about to expose the real story behind his carefully crafted public image. Conveniently, the real killer and the only witness to what really happened are both killed in a car accident, leaving Garfield without a defense. So he takes off, ends up in California and gets mixed up with the Dead End Kids, a girl, and an old lady who befriend him, not knowing his real identity. There's a lot left to luck in this film as dogged detective Claude Rains chases after the boxer. The Dead End Kids are an acquired taste, although in this film they aren't as grating as they would become in later years. Garfield, as usual, is very watchable and believable. Rains, on the other hand, is miscast as the detective and never for a moment seems convincing. Ann Sheridan is equally miscast as Garfield's drunk girlfriend, although she makes a quick exit in the film, despite her uncalled-for high billing. Gloria Dickson, the girl he falls in love with, has a few good moments, but lacks star quality. The script has a number of holes in it, but it also has some good moments. I particularly enjoyed the dramatic water tower sequence, as the boys must try to escape from a water tower where the water is going down. This is very much an old fashioned movie, especially in the boxing scenes, but that is also part of its appeal, since it is a great example of the kind of film Thirties audiences enjoyed.

This is the forth Dead End Kids film. (Dead End [1937], Crime School [1938], Angeles With Dirty Faces [1938]). A boxer (John Garfield) has a little party after his fight. In a apartment, Johnnie trys to swing a punch at a nosy reporter, but he is so drunk he misses and ends-up passed out in a chair. Another man hits the reporter over the head with a whiskey bottle. The reporter McGee ends up dead. Later, they decide to make Johnnie take the fall. Johnnie is innocently drunk-sleep. The bad man and woman try to make there getaway, but with the police catching them, they go off the road and instantly die. They think it is Johnnie who is dead. But one detective is on the hunt. Johnnie runs away and he comes across a farm where the delinquent Dead End Kids (Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan, Gabriel Dell, Bernard Punsly) have been sent to work. There he meets the boys who he trys to reform. Also a woman at the date farm, Peggy (Gloria Dickson), softens his heart too. Meanwhile a detective (Claude Rains) is close on the trail. This is a good film for Billy Halop, who practically steals the film. Great acting from Halop. Good performances by May Robson who played the Grandma on the farm. Filmed at Palm Desert, California. Great ending. Get a hankercheif. On this DVD version, Alpha Video only offers an "index" which is a chapter selection. Very good print of film.

Future superstar, John Garfield, is cast as a boxer on the lam from a (false) murder rap.
Claude Raines is miscast as the detective who pursues him.
Garfield winds up at a farm where the ever-popular Dead End Kids are too.
There's plenty of action, drama and intrigue as Garfield gets involved with the farm's gorgeous owner and the Dead End Kids, who come to idolize him.

I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.

Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?

Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.

I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.

Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)

This movie is the best phantom movie on the market,and from these very important features;Starting from the very begining of the movie,with it's wonderful and breath holding and colourful opera house.Also,Claude Rains is wonderful and conquering actor,with it's elegant voice and his sudden perfomances during the movie.He is defently the best phantom actor,although Lon chaney is more classic and thrilling,but a little bit borring and muchless intresting as Rains does in this movie.The opera parts were just amazing and exciting,even not to the opera lovers,like me.As a grest phantom fan,I likes this movie the best because it is much more thrilling and spontanian then 1925' LON CHANEY version.It gives,However,Much more exciting end then chaney's classic version.Though the film wasn't so close to the book,it's score and story are great and perfect in every way,and contains a bit of horror movie(indeed-don't disagree!),romance,thriller and exciting melodrama.This version made me never forget it ever.Buy it on VHS or DVD-including also the documantry of "The opera ghost-a phantom unmsked"(search for the DVD version information here in amazon).Phantom fans-What are you waiting for?!

