Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

hannerac I love the premise of this story about the founding of the U.S. but was disappointed in the acting. I am a big Cary Grant fan and have seen many of his films but this is a terrible performance, unlike any of his other films. No wonder he refused to do any more period pieces after the failure of this movie. However, it must be said that the director shares the blame and should have done a better job of directing Mr. Grant in this movie. His acting was over the top- too loud, too brash, a caricature of backwoods men of the late 1700s. His leading lady also did her share of overacting but nothing to compare to Mr. Grant. Overall, it is worth watching to get a sense of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and the war itself and to see Mr. Grant in a role uncharacteristic of his usual fine acting.

Rangerick-1 When I first started to play this, I was afraid I had erred. The acting seemed second-rate and rather silly. But I realized we hadn't seen the main actors, yet. And even when they came on, they hit their stride later in the movie.The funny thing for me was that the best performances often came from the child actors. Buster Phelps as the young Thomas Jefferson was especially good. The adult Jefferson was good in general, but did not hold a candle to the portrayal in the HBO John Adams series.Cary Grant is fun to watch. His accent never quite sounds as rough as it should, but his gruff mannerisms make him convincing enough, so long as you're willing to suspend disbelief.The best element for me was how Cary Grant's character was developed in relation to his family.

mtulig Sad that so many Cary Grant fans had their bubbles burst. It certainly was strange to see him play such a character, but did anyone have any problems with the actors who played the other backwoodsmen? Grant could not have played his dapper persona while being from the Shenandoah Valley, especially in scenes with those crude and embarrassing frontiersmen and women. They must have been extras. I doubt if that kind of acting is taught at UCLA or Princeton. One reviewer was critical of the director because the irony of Matthew Howard turning into a kind of Fleetwood Peyton was not portrayed. But from early on in the movie, Tom Jefferson and Matt Howard thought it would be grand to develop the 1,000 acres in the Shenandoah Valley into a PLANTATION. That was the American Dream, to achieve success through hard work. Then it meant that the most successful planter had slaves and went to Congress. But Matt Howard didn't want to run at first, and when pressed said he would go if only to improve the roads and bridges and repeal the Stamp Act. He had no thoughts of aristocratic power unlike Fleetwood.Anyone see John Wayne in The Searchers? Early in the film he wanted to murder his niece Natalie Wood because she was kidnapped and lived with the Redskins. He too was playing a character from an earlier time when there were other mores.Talk about provincialism! It's thriving even today.Collectivism versus individualism is being played out today on these movie reviews. Am I being too critical to suggest that those who are most critical of this move are doing so on political rather than on artistic grounds?July 4, 2009I watched the film again this year on TV. It's becoming an Independence Day (don't call it the 4th of July) classic, something like Jimmy Stewart's the 25th of December classic, "It's a Wonderful Life."I can't answer all the other reviewers individually here. Basically, I suspect that the "Cary Grant as Matt Howard" detractors are either in love with the suave Cary Grant or are against the political principles of Matt Howard. His performance in the beginning as a backwoodsman was energetic and realistic. He pulled no punches. The depiction of his friends as toothless and illiterate, and his love and respect for them was outstanding. His speechifying at the conclusion, espousing the distinctly American virtues of freedom, self-reliance and industriousness, sounded heartfelt. I don't know what Cary Grant felt later about the film, but the film is essential now both as a political debate and a period piece. Read the reviews at the Cary Grant web site: some of them written when the film came out in 1940 when we were allied with England in WW II. Think about today's political climate, what with tea-partyers (the original Boston Tea party was referred to in the movie) and the current debate on levels of taxation and government controls (the Stamp Act was also a plot element in the movie). Also, in case there's some doubt, Cary Grant wasn't always perfectly elegant. Early in his career he played a heavy. "In a string of films he had supporting parts, including the heavy who nearly destroys Marlene Dietrich in Blonde Venus 1932) and Mae West's foil in She Done Him Wrong (1933) and I'm No Angel (1933)." Later in his career, after he had established his elegant style, he played in a couple less-than-exemplary roles, costarring with Jayne Mansfield in 1957 in "Kiss Them for Me" and playing a heartless swindler and a Cockney in 1943 in "Mr Lucky." I don't see why he can't play against type in this patriotic film. Maybe he was still trying to establish his bona fides as an actor, or he could have believed in the principles of Matt Howard. In support of the second theory, Cary Grant became an American citizen on June 26th, 1942. Might not he actually believed the lines he was reading because that is what they were teaching our naturalized citizens in those days?July 4, 2010

LadyWesley What a disappointment! I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake. And poor, dull Martha Scott -- who could believe that she inspired such love and devotion after one meeting. Personally, I could have done without quite so much "Tom" Jefferson.The plot was simplistic; the dialog mundane. I couldn't take it for the entire two hours.