MovieChat Forums > The Petrified Forest (1936) Discussion > What did you rate 'The Petrified Forest'...

What did you rate 'The Petrified Forest' (1936)?

posted 17 years ago by J. Spurlin
30 replies | jump to latest

I rated this a 7/10 for the database. What did you rate it? And what do you think of it?

Leslie Howard is a hobo intellectual, Bette Davis is a waitress dreaming of an adventurous life and Humphrey Bogart is the gangster who has everyone at gunpoint in this adaptation of Robert Sherwood's play set in a diner in the Arizona desert.

The literate script with its long, contemplative speeches (mainly from Howard) is a shocker when compared with anything today, in or out of the mainstream. Howard's character can get a bit airy-fairy, but he's mainly a delight. Bogart (who, like Howard, is repeating his stage role) is memorable, but hasn't quite refined his technique in front of the camera: his is a theatrical performance. Bette Davis is good; and Charley Grapewin, as a gangster-worshipping old coot is excellent. The painted backdrops make this look more like a stage play than it should have.

... Justin

[–] mousepower 16 years ago

8/10.

...why thank you ever so, I never buy insurance. - Lorelei Lee

[–] J. Spurlin 16 years ago

You liked the movie, too. Thanks for the reply.

... Justin

[–] poopy 16 years ago

I gave it an 8/10. Although it is one of my favorite movies because of the feeling it gives me. I didn't give it a 10 because some of the absurdities of the script, with the overly bold jock to the martyr of a man in the hobo. Some of the acting from Bogie and Bette where a little shaky at times (i'm a HUGE bogie and bette fan).

But i absolutely loved the concept, It was basically a perfect movie for me. I love that it was set in the desert, because i love the solitude and beauty of the dead beach that is the desert. And the passing hobo who stumbles upon his soulmate who shares the same curiosity and love for life that he has. All the while giving his life for this one individual for he knows he can save from the despair he experienced, feeling held accountable knowing the knowledge that is life. I can't say enough about this movie for me as an individual. As far as an objective movie, im sure its entertaining and worthy of a 7-8, but for me it is my favorite 8 movie of all time.

[–] J. Spurlin 16 years ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts--and your feelings--about the movie.

... Justin

[–] rick-220 16 years ago

I even gave it a 9/10.
Does it really deserve that as a film? Maybe not, after all it is basically a rather straightforward registration of a very good play. But still there's a couple of things that really stood out.

First of all, I loved the themes in the movie. The most interesting one has both Leslie Howard and Humphrey Bogart representing 'has-beens', albeit on opposing ends of the scale with Howard representing Good and Bogart representing Evil. Added with both realising that they are misfits and outcasts trying to fulfill their dreams in a hostile world - represented by the Football Player and the Rich Snob Family - they come to a pact. By their scheme they assure Bette Davis' - representing 'the future'- attempt at realising her own dream, is made possible.

Secondly, great cast. it was the movie that kick-started Bogart's carreer. If Howard hadn't insisted on casting Bogart in the role, we might have missed out on Bogart all together. Bogart gives an excellent performance as a menacing but also obviously deeply troubled criminal. Bette Davis, even as young as in this movie, already shows moments of total class. But I was pretty much floored by Leslie Howard. Admittedly, I haven't seen much of his movies yet, but I never would have thought that he could dominate a movie with that much ease and convinction. It is clear that due to him performing the part on Broadway he really owns the character. Perfect performance.

And coming back to my earlier remark of this not being a great film, I loved the opening shot of Howard walking into the desert - new uncharted territory.

Finally I absolutely loved this line by Howard when describing himself as an intellectual:
"Hmmm. Yes. Brains without purpose. Noise without sound, shape without substance". That pretty much decribes what's happening in my head most of the time ;).

voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013

[–] J. Spurlin 16 years ago

There are always lots of complaints when a filmed play ends up more theatrical than cinematic, but I think: at least we have a good record of a good play.