I just recently became a Vivien Leigh fan after seeing her in great films. I picked this up at my public library, looking foward to see her again. When I put into my VCR and when this movie appeared at the screen, I must say I was terribly disappointed. Nothing like GWTW or Waterloo Bridge. Her version of Cleopatra was ofial. And Claude Rains also gave me a bad impression, since it was the first time I had ever seen him on screen. I fell asleep half way through the movie, and when I woke up, I intended to fall back asleep. It was a horrible waste to my Saturday evening. But you can't be totally harsh because Vivien Leigh was going through some tough times during the making of the movie. But i'd recommended Waterloo Bridge, or GWTW, or any other Vivien Leigh film, but not CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA.

This movie is pretty cool but Vivien makes it marvelous! Hey DVD people! Why does this movie get released on DVD for the UK and not the USA? I would like this movie for my DVD collection!

Yes, those that complain that this 1946 film version of Shaw's famous play of the same name is mainly 'stage-bound' and the acting often seems 'stilted'-- well, sigh, they surely have a point.

Bernard Shaw himself (he did not die until the 1950s) is credited with the screenplay, which may have something to do with the criticisms. Shaw is very talky and hard to 'transfer' to motion picture standards of verisimulitude, but this movie has a beautiful, delightful Vivien Leigh, the incomparable Claude Rains, the beautifully dashing Stewart Granger, plus 'old friends' of the classic British cinema such as Flora Robson, Felix Aylmer, Basil Sidney, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn, Francis L. Sullivan -- all who appeared in wonderful films like Laurence Olivier's 'Hamlet', David Lean's 'Great Expectations' and many other intelligent pictures of that pre- and post-war (WWII, that is) period. (There is even a very very young, but very lovely as always, Jean Simmons as a slave of Cleopatra who plays the harp.)

The picture attempts an 'epic' look, with battles yet noted I'm afraid by unconvincing stunt work and 'casts of thousands' sort of milling about -- and Cecil B. De Mille does this so much better than Gabriel Pascal, the director of 'Caesar and Cleopatra'. But I myself admit I love the Shavian ambience -- the intellectual activist actually attractive (in Shaw's plays at least!) to the winsome young woman; sex as friendship, discussion and respect; thought as more important than 'action-adventure'.

If Shaw's plays do seem too dated to you and they generally bore you, yes, stay far away from this film! But if you brighten when 'entertainment' is also provocative to the intellect and not only to the eye (and other sense organs) -- and particularly if you have great affection for the era of British cinema dominated by Olivier, David Lean, and the early Tony Richardson and featuring so many familiar and adept character actors that fill the firmament with 'supporting' stars, you will like the movie, and ignoring its quite obvious flaws, enjoy every minute: I guarantee it!...

Everytime I cast a glance at an old copy of Hervey Allen's "Anthony Adverse" in my father's library I ask myself: to read or not to read? Now my question has been answered when this film was brodcast. At the start it looks very promising. Claude Rains enjoys himself in the role of a conceited nobleman. The peacock turns into a cuckold. He kills his rival in a duel and puts the fruit of his wife's sin away. Little Anthony Adverse grows up in a convent. Aged 10, the angel-faced boy serves an apprenticeship in his grandfather's household...Sounds like rollicking good fun a la "Tom Jones"? No chance: The boy grows up to become Fredric March. The actor was so annoyed at the habit of his studio to cast him mostly in historic parts that he wears the constant expression of a man so displeased with the dish they served him that he summoned the waiter to complain...We get to see Italy as imagined by a Hollywood art-director: neglected backyards with goats. His grandfather sends him to Havana. No time to marry his sweetheart Angela (Olivia de Havilland), and her farewell-letter is literally "gone with the wind".

