gridoon2018 Perhaps not the great movie it could have been with this cast (truly one of the finest ever assembled) and director, but a good one. All of the five stories are a trifle too long, but Julien Duvivier puts his distinctive stamp on several parts of the film, like in a superlative sequence where Ginger Rogers and Henry Fonda practically make love with words, or the inexplicably wonderful spectacle of all male audience members removing their black overcoats after symphony conductor Charles Laughton has done the same. The film has variety: it is by turns twisty, amusing, romantic, sad and hopeful. See also Duvivier's follow-up the next year (with some of the same cast members), "Flesh And Fantasy". Personally I preferred that one, but I'm probably biased because it has a supernatural bent. *** out of 4.

Wizard-8 I was disappointed that the version of "Tales of Manhattan" that aired recently on Turner Classic Movies did not have the W. C. Fields segment that was restored several years ago - I really wanted to see that segment. As for what I *did* get to see, well, I did have a couple of issues that I thought should have been more thought about by the filmmakers before filming started. The first was with the third story, when Charles Laughton's coat rips while he is conducting an orchestra, causing the audience to laugh long and hard. While I could believe the audience laughing a little, I couldn't believe that they would laugh so long. Were they really all that starved for laughs? (Well, maybe - this was made during World War II.) Then there is the last story, with Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson. Although you can tell that it was made with good intentions and that the filmmakers were not being consciously racist, it is all the same somewhat stereotypical, showing African Americans to be poor and uneducated but all the same happy because they have got God on their side. Really?But if you can look at the movie as a product of its time, and overlook those unbelievable touches, the movie is entertaining. All the stories that are told are pretty good, my favorite being the reunion Edward G. Robinson attends - you'll really feel for Robinson's character, and when his situation starts to get sticky, you'll be riveted. The movie also has some interesting direction by Julien Duvivier, from long and uninterrupted tracking shots to interesting camera angles. I think that even people who normally don't go for movies from this era would find this particular effort entertaining and never dull.

lmbelt Over the past thirty years, I had compiled an extensive collection of film on VHS (mostly)and DVD. Over the past three months, I have been converting select movies from VHS to DVDR. Picture quality, film worthiness, rarity, and replacement cost issues have lead me to relegate many movies to the recycle bin. I am still struggling with many "borderline cases," "Tales of Manhattan" being one such film. Yesterday, I deemed it worthy of transfer. Boy am I glad I did! If you're a collector, you'll identify with the phenomenon of having many more movies in your collection than viewed. Thus was the case with "Tales ... " until last night. What a gem! Not only is the cast remarkable, but the stories easily hold ones interest. But for the final tale which seems to evoke a locale far south of the others, each story trumps its predecessor. But for the last, each tale ties to New York City in a meaningful way.As I often do with films of this era, I purposely chose to concentrate on the piece as social studies and film history lesson. Frankly, the stories and acting were too good to allow this. I was caught up in the characters and their dilemmas,and in the tasteful reflections on the various social classes represented. I found the fabric (sorry for the lame pun) that connects the otherwise unrelated tales intriguing in a slightly cornball way.I strongly recommend this film for many reasons, most notably its cast which includes Elsa Lanchester, George Sanders, Thomas Mitchell, Rochester ... They represent some of the supporting cast! "Tales of Manhattan" left me pondering why such acting greats as Edward G. Robinson and Charles Laughton are not usually placed with Brando, Olivier, March and Stewart in the pantheon of great film actors.

moonspinner55 In New York, a man's dress coat, supposedly cursed by a disgruntled tailor, changes the lives of those who come in contact with it. They are: Charles Boyer as a suave actor wooing married Rita Hayworth, Henry Fonda as a nerd who stops Ginger Rogers from marrying skirt-chaser Cesar Romero, Charles Laughton as an aspiring musician, Edward G. Robinson as an unemployed alcoholic about to attend his class reunion, and Paul Robeson and Ethel Waters as poor black farmers (another story starring W.C. Fields was trimmed in 1942 but later became available on home-video--it adds nothing). Short stories told mostly in expert fashion, though some are obviously better than others. Fonda and Rogers are such an odd twosome that the second episode is probably the weakest; the exceptional performances by Laughton and Robinson make their installments the strongest. However, the striking finale, complete with heavenly light and hallelujah chorus, looks so different from the rest (and is filmed like a mini-epic) that it appears to be a reel from another movie altogether. Overall, an entertaining piece for the actors, particularly Robinson as the ultimate underdog, surprisingly vulnerable in an Oscar-worthy turn. **1/2 from ****