evanston_dad A big heaping dose of melodramatic nonsense starring Fredric March as an orphaned child who grows up to find himself at the center of a devious plot to steal his family's fortune.The film was based on a wildly popular book and I think the movie itself was also a big hit with audiences at the time, but it makes for a rather plodding and dull watch now. Its best asset is Claude Rains as the chief villain, who made any movie more watchable just by virtue of being in it."Anthony Adverse" emerged as the most awarded film at the 1936 Oscars, winning four at a time in Oscar's history when it was rare for any one movie to dominate the awards. Gale Sondergaard collected the very first Best Supporting Actress Oscar ever awarded, playing Anthony's evil stepmother who joins Rains in the scheme to get their hands on his money. She mostly stands behind Fredric March looking devious -- not sure her performance is really award worthy, but all manner of strange choices were made back then. The film also won Oscars for its cinematography, film editing, and score, an award that went not to the film's composer, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, but rather to the Warner Bros. music department chief Leo Forbstein. In addition, the film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Assistant Director (William Cannon), and Best Art Direction, which is probably the film's most impressive feature, spanning a variety of locations from aristocratic drawing rooms to opera houses to snowy mountaintops.Grade: B-

MartinHafer I really appreciate Joseph Harder's review--as I have never read the original book nor do I think it likely I ever will. His insights are helpful in giving background for this film.ANTHONY ADVERSE is a film that is probably better quality-wise than the 6 I scored the film. For a 1930s epic, it is obvious that the studio spared few expenses and tried very hard to create a sweeping saga. The problem, though, is that despite all the efforts of those involved, this is exactly the sort of costume drama that I dislike. Now this is my personal taste, but I also feel that most modern viewers will also be a bit put off by the style of film. In essence, this film would have played much better back in 1936 than it would today.The film is the life story of Anthony Adverse--a boy orphaned shortly after birth. How all this came to be as well as his life leading to his eventual move to America is shown in the film. At first Anthony is a likable sort and you care about him--he really got screwed when it came to his childhood. However, later in the film he unexpectedly became a major jerk--devoting many years to the slave trade as well as practically abandoning his new bride! Because of this, no matter how Adverse eventually turns his life around, you can't help but either hate him or at best feel indifference. As a result, it's a very hard sell for everyone involved in the film and it's hard for audiences today to care about the man.As for the technical merits, the film is directed well, has many lovely performances (including Olivia DeHavilland at her most radiant) and has a fitting musical score. While the film was not made in color, practically none of the films of the day were, so this can be forgiven. It's too bad that the film is a bit dull and the character so unlikable--because of this, some may feel that devoting almost two and a half hours to this film just isn't worth it. Overall, I see it as a well made time-passer and that's about it.

rupertloach The main pleasure this film gives me is the music in it by Erich Korngold, and especially the African scene around the dying of the Priest. He used the same theme in his only Symphony and in other works to. The film's main story was a wonderful vehicle for Korngold's creating genius to have full reign in the emotion department. Long may romantic music be heard if the nasty music critics will allow it. They are very guilty of suppressing some of the most beautiful music to be written or heard in this life. Example, Eugene D'Albert's magnificent Opera "Tiefland" do we ever hear it on any classical music programme? No ! I rest my case. The film is very enjoyable and all the cast were superb, but Oh how they compressed the story, the book I believe is very long and attempting to Hollywood it didn't really do the book justice. However it remains one of my favourites. Is there anyone else out there who loves Korngold's music, if so, please get in touch with me. here is my E mail address rupertloach@aol.com Thank you. R. Loach

whpratt1 This is a great classic black and white film of the 1930's and a fantastic cast of veteran classic actors. Fredric March,(Anthony Adverse)," Hombre",'67, played a child who was abandoned with very little hope of ever having a family to love him or any future. Olivia Dee Havilland,(Angela Guisepple),"Hush..Hush Sweet Charlotte",'64, played a servant girl and also an opera star and had a childhood crush on Anthony Adverse. Edmund Gwenn,(John Bonnyfeather),"The Trouble with Harry",'55, managed to help Anthony Adverse and gave him the support he needed to find a place in this world. Claude Rains,(Marquis Don Luis),"The Invisible Man",'33, played a ruthless individual who stopped at nothing to make life difficult for Anthony Adverse along with his charming wife, Gale Sondergaard,(Faith Paleologus),"Sherlock Holmes and the Spider Woman",'44. This film takes many twists and turns throughout Europe and there is even mention that going to America will "Give You Peace of Mind".