Speaking of Leslie Howard in filmed records of good plays, don't miss Pygmalion. Great Leslie Howard performance. Great play. And the filmmakers manage to make it very much a movie, not just a filmed play. Can't be missed.

Another Leslie Howard recommendation: the screwball comedy, The Stand-In. Howard is very funny as the bloodless accountant unaware that a movie stand-in is in love with him. The first hour is a great stretch of film; but the story peters out in the last half hour. Still, I say it's not to be missed.

...Om

[–] LatigoMeans 15 years ago

8/10... I've always liked this film.
I first saw it on late night TV in NY sometime in the early 70's and was blown away. I too felt the yin and the yang of Bogart and Howard combined with a shared resolve.

So impressed I eventually named my daughter Gabrielle... shared with a character from Hammett's The Dain Curse.

~LjM
Way down deep I'm very superficial.

[–] J. Spurlin 15 years ago

She's a pretty lucky kid to be named after both a Dashiell Hammett novel and The Petrified Forest.

...Justin

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] J. Spurlin 15 years ago

Hi, oakes!

This movie is so completely different from anything you'd see today. One of the many things I liked about it.

...Justin

[–] sverdrupjahn75 14 years ago

I thought the first half was a bit too slow, but once Duke and his goons show up, it kicks backside. I gave it 7/10. :)

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

I wonder what the movie would have been like if Leslie Howard hadn't insisted that Bogart play Duke, and Edward G. Robinson had gotten the role instead. I think it would have been just as good (I love Edward G.). But Bogart might never have become a star. Movies in general would have suffered.

...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!

[–] sverdrupjahn75 14 years ago

It would've been good, sure, but totally different, as he'd be a whole different kind of villain.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

Wouldn't it have been cool if they could have filmed a different version of the movie with each one? How about a third version with Cagney?

...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!

[–] sverdrupjahn75 14 years ago

It would be cool to see indeed, and Cagney would've owned Bogard and Robinson both! ;)

[–] Teach417 14 years ago

Look, Cagney was great, but nobody "owns" Bogart or Robinson! lol

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 14 years ago

9(a rather weak one though). Amazing dialog but Davis felt a bit too theatrical. Still an amazing story and great characters.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

Do you usually like Bette Davis in other movies, or do you always find her too theatrical?

...Justin

[–] TheAnimalMother 14 years ago

Giving this film anything less than an 8 is an insult in my view. Mostly an insult to yourself. But hey, that's just my opinion.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] jacowium 14 years ago

I rated it a 9, veering towards 10, but a few imperfections keep me from giving it full marks. The unusually high score is because of the effect it had on me - spending the hour afterwards mulling over the dialogue and some key scenes. And that is plain good cinema to me: it's not about the technical aspects or CGI wizardry, but about the impact it has on my sensibilities. So, when a film/play has that effect on me, I can't score it less than 8.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

And that is plain good cinema to me: it's not about the technical aspects or CGI wizardry, but about the impact it has on my sensibilities.

I know what you mean. My favorite screen Shakespeare, and one of my favorite "movies," is not a movie at all but a TV production of Macbeth with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench that is barely changed from the original stage production. There are no sets, and costumes and props are used sparingly—but I'd rank it just slightly above other excellent Shakespeare productions (such as Olivier's Hamlet) even though they make fuller use of cinematic techniques.

...Justin

[–] jacowium 14 years ago

Exactly. It's not about "less is more" either, but in the context of Shakespeare or anything with a fabulous script, I'd say it's better not to have too many visual distractions. At the other end of the scale, visual spectacles, when executed tastefully, can have the same impact on me (like the recent The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus).

I know some people complained that The Petrified Forest looked like they only filmed a stage play, hence it doesn't have much merits in a cinematic sense, but I disagree. I was blown away by what I saw and heard. Hence the 9/10!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dalldorfw 9 years ago

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

I can't find the right rating for this one, I've changed it 3 or 4 times between 7 & 8.