Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Nonureva Really Surprised!

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

bkoganbing In the slightly less than 80 minutes running time of this version of Joseph Conrad's Victory a whole lot is left out and what we get is a preparedness allegory a year before the US entry into World War II. That was certainly not Joseph Conrad's intention in writing this book that was published in 1915.The protagonist of this story is Fredric March who after business reversals went to live in the Dutch East Indies on a small island with only his Chinese servant Chester Gan for human company. March is your isolationist who only wants to be as left alone as Greta Garbo.But people and events do have a way of intruding on you. When Sig Ruman who plays a club owner in Surabaya tells three bottom feeding cutthroats Cedric Hardwicke, Jerome Cowan, and Lionel Royce that March on his island is sitting on a fortune it piques their interest. March doesn't have anything of the sort, but it serves to take their interest away from Ruman.What March does have is the lovely Betty Field who fled from Ruman's employ after he put moves on her. Her being on the island is of interest to Jerome Cowan also.For those who read the Conrad novel let me say the ending is completely different. But it would have to be as this film is a warning against isolationism of all kinds.Of the players Jerome Cowan who most would know as Sam Spade's luckless partner Archer in The Maltese Falcon will be a revelation. Miles Archer is a far more typical part for Cowan. That Cockney accent that Cowan adopts will throw you as well, took me a while to realize who it was. Cowan's a real bottom feeder and great in an offbeat part.This is not Joseph Conrad. It's a mildly entertaining adventure saga however that none of the players can be ashamed of participating in.

mark.waltz Somerset Maugham this is not, and even if it is based upon a successful novel (by Joseph Conrad), it is missing the juice and filled with mostly gristle. for what meat remains is only at the beginning and conclusion, seemingly a story that is difficult to properly translate with an engrossing narrative. It all concerns reclusive Fredric March who rescues an exploited young girl (Betty Field), takes her to his private island 100 miles from Borneo, and deals with the arrival of three men with nefarious plans. You'd think with its use of an island setting with its Dorothy Lamour films, Paramount would have utilized the sets for her films for a few decent outdoor sequences, but that does not happen.The interesting factor of the film is the unique method in which March and Field deal with the villains (lead by Sir Cedric Hardwicke), but that's only in the last reel of the film, resulting in a sleeper of a film where unless the viewer is wide awake, caffeine is definitely recommended. The presence of some nefarious characters in the opening sequences (played by Fritz Feld, Rafaela Ottiano, J. Edward Bromberg and a spooky looking Margaret Wycherly) indicates that there was more to Fields' presence in their club than simple hostess, and certain elements in the later part of the film are almost horrific in their presentation.

peterabaker I read Conrad's Victory and thought it was a fantastic book then I saw the 1940's version of the film on British TV late one night and remember that being as true to the book as I could remember and also brilliant.I read the book again on holiday in Bali the first time I'd been out of Europe and found it even better than the first time maybe because I was 20 odd years older.I've always wanted to see the film again and wonder if it is available anywhere on DVD or to download.Maybe its best remembered but I would love to see it again.

behzad-bayati I saw this film about 15 years ago and cannot find a copy of it anywhere. It remains the best version I have seen to date and it captures the story and mood very well. No film can ever remain true to its mother book, but I found this version to be the best. In fact without reading the book it is a good film in its own right. The characters are well developed in the short time and although not everything is captured on film it is still honest and faithful to the book, as much as possible within an hour or so of film. I am seeking this film ardently and look forward to watching it again. If you're looking for a good film and then possibly reading the book I recommend this 1940 version as a 'Film' and a ' Movie'.