imdb-38654 I selected this film because of the cast and imdb rating, knowing nothing about it. We watched it on a big (2,5m) home projection system and gave it our undivided attention. We love watching old films from the 30s to the 70s, but this film is one we will not watch again.While the photography was certainly interesting, the story was rather dull. It's a drama with not that much drama in it. It didn't help that the release we watched looked rather greyish, so the clever hazy glow at the beginning of the film got us worried that we were watching a very bad print that was cheaply converted to DVD. Thankfully the picture got better after the beginning. If you want to watch this as timeless entertainment expecting a clever plot, you may get disappointed. Our final verdict is that this was probably entertaining 80 years ago, but unless you watch it for the camera work or to hear Orson Welles' voice, you might want to choose a different classic film.

Dunham16 Booth Tarkington often wrote of boyhood in Indiana. The 1950 and 1951 musicals ON MOONLIGHT BAY and BY THE LIGHT OF THE SILVERY MOON are supposed toinclude anecdotes of his childhood. This film is drama not comedy as are the other two is avaialbe today in a shortened allegedly 88 minute cut not appoved by diector Orson Wells yet the storyboard of the effect a spoiled rotten son who destroys not as in the musicals merely annoys his family is well cast, edited, photographed and directed. Wesley in the two musicals grows up and his family moves on. George in this drama negatively effects his family who separates just when in his adult life he might need them the most. What is edited into the final cut is brilliant and thought provoking though many movie fans would rather it include what the the studio cut after Orson Wells fully prepared it for distribution.

chaswe-28402 What's the date of this story ? Does it cover at least about 20 or 25 years ? Obviously post-dates Victoria most of the time but evidently pre-dates WWI. It feels like it, but then it's meant to be. Heavily dated, I mean.Reading Tim Holt's biography, it seems like his Minafer role was an odd one for him, since he apparently used to play cowboys. His character was so oedipal, unpleasantly rude and offensive it made the entire film intensely difficult to like in any way at all. The other characters were not exactly appealing either, since they provided no opposition. Wimps, in fact. Perhaps that's what was wrong with the whole set-up: no good guys. Feeble men, weepy females.The acting was good in spots, and some of the photography was quite creative, in a Wellesian sort of way. But if you haven't seen this I don't think you've missed much. Is the book read at all these days ? Tarkington's world is lost, they say. Succumbed to the automobile, the agent of Master Minafer's comeuppance.

Jason Mason The Magnificent Ambersons delivers on so many levels. This is a deep, complicated film about life, the passage of time, the vanity of wealth, and humanity in general. Where Citizen Kane was a carnival, The Magnificent Ambersons is a grand ball. It is one of the most sophisticated things I have ever seen - yet retains enormous raw power despite its delicate nature.The only real problem with The Magnificent Ambersons is its place in history. Hidden under the gargantuan shadow of its predecessor Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons is hardly a drop in the bucket. And buried beneath the weight of its own legendary debauchery myth, it cannot seem to stand on its own legs. However, in my opinion, The Magnificent Ambersons as it stands is every bit as good as Citizen Kane. The real mystery about The Magnificent Ambersons is where it belongs when not evaluated in light of Welle's artistic oeuvre.One could say that The Magnificent Ambersons is a more mature film than Citizen Kane. I believe they would be right. And to think that Orson Welles is merely 26 at the time of its making. Truly remarkable...I end this review with a thought: If Renoirs "Rules of the Game," Welles' "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons," Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," and Hitchcock's "Vertigo" were given a pure reading which one would be considered 'the greatest' on pure artistic merit? I don't know.