Now comes the part of the film others may call "politically incorrect". I call it repellent: Anthony witnesses the whipping of a slave. He saves the priest who tried to prevent it. A "breach of etiquette" in the eyes of his new business-partners: slave-traders. Anthony himself becomes one. I feel it is my duty to warn parents who think that this is just a harmless old history film: the most repugnant scene shows the sale of human flesh - shot by the cameraman, in a flight of fancy, from between the spread legs of one of the victims. Anthony returns to Europe and finds Angela and their son. Angela has become a famous opera-singer and the mistress of Napoleon Bonaparte. Since a man of such impeccable character as Anthony can not marry a woman with a past she renounces her rights to the child who will follow the footsteps of his father...

Such a waste of talent and money! Such expensive sets for scenes that last no longer than one or two minutes...The film runs like a quick thumb through the novel. Needless to say, neither suspense nor empathy can evolve from this story. There is a sheet-anchor: the supporting cast. Olivia de Havilland, Claude Rains, Gale Sondergaard, Edmond Gwenn. But March's monotonous acting crushes the film. I'm glad to have seen it, though. I wasted just two hours of my life. Reading the novel might have cost me two weeks...

I had looked forward to seeing this movie being a fan of nearly all of the cast but I was taken aback by some of the goings on here!! First the two leads are badly cast. Fredric March was almost forty and looked it yet he plays a teenager and very young man for much of the picture with a ridiculous blond wig (to "resemble" his mother) on top of everything. Olivia DeHavilland isn't believable at all as a poor Spanish girl. These are both wonderful actors and they try their best but still are wanting. The mentality of this picture is pretty amazing in 2003. One of March's "adventures" includes slave trading (!!) and despite concerned words from his priest friend this stint in his life is pretty much condoned.

The ending is jaw-dropping too (don't read this paragraph if you want to be surprised by the ending) with the villains unpunished and poor Olivia, forced into being a kept woman by her abandonment (kept by Napoleon no less!) turning down the chance to be permanently reunited with Fredric after a brief happy reunion so that Frederic won't have to have a "fallen woman" for a wife and plan that Freddy agrees with surprisingly fast considered how he has supposed to have been pining for her for years.

The supporting cast is excellent and there are two surprises. Warners starlet Anita Louise completely dominates the first 20 minutes of the movie and she is excellent. Anita was usually cast in throwaway second lead parts. And then there is the magnificent character actress Gale Sondergaard. She won the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for this picture and I really looked forward to seeing her in it. What a shock to see her part is a small bit of no real consequence and in no way a showcase for her talents. She certainly deserved the award for other films but this is hardly one of her best performances.

That ending to the March/DeHavilland match really floored me and I would have liked this picture a lot better had the movie had as much sympathy to Mrs. Adverse's plight as it did to Mr. Adverse.

ANTHONY ADVERSE is a good movie with lots of adventure and romance. It has a strong cast boasting some of the best actors from the pre-World War II era such as Fredric March, Olivia de Haviland, Claude Rains, Louis Hayward and Akim Tamiroff. Much is said about the miscasting of Fredric March but he looks suitable enough to me in the role of Anthony Adverse.

Gale Sondergaard collected an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. The film also won Oscars for Cinematography, Score and Editing as well as Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Art Direction and Assistant Director (William Cannon).

Mervyn Leroy directed some classic movies including LITTLE CAESAR and MISTER ROBERTS. Although not quite in that same lofty category, ANTHONY ADVERSE certainly merited all of the awards and recognition it managed to garner in 1936. The main competition for Oscars in that year came from THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR and MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN.

Everytime I cast a glance at an old copy of Hervey Allen's "Anthony Adverse" in my father's library I ask myself: to read or not to read? Now my question has been answered when this film was brodcast. At the start it looks very promising. Claude Rains enjoys himself in the role of a conceited nobleman. The peacock turns into a cuckold. He kills his rival in a duel and puts the fruit of his wife's sin away. Little Anthony Adverse grows up in a convent. Aged 10, the angel-faced boy serves an apprenticeship in his grandfather's household...Sounds like rollicking good fun a la "Tom Jones"? No chance: The boy grows up to become Fredric March. The actor was so annoyed at the habit of his studio to cast him mostly in historic parts that he wears the constant expression of a man so displeased with the dish they served him that he summoned the waiter to complain...We get to see Italy as imagined by a Hollywood art-director: neglected backyards with goats. His grandfather sends him to Havana. No time to marry his sweetheart Angela (Olivia de Havilland), and her farewell-letter is literally "gone with the wind".

