avoid this poor excuse for a film at all cost, unless you're an aging grandma who loves sappy love movies & romance novels.
this movie is a waste of time.
avoid this poor excuse for a film at all cost, unless you're an aging grandma who loves sappy love movies & romance novels.No, avoid, at all costs, reading posts that announce themselves in capital letters share
I must say I was unpleasantly surprised too. Criterion usually stands for quality. While I was watching this, I was realizing more and more it was actually a soap opera! The only "humorous" thing was that Helen first lost her fiance, was then driven over by a car, even got blind as a result - and all because of Bob. Talk about bad luck! And all the sickly praising of the late Dr. Phillips - oh, please, enough already! If this was shot today, it would be severely criticized. Not only because of the story - it was so obvious everything was shot in the studios. Just because it was shot 50 years ago it doesn't make it a good movie.
shareDouglas Sirk's remake of "Magnificent Obsession" is a work of art. One of the greatest examples of his filmic style. He worked in naked emotions, so over the top and so genuinely portrayed that they reached another level of expression entirely. The fault lies not with the film, which is brilliant, but with you who are to pedestrian to appreciate it on it's own level. For your own comfort, I suggest that you stick to simpler things and not invite more "pearls before swine" scenarios.
shareNo, I agree with Holden27. Not trash but in the same category as a night time soap like 'Dallas' or "Falcon Crest'. Plodding, preachy and over the top with some very outlandish story lines - but that's just my opinion.
shareAnyone who compares this film to a TV show like "Dallas" should have acid thrown on their eyes and not be allowed to watch cinema again.
Proud member of the Pro-film Anti-digital Society (PFADS).
Oh no - I disagree. TOTALLY LOVE THIS MOVIE because so much of it is ALL WRONG!!!
Where else but in Hollywood can you find this kind of ridiculous visualization of 1950s morality???!!!
Best "wrong": Jane's HAIRDO - which is really an uncompromising HAIR-DON'T!
Oh - and the hymnal chorale that plays in the background when Jane learns of her husband's generosity with a former patient. Another winning "wrong"!
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
It's not TRASH...it's CAMP! Just look at it this way...Jane Wyman, the woman, was a mega super bitch in real life portraying a sweet and vulnerable and kind woman. Rock Hudson, the objection of her affection...well there ya go. It's lush and fab and soapy...and I love it!
Dammit Carol Sue, where is the vodka?!
No, the movie isn't "trash". It's very well-made and has a good cast.
It's the story that's so ridiculously absurd. Douglas Sirk did what he could with it and obviously decided that going over the top was the only solution to the utter inanity that is this plot. If you want to blame anyone, blame Lloyd C. Douglas, the author of the novel on which both this and the 1935 film were based. The book is sappy and asinine. The films just brought it to life as best they could.
While the OP's assessment is quite harsh, I have to agree with it.
share