dcarsonhagy "Pay attention to her singing" is what another reviewer wrote. Well, it would be kinda' hard NOT to pay attention since 90% of this movie is nothing but Jeanette McDonald's caterwauling. I can appreciate music of just about any kind, but I did not think I would literally be watching a musical, starring a goody two-shoes, who has about as much stage presence as a turnip. I also did not know I would be captive to so many meddlesome people in one movie. Spencer Tracey played the local priest, and I wanted to slap him until my arms got tired. He was always into everybody's business. Jeanette McDonald's character was so wishy-washy, you never knew from one minute to the next which man had become her flavor of the month. Clark Gable was, well, Clark Gable. This is certainly not one of his best, and it was nice to know it took some MAJOR persuasion to convince him to do the role. He and McDonald had absolutely ZERO chemistry.The ending, which was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, was pretty spectacular for a movie made in 1936, but was ruined by a Joan-of- Arc McDonald again wailing "Nearer my God to Thee." The director (and all others involved) managed to choke people on the "better quit your sinning" message, which finally tolled the death knell for me.

evanston_dad "San Francisco" is two movies. The first is a boring love story about a morally suspect nightclub owner (Clark Gable) and the singer he's hired (Jeanette McDonald) to perform there. The second is a disaster movie about the great San Francisco earthquake and its aftermath. The first half of the movie you might as well sleep through, because it's obvious that the filmmakers themselves considered it only filler until the main event. McDonald is prim and dull, the kind of heroine that makes you wonder why so many men want her. Gable is his usual charming self, but he's not charming enough to make us care about the plot, nominal as it is. But then the big bang hits and the walls start a shaking'. Special effects wizard A. Arnold Gillespie takes responsibility for tearing San Fran apart, and the results were no doubt state of the art at the time. Unfortunately, the action sequences are quick edited into incoherence for modern day viewers.The grand finale is corny as all get out, but it manages to be pretty emotionally rousing anyway."San Francisco" was nominated for 6 Academy Awards in 1936, winning for Sound Recording but losing out in all other categories: Best Picture, Director (W.S. Van Dyke), Actor (Spencer Tracy, surprisingly nominated for lead in what is clearly a supporting role), Original Story, and Assistant Director, a category that only existed for a few short years in the 30s.Grade: B

fflambeau What to make of this movie? It has 3 terrific stars in Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, and the female interest and singer, Jeannette McDonald. I cannot say that McDonald's singing thrills me because she has a dated style and warbles but Tracy and Gable deliver. Especially Gable who is at his macho best.What undercuts this story is the religious message which is about the strongest outside of any movie outside of the "10 Commandments" where it is more understandable. The plot is written so you have good vs. bad, white vs. black, Tracy vs. Gable. Of course, the earthquake not only shakes the city, it shakes Gable's entire outlook and he gets on his knees and thanks God that his love, McDonald, survived. This is all a bit soppy in the 21st century. And Tracy, although a very good actor, almost is given a halo in this movie.Perhaps the star of the movie is the earthquake itself; considering this movie was made in 1936, the special effects were fantastic, even good by today's standard. Superb directing of the earthquake scene, Wikipedia says by D.W. Griffith in addition to the credited director Woody Van Dyke.Also notable are black performers, first in a contest scene (won of course by J. McDonald) and then some children as dancers in the earthquake scene. This was in 1936 so quite unusual.It is notable in a 3rd way: it is one of the movies credited with launching Spencer Tracy as a mega star. A good performance, but definitely not his best. Gable's performance here is far more powerful.So, like its theme of good and bad, this movie is a mix. It did not do well in the academy award hunt although nominated frequently (only 1 win) and I can see why: too much religion.

scw1217 I watched this film to see the depiction of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, sans computer effects. I agreed with the review I had read, that it was really well done. Certainly, the depiction of the devastation, all the people wandering about, was effective.The story line was easy enough to follow. I was cheering for Clark Gable's character throughout. Not sure how great I thought his acting was, compared to other films from that era, but he was dashing enough. My biggest complaint was the singing of Jeanette MacDonald's character. Not my taste at all and rather on the hard-to-hear side towards the end.I could see it coming that he'd turn to God at the end, after all his denials. But I liked that part just the same.This film is well worth watching, especially for the effects!