RoboGarrett This is a brilliant movie, not for people with low attention spans which means a lot of modern audiences won't get it, or won't bother to try. It's a pretty deep and convoluted and dramatic story about a lot of characters and their relationships. Would love to see the long version of this one, the long lost Orson Welles director's cut.

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.

jc-osms I haven't read the Booth Tarkington novel on which Orson Welles' film is based but I mean to, if only to try to fill in some of the gaps that the 50 minutes of studio cuts made to the 90 minute running time. Welles once said something like, watch it for the first hour, that part he recognised, but after that, it wasn't his film. There are several Hollywood movies where the production suits upstairs have cut down the running length of a film, but I can't think of another where I'd so much want to see what was lost.It's just so obvious watching it that the story of this film had more to give and should have been allowed to play out like say "Citizen Kane" had. Welles, apart from narrating the piece, stays firmly behind the camera and if anything his direction is even better this time. So much originality and imagination right from the start as Joseph Cotten's ardent young Eugene almost falls out the frame in the opening minute, the long dolly shot as George walks Lucy around the Amberson mansion at the grand ball, the shadow of Eugene's head on a door to signify death within, the changing light on the dying Isabel's face as the curtains are drawn in her room, the upward tracking shot up two flights of stairs to gauge George and Aunt Fanny's reactions after George has sent Eugene away, itself so reminiscent of the famous reaction shot of the stage workers in "Kane" to Susan's disastrous operatic debut, all these and many more.Of course there are other recognisable Wellesian trademarks, like the monumental sets, overlapping dialogue, long takes and extreme close-ups not to mention his entirely novel way with title sequences.Up until the part where you can see the scissors wielded, the story of mummy's boy George's unhealthily protective love for his mother and hers for him, for him justifying his extreme petulance and selfishness as an adult to the exclusion of her future happiness and indeed his own, makes for engrossing viewing. His actions sabotage two budding romances, one of which his own, with the only thing I couldn't fathom in all of the characters' various motivations being Lucy's continuing love for such a shallow, venal character.The film is thus set up for its tragic final acts but then the hacking really begins with George suddenly penniless, Uncle Frank leaves town, Fanny has squandered her life savings on an out-of-nowhere speculative investment and George quits his budding law career for a more dangerous, highly paid occupation to allow Fanny to live out her days sedately in a nursing home rather than spiral down to the nervous breakdown she seems to always be on the verge of. Then somehow she's all recovered and smiling on the arm of by now automobile-tycoon Eugene's arm as he reconciles himself to an ailing George, ironically a car accident victim. It's as if the second half of the film has been accelerated to double-speed and in an unsubtle, unsympathetic way at that.Back to the good things, the acting is exemplary from Welles' Mercury players, as is the superb photography but with the missing footage now long lost, one can only wonder at what might have been. As it is, there's more than enough directorial genius on view to still justify watching it but as for that second half, talk about your cultural vandalism.

LeonLouisRicci Orson Welles' Version of the Film Seems Forever Lost and it Runs a Full 50 Minutes Longer and is Assembled Differently. The Contrast Between what Welles Made and what Remains is More than Significant it is Profound. But All We Have is the RKO Version and While that has Received an Enormous Amount of Praise, it Must Be Said that the Praise is Singular and Cannot Reflect the Director's Original Intent.Basically it's the Second Half, Not Counting the Interruptions of the Long Fluid Shots and Such, where the Studio did the Most Damage. It has been Reported that Once Welles was Persuaded to Sit Down and Watch It, Decades Later, After About an Hour Stood Up and Said "From here on it's their Film". That Seems to be the Case, Because the Second Half is Not Near as Mesmerizing as the First. All Rushed and Jumbled Up. Choppy and Erratic, and the Ending is Ill Fitting. The Little 88 Minute Butchered, Mutilated, and Mangled Version is a Powerful but Painful Film to Watch. Even if One was to Know Nothing of the Changes it would be Obvious that Something was Not Only Missing but Amiss.Yes, it was Nominated for Four Oscars Including Best Picture and Most Film Critics Agree it is a "Magnificent" Work and Although what is Up There On the Screen is Technically Innovative and Beautiful at Times and is More Artistic than the Majority of Hollywood Product, the Tampering and Fiddling is Evident and Overall, Not at All Welcome. Still the Movie can be Enjoyed as Sort of a "Better Than Nothing" Glimpse at the Movie Making Expertise of Welles and Company (in shorthand).