moatazmohsen78
Louis Pasteur was the person of 19th century that he discovered (Bacteria) and (Anthrx) at the same time of (Robert Koch) the German physiologist that won Nobel prize in Medicine or physiology in 1905 because of his discoveries (Tuberclosies - Malaryia).It is wonderful to be the secret of treatment the bodies from pains and diseases as an expanding for (The Christ) and another prophets by their holy books , massages and miracles.Paul Muni made his signature role by winning Oscar prize for best leading role as Pasteur in 1936 by his good Analysis for the character of this great scientist by his final speech at the end of this film that any scholar must be honest in his work and searches to be in the summit as him that he took his gift and honor from french scientific academy and if he was still alive in the 20th century he win Nobel prize in medicine without any competition but he died in 1896 before the establishment of Nobel prize before five years of it.
marcslope
Meticulous but standard-issue biopic of the great 19th century French microbiologist, with a story arc that's a little too predictable. We know the medical Establishment will refuse to admit it's wrong about germs causing disease; we know Pasteur will have to fight long and hard to win respect; we know he'll have a quiet, supportive, loving wife; we know the daughter and his colleague will form whatever love story there is. It's nicely photographed, and Best Actor Muni lands somewhere between his Thirties extremes of hamminess ("Juarez") and restraint ("I Am a Fugitive"). He's affecting in the final scene, but that's due more to the fail-safe story engineering than any histrionic genius. He was a dedicated and versatile actor, and this is another worthy portrait in his gallery, but it's just not exciting or surprising.
edwagreen
While Paul Muni does an admirable acting job here, this was certainly not one of his best performances. He was far better in "The Life of Emile Zola" as well as "Juarez" and "The Last Angry Man."The film discusses Pasteur's battles with anthrax and rabies. It's amazing that pasteurization is not discussed. Am shocked that the milk producers didn't carry on about this.There are nice supporting performances by Josephine Hutchinson as his devoted wife as well as Fritz Leiber, Dr. Charbonnet, a doctor who would not believe Pasteur's idea and was willing to fight and humiliate him all the way.There is a nice historical backdrop to the film, especially as it relates to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.Donald Woods and Anita Louise are wasted in their roles as the son-in-law and daughter to Pasteur.
MartinHafer
While the actual details of the life of the great chemist, Louis Pasteur, are mixed up in this glossy MGM biography, the general facts are all there and the film is both captivating and inspiring. In many ways, the movie DR. EHRLICH'S MAGIC BULLET (starring Edward G. Robinson) is Warner Brother's answer to this MGM film and BOTH are well worth seeing and are about equally entertaining.Paul Muni plays Pasteur, though much of his earlier career is left out of the film. Instead of his many advances and breakthroughs, the film focuses on three--his sterilization crusade, his inoculation for Anthrax and his cure for Rabies. This is probably not a bad idea, since the film never would have fit into the a standard length otherwise.I also assume that some of the characters in the film were fictitious, as I tried doing an internet search on Dr. Charbonnet as well as read up on Pasteur and could not verify some of the film's details--this isn't at all unusual for a bio-pic from the 1930s plus none of this fundamentally changed the overall facts.The film is well-written, compelling and makes science kind of cool. So, if you want to expose kids to culture and science, this is a good and relatively painless way to do it.By the way, the actor that played Joseph Lister is pretty much dead-on to the real Lister--right down to the muttonchops!
AD
