Basically I thought it was a darned good story, marred routinely by fake-looking sets, and actors/actresses who seemed out of place. I would have preferred Gable to Grant; I couldn't separate Thomas Mitchell from his role as the old drunk doctor in "Stagecoach;" the women were just too perky and peachy clean to seem realistic for the setting; and some of the supporting roles seemed done in an amateurish vein (I thought Tex, for example, manning the mountain-pass observation post, was a bit laughable).
All in all, though, it was a pretty absorbing story. Reminded me of "China Seas," where it's a mish-mash of variable acting abilities and contrived sets, but still, a good story. Well, at least neither Jean Arthur nor Rita Hayworth were even a tenth as shrill as Jean Harlow was in "China Seas," and that's a good thing. lol
"Definition of an airplane: Thousands of spare parts flying in close formation."
reply
share
joegerardi-1
11 years ago
Just a note about your sig line- "Definition of an airplane: Thousands of spare parts flying in close formation."
That's not really the "Definition of an airplane," that was coined about the DC-3 as "A collection of parts flying in loose formation," because of its ruggedness, longevity, and reputation for always coming home.
..Joe
reply
share