jcravens42
I have actively avoided watching this movie for decades because it was always described as a horrible flop and painful to watch. I knew that the ad campaign was "Gable's Back and Garson's Got Him," making me think this was some kind of screwball comedy, which seemed so inappropriate for Gable's first film after the war. At last, I've seen this movie, and I am stunned. It's a poetic, complex, dark drama always flirting with great tragedy. There's no way a 1945 audience would have been ready for these characters, this story or the dialogue, which is often presented more as verse than scripted lines. Watch Gable when he argues with Garson's character, almost to the point of physical blows - I've never seen him not be Clark Gable until this character, until that moment, and I cannot imagine we aren't seeing his grief at his loss of Carole Lombard and what he witnessed during World War II. It's overdue for this film to get the recognition it deserves. Joan Blondell and Thomas Mitchell are outstanding in their supporting characters. The biggest problem with this movie is its ridiculous title (the book on which it is based is called "The Annointed" - a much better title).
richard-1787
This movie has a great cast, headlined by Greer Garson and Clark Gable, and including Thomas Mitchell and Joan Blondell. The director, Victor Fleming, had given us such masterpieces as the Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Captains Courageous. How then could such a group make such a truly awful movie? Well, to begin with, the script is awful almost past belief. It meanders from here to there, provides no decent motivations for the characters, who are at best two-dimensional caricatures. These characters are not interesting or even likable. And some of them disappear for long stretches of time.But everything is wrong here. Gable's character is thoroughly despicable. It's one thing to be a macho sort. Gable had brought that off, in spades, with Rhett Butler. But this sailor is both offensive and uninteresting.So then, why does Garson fall for him, and so quickly? There is no indication.Everything is wrong with this script. Garson and especially Gable try to salvage it, but it's a truly lost cause.Don't waste your time on this. Why MGM plunked its major stars into a truly lost cause I cannot guess.
samhill5215
Despite the bad reviews from others I watched this film with much anticipation. After all how bad could any movie be when it featured Garson, Gable, Blondell and Mitchell, and was directed by Victor Fleming. And at first it went along just fine although I must agree with the reviewer who remarked that the chemistry between Blondell and Gable was superior. They just sparkled, they were sexy, they oozed animal magnetism. That's not to say that Greer Garson didn't hold her own. In fact she was the glue that held the whole, confused thing together. Without her there was nothing to maintain the viewer's interest because quite frankly, after a while Gable's barking became just annoying. Perhaps the way he took charge was meant to convey care and affection but came across as arrogance and thoughtlessness. His tendency to overact was probably because this was his first movie after his wartime service but why didn't someone ask him to tone it down a few notches. So there you have it: a good story (that tends toward the melodramatic toward the end) and a great cast should have yielded a much better product.
qblhdon
I, also, saw this movie when I was very young; maybe aged 9. Thomas Mitchell (Mudge) thinking (or should I say, knowing) he saw his soul leave him, is one of the things I most remember. I didn't know what "a soul" looked like, then, and still don't. But that really fascinated me.As one commenter already mentioned, one of the most dramatic, audience-involved moments is when Clark Gable performs a desperate CPR on his non-breathing just-born child.I think I grew a crush on Greer Garson through this film. She is beautiful in it.I have to remember to look for this film on the video racks or on the TV schedule.A truly great film!
AD
