Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

MARIO GAUCI I had intended checking this out in conjunction with Riccardo Freda's THE MAGNIFICENT ADVENTURER (1963), involving the same historical figure, as part of a previous Easter marathon (it being the very first entry for the current year); actually, I now watched it on the birthday of director LaCava, but also as a supplement to my Oscar season viewing (the film was up for four Academy Awards)!I had been wary of getting to it during a period when I tend to watch large-scale movies due to its being labeled a bedroom romp, albeit in costume; as such, this factor was more than proved right – but, at least, a full-on sword-wielding brawl (apart from other swashbuckling feats that are mentioned but left to the viewer's imagination) does come into play in the first act! Anyway, the picture is stylish, witty and starrily cast: Fredric March (in one of his few efforts in this vein, but to which his intrinsically stagy acting is well suited) incarnates the philandering goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, Constance Bennett (who has her eyes on the hero!) and Frank Morgan are the Duchess and (henpecked) Duke of Florence, Fay Wray the protagonist's latest conquest (whom Morgan also romantically pursues!) and Louis Calhern appears as the court's inevitably scheming adviser. Morgan, typically the befuddled supplier of comedy relief but giving an undeniably splendid performance, was one of the Oscar nominees here: however, since the Supporting Actor category had not yet been incorporated into the ceremony, his was considered a leading role…which ties in somewhat with the fact that, despite the title, it is Bennett who receives top billing here! The other nods were for Charles Rosher's cinematography, Richard Day's art direction and the sound recording.It was certainly interesting to watch a period rendition of a Lubitsch- type sophisticated comedy; yet, in this way, the end result falls rather between two stools: the pace is decidedly slow (despite its trim 79- minute duration) for what ordinarily would be played as breakneck farce, whereas it gives little insight into what ultimately made Cellini's name (choosing instead to depict him as a wily roguish sort in the Don Juan mould – pardon the pun)! The finale, though, is pure "Pre-Code" – with the Florentine rulers installing their respective lovers in different palaces they officially use for a particular time of year!

bkoganbing Edwin Justus Mayer's play about the life of Renaissance master sculptor Benvenuto Cellini ran for 241 performances in 1924-25 and Joseph Schildkraut and Nana Bryant played Cellini and the Duchess of Florence on Broadway. However Frank Morgan repeats the role he did on Broadway as the Duke of Florence and from then on he was typecast.This was an interesting phenomenon showing the power of the cinema to typecast someone. Morgan had done this same role on Broadway and well, but he did all kinds of parts on stage and screen before The Affairs Of Cellini. But when he repeated this particular stage role he was forever typecast as the fumbling, bumbling fool. Very rarely in his screen career after The Affairs Of Cellini did he deviate from this, the movie-going public came to want to see him in many variations on the Duke Of Florence and from then on he was typecast.The story is a long bedroom Renaissance farce where the talented, but amorous Cellini is constantly getting in scrapes of one sort or another, always over a woman be she married or not. Fredric March plays Cellini and he steals a bit from Douglas Fairbanks's swashbuckling shtick. He's a good artist though and the indulgent Duke keeps forgiving him and the Duchess played by Constance Bennett has her eye on him.However one time when the Duke catches sight of the model that March is using he decides to invoke some of his noble powers to get her into his court. That arouses Bennett's ire and March is put out as well. He starts pushing the envelope real hard by putting the moves on a less than resistant duchess.The model is played by Fay Wray and the only way I can describe her is a Renaissance valley girl. But that's exactly what's got both Morgan and March real interested.The Affairs Of Cellini got four Oscar nominations including one for Best Actor for Frank Morgan. He lost to Clark Gable for It Happened One Night. Still Morgan is who you really remember from The Affairs Of Cellini.

MartinHafer Because this movie starred Fredric March, I was sure to see it. However, after seeing it, I can't exactly say it's a must-see film...or that I even liked it. It's not that it's a bad movie, but it's not all that great, either.March plays the title character--a man who was a goldsmith for the Medicis in Renaissance Italy. Through much of the film, Cellini spends his time chasing women and killing people in sword fights (wow...Freud would have had a field day if he'd ever met a guy like this). It's all very well acted yet stilted because it's essentially a costume drama--the sort of films I don't particularly like--though I am a huge fan of classic Hollywood. My problem with this film and others like it is that so much energy and time and money is spend on sets and costumes that the rest of the film usually suffers. The only real plus for the film is the nice and jovial performance by Frank Morgan--he was a lot of fun and quite in his element. Otherwise, it's just another costumer combined with a light comedic/romantic touch--the sort of film Errol Flynn or John Barrymore (during the silent era) would have excelled at if they'd been given such a role.As for me, I never got into the film very much as it seemed like a silly sort of trifle of a film, but also could see it was a quality production. Perhaps there were just too many knowing glances between Constance Bennett and March to make this a particularly rewarding film to watch.

David (Handlinghandel) Constance Bennett was born to play a Medici. Her combination of hauteur and ooh-la-la makes this role a perfect fit. Frank Morgan, as her dithering husband, is amusing but less plausible.Fredric March, as the title character, is good. He was always good. Possibly not the heartthrob he needs to be, he is nevertheless both cocky and handsome. Fay Wray is excellent as a commoner whose tastes are too prosaic for the dastardly lover Cellini. She looks beautiful (as does Bennett.) This is certainly atypical Gregory La Cava. It is probably not very accurate historically. But as costume pieces go, it's very compelling. A few years later, another studio made one that is more famous. That was "Marie Antoinette." It was better researched and is still somewhat well known. But it is really dull.The costumes here are gorgeous. Now and then the music is appropriate to the time. A theme that seems distinctly 19th Century Romantic runs through, though.The supporting cast is up to the task. It's hard to imagine what people sitting down in a theater in 1934 made of this. Bennett was still a big star so maybe they were happy to see her. It's an oddity, no doubt about it. But it's very good.