Now comes the part of the film others may call "politically incorrect". I call it repellent: Anthony witnesses the whipping of a slave. He saves the priest who tried to prevent it. A "breach of etiquette" in the eyes of his new business-partners: slave-traders. Anthony himself becomes one. I feel it is my duty to warn parents who think that this is just a harmless old history film: the most repugnant scene shows the sale of human flesh - shot by the cameraman, in a flight of fancy, from between the spread legs of one of the victims. Anthony returns to Europe and finds Angela and their son. Angela has become a famous opera-singer and the mistress of Napoleon Bonaparte. Since a man of such impeccable character as Anthony can not marry a woman with a past she renounces her rights to the child who will follow the footsteps of his father...

Such a waste of talent and money! Such expensive sets for scenes that last no longer than one or two minutes...The film runs like a quick thumb through the novel. Needless to say, neither suspense nor empathy can evolve from this story. There is a sheet-anchor: the supporting cast. Olivia de Havilland, Claude Rains, Gale Sondergaard, Edmond Gwenn. But March's monotonous acting crushes the film. I'm glad to have seen it, though. I wasted just two hours of my life. Reading the novel might have cost me two weeks...

I had looked forward to seeing this movie being a fan of nearly all of the cast but I was taken aback by some of the goings on here!! First the two leads are badly cast. Fredric March was almost forty and looked it yet he plays a teenager and very young man for much of the picture with a ridiculous blond wig (to "resemble" his mother) on top of everything. Olivia DeHavilland isn't believable at all as a poor Spanish girl. These are both wonderful actors and they try their best but still are wanting. The mentality of this picture is pretty amazing in 2003. One of March's "adventures" includes slave trading (!!) and despite concerned words from his priest friend this stint in his life is pretty much condoned.

The ending is jaw-dropping too (don't read this paragraph if you want to be surprised by the ending) with the villains unpunished and poor Olivia, forced into being a kept woman by her abandonment (kept by Napoleon no less!) turning down the chance to be permanently reunited with Fredric after a brief happy reunion so that Frederic won't have to have a "fallen woman" for a wife and plan that Freddy agrees with surprisingly fast considered how he has supposed to have been pining for her for years.

The supporting cast is excellent and there are two surprises. Warners starlet Anita Louise completely dominates the first 20 minutes of the movie and she is excellent. Anita was usually cast in throwaway second lead parts. And then there is the magnificent character actress Gale Sondergaard. She won the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for this picture and I really looked forward to seeing her in it. What a shock to see her part is a small bit of no real consequence and in no way a showcase for her talents. She certainly deserved the award for other films but this is hardly one of her best performances.

That ending to the March/DeHavilland match really floored me and I would have liked this picture a lot better had the movie had as much sympathy to Mrs. Adverse's plight as it did to Mr. Adverse.

ANTHONY ADVERSE is a good movie with lots of adventure and romance. It has a strong cast boasting some of the best actors from the pre-World War II era such as Fredric March, Olivia de Haviland, Claude Rains, Louis Hayward and Akim Tamiroff. Much is said about the miscasting of Fredric March but he looks suitable enough to me in the role of Anthony Adverse.

Gale Sondergaard collected an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. The film also won Oscars for Cinematography, Score and Editing as well as Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Art Direction and Assistant Director (William Cannon).

Mervyn Leroy directed some classic movies including LITTLE CAESAR and MISTER ROBERTS. Although not quite in that same lofty category, ANTHONY ADVERSE certainly merited all of the awards and recognition it managed to garner in 1936. The main competition for Oscars in that year came from THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR and MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN.