JohnHowardReid
I'm going to make myself unpopular and side with the previous reviewer of 5 July 2014. In fact, I'd go further and say it's a surprise to find Warner's top director, Michael Curtiz working on a movie of such limited potential. Despite the fact that it was photographed in pleasing Technicolor, production values are extremely limited. There are few, if any, photographic flourishes. In fact the camera seems to have been bolted to the floor. I'll admit that many Warner short subjects were made on the cheap, but they moved fast and were generally most agreeable. This one doesn't move at all. Unlike Curtiz's usual camera flourishes, this one seems to employ a camera that is not only bolted to the floor but incapable even of the slightest movement, right or left. Or maybe it's simply that the sets are so small, there's nowhere for the camera to go? The atmosphere is claustrophobic rather than intriguing and the tone of the movie is patronizing rather than stimulating. Claude Rains is woefully miscast. Available on DVD as an extra with Curtiz's superbly fast-moving, big budget western actioner, "Dodge City"!
Michael_Elliott
Sons of Liberty (1939) *** (out of 4)Oscar-winning short film from Warner takes place during the American Revolution as Claude Rains leads the group known as "Sons of Liberty" as they use their influence to battle anti-Semitism in the United States. This is a pretty impressive short and you can't help but notice how important this story must have been to Jack Warner for him to use a top-notch director like Curtiz and surround him with some great talent. Rains is terrific in his role and he is perfectly matched by Gale Sondergaard, Henry O'Neill, James Stephenson and Donald Crisp. The story itself is pretty bland but that doesn't take away any of the power, which was to be religiously strong as well as patriotic. Those things are what the film went for and it certainly got them. The Technicolor is perfectly used here and looks terrific. I just love seeing this early color tech and seeing how beautiful fires look using it.
bkoganbing
This fine short subject from Warner Brothers won an Academy Award as the Best Short Subject in 1939. An honor for its director Michael Curtiz who would win another Oscar for Best feature film four years later with Casablanca and one for himself as Best Director.This film should be put in the context of the times. One of the criticisms of the Jewish movie moguls is that they did not use their influence to combat anti-Semitism in the USA. IF that was the the case the Brothers Warner redeemed themselves in a small way bringing the story of Haym Solomon to the screen, the Jewish individual among America's founding fathers.Solomon had quite a career during the revolution as a spy and later helping to finance the American Revolution with Robert Morris. The expenses they personally signed for these two men dear in personal wealth and health. Claude Rains is a fine Haym Solomon, the part is almost a dress rehearsal for his later role in Mr. Skeffington.I've a feeling that this might have started out as a feature film project for Paul Muni. It would have certainly been a perfect fit for him. Around this time Muni and Jack Warner were coming to a parting of the ways.It's good short subject and kids you can actually use it as the basis of a book report.
flavia18
This must have been Hollywood's way of trying to say what everyone in power knew but were afraid to say out loud: there was another threat to liberty afoot, and, this time, Jews were in especial danger. Why else would Hollywood have chosen to focus on Chaim Solomon out of so many other equally deserving patriots (And is this role the reason Claude Rains was chose to play the title role in "Mr. Skeffington"?)? The short is expectedly both solemn and melodramatic, given the subject matter and the reason for its being made. Rains, as could be expected, rises above the material, giving a real performance and not just emoting.I have read the comments of the viewer who feels that the short is "anti-British." Well, if so, then it is just as "anti-British" as the movie "Fire Over England" was "anti-Spanish". In other words, not at all.
AD
