SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

joel-74476 Despite a slightly confusing location and a distinctively international cast, this is a great film which would have certainly had a positive influence on an audience, who in 1943 were in the middle of the war. The cast is excellent and the Director has not made the mistake of over vilifying the Nazis. The collaborators are also presented as normal citizens who have simply mad bad choices; either for an easy life, because they believe it is good for their community or to protect their families. This is a classic tale of courage, with an excellent finale set in a courtroom. Laughton (playing Albert) who up to this point has played a timid school teacher brilliantly delivers an emotive speech, leaving you with a sense of pride for him and hope for the occupied nation. This is timeless, a must see!

big_O_Other I found this gem of a movie on television. Charles Laughton was outstanding. He conveyed perfectly the thesis of the film: that Nazism and the New World Order depended on corrupting those they occupied, tempting them with rewards for betraying their fellow countrymen more than even the brutal intimidation we are all familiar with.I was also quite interested to see the collaboration between the big industrialists and the Nazis, who corrupted them by catering to their anti-unionism. The fact that being against unions was a pillar of Nazi ideology has not been well known, but Renoir's film made it crystal clear.All the performances were well above par; Sanders played the self-seeking weasel who has a change of conscience very well, in a very legible, nuanced way. Maureen O'Hara was also excellent, as always.But it was Charles Laughton, standing before the collaborators, Nazis and his own mother as he comes to realize how crucial the Rights of Man are to living decently and honorably, who wins the day.

Robert D. Ruplenas I can vaguely remember seeing this movie on television years ago, and recalled it as a movie with an anti-Nazi message. Seeing it again recently, and with a lifetime of reading behind me, I realize it has further depths of meaning. Despite the pretense of being set "somewhere in Europe," it is beyond doubt that Renoir had France very specifically in mind. He was a French émigré, and it's clear that he has a message for his countrymen about the great number of them that chose to collaborate with the Germans. But the film is not a sledgehammer, in that the Germans are not portrayed as the stereotypical jackbooted thugs. Their official voice in the film, the officer played by Walter Slezak, has a silky sort of charm and shows how easy it can be to cooperate in the name of so many things - peace, order, stability, etc. etc. Laughton's final courtroom speech has so many specific references to the situation in France that it cannot be interpreted as other than such. And the final finishing touch is Laughton's last lesson to his students before being taken away - he reads from the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" from the French Revolution.Aside from that it is an excellent story very well told, and the production values are extremely high - the print I saw looked excellent even after 60-some years. The cast, of course, is superb, with Laughton, Slezak, and Maureen O'Hara. Particularly good is George Sanders, in a role very different from his stereotype as the suave and debonair cynic. The whole "mama's boy" aspect of Laughton's character is a bit heavy-handed, but it's still to watch Una O'Connor as his mother (you just can't help recalling her tavern woman's part in "The Invisible Man").Thsi is not just an excellent movie, but an interesting historical artifact as well.

MartinHafer This film was set in an unnamed nation that was just conquered by the Nazis. Given the statue of the WWI soldier at the beginning of the movie, it probably was intended as either Belgium or France (given the style uniform on the statue). However, in an odd Hollywood decision, the cast was made up of a wide variety of actors and accents--such as the very American Kent Smith, the Irish Maureen O'Hara, Englishman Charles Laughton and the very cultured George Sanders (who hailed from Russia from English parents). It was also confusing because the country was just conquered and yet by this point the Americans were apparently in the war (meaning it most likely occurred in 1942 or 43)--and no nation fit this pattern. All were fine actors, however, and the excellent writing made me forget about all this.The story of this fictional nation is all about collaboration versus resistance. Some are obviously evil and seem to like the Germans--or at least look to get rich off the suffering of their own people. Some appear to be collaborators but are actually brave resistance fighters. And Laughton is a nice case--a very wimpy 'everyman' who eventually finds his strength of character through the course of the film.While some might find this all a bit hokey, the film was an excellent piece of positive propaganda. It must have been incredibly rousing when it debuted and according to IMDb it set box office records. Good acting and a nice script make this one of the better films of its type--well worth watching and memorable--especially for Laughton's fine characterization as well as his impressive speech near the end.