WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Steineded How sad is this?

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

jacksflicks This movie is so good that it transcends the sentimentality of the era and the distraction of Dutch subtitles and substitute graphics (you can figure them out) on the only extant print.Three things struck me:First, we know Edward Ellis as the title character (Winant) from The Thin Man. He was compelling, but of course got bumped off early. It was a pleasure to see Ellis in almost every scene of this movie.Second, Anne Shirley was just as sweet and lovely as an ingénue here as she'd been, playing a little girl, in Anne of Green Gables.Third, the movie did not succumb to Hollywood's conventional insistence on redemption. Most characters were greedy, parsimonious ingrates, from beginning to end. I think the social conscience of Garson Kanin and Dalton Trumbo had something to do with it.Here is a forgotten gem, whose preservation fans of American cinema should be grateful for.

mkelly54 To use the cliché, "they don't make them like this anymore," is perfect for this classic. I could write volumes about the power of a generous human spirit overcoming the surge of economic indecency, but I'll leave that for someone else. One technique I really enjoy in this film is the use of the doctor's notes, bills and other bits of information to introduce the different chapters of the film. It's a great literary vehicle and was used often in silent films. It also reminded me of some of the chapter introductions used in R.F. Delderfield's work.The one thing I will state: if the devils on Wall Street and the banking community maintained half the community spirit as the old doctor in this story, we would all be much better for it.Ethics and a purity of heart, what a wonderful concept. This is a great film for a Church Popcorn theology class, high school students considering a medical career or anyone questioning their community spirit.

Jeff Leiber It was about a year ago that I saw most of this movie on AMC. I was very much taken by it. Recently, I have been searching and searching for the title. Using keywords like "epidemic", "polio", "infantile paralysis", and "The Man Who" in my searches were NOT successful. It was a pure fluke that trying to remember the title prompted me to look for "Remember" in the title. Yay! I am not certain just how close to a true story this is because I never bothered to look up the main character's name to check out the real person. But with an old 1938 movie, I am inclined to believe it is a true story because frankly, the world was more honest back then. Like some of the other reviewers, I agree that this movie stays with you for a long time. It reaches into your heart and gives it a tug that will last forever. I am ready to see this film again.

MartinHafer RKO, Warner Brothers and several other studios remade many films during the 1930s--often less than a decade later. As a result, when watching one of these films, it's common to have a strong sense of déjà vu--realizing after a few minutes that you'd seen this before, but with different actors. As for me, I almost always score the remakes lower as they rarely improved upon the original idea and lack originality.This film is a remake of ONE MAN'S JOURNEY--which was also made by RKO just a few years earlier in 1933. I scored the original film a 7 on IMDb, as it was an exceptional film with fine acting by Lionel Barrymore and May Robson in the leads. This remake, while good, wasn't all that different and starred the relatively unknown actor, Edward Ellis. While Ellis was very good and seemed like a real doctor, he was hamstrung by the fact that Lionel Barrymore was such a wonderful and exceptional performer in the original--it just wasn't possible for him to outdo Barrymore. The biggest names in the film are Anne Shirley and Lee Bowman--neither which were exactly household names! They all did a competent job, but once again you can't help but compare them to the originals.There were a few plot changes, though nothing major. Ms. Shirley's role was expanded in this film and she did NOT return to live with her biological father like in the original and May Robson's wonderful part was eliminated (this was a BIG mistