T Y I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not. The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him. Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.

hnewstadt This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.

coreybryant59 This movie reminds me of a later film: LOVE STORY. It is the same sort of plot. A man falls in love with a woman and they have a happy courting. Then she succumbs to illness. In between we see war and its consequences. This is sort of a departure from the usual David O. Selnick formula. He usually has a happy ending of sorts such as in Gone with the Wind, he has Scarlett realizing that Tara is what really matters, and in PORTRAIT OF JENNIE he has Eben Adams realize his ability. This is the first REALLY sad ending in a Selznick movie. Strange that he waits until his last movie to do it. An excellent movie.

Kieran Wright When I was around 17, I came in from a cold winter's day and became engrossed in a film that was running on the TV. The film? A farewell to arms. I could only have seen the last quarter of the film but the final scene reduced me to tears and it's something I never forgot. Consequently, some 10 years later I managed to track it down on video and was a little disappointed.What is now obvious to me is that 1) the part I saw had little input from Jennifer Jones; 2) the emotion conveyed by Rock Hudson was deeply touching; 3) the setting was also memorable; 4) it was far too long. When viewing the film in its entirety, it is obviously badly in need of the touch of a good editor, although I was somewhat surprised to recently read that it is actually 2 hours and 32 minutes in length. What is particularly disappointing is that Jennifer Jones was clearly miscast, and yes - we all know why.However, I have seen this actress in other productions - for example 'Gone to Earth', in which she was simply splendid; but her role in this film was most definitely not the kind of part she excelled in.This could potentially have been Rock Hudson's finest hour, but as with other epic productions of the time e.g. Cleopatra, the best bits most probably ended up on the cutting room floor; however, that said, I can only think of a handful of films that have imprinted themselves on me like this one.I would be interested in seeing a re-edited version of this with special features.7 for at least one standout scene; a superb performance by Rock Hudson and its ability to touch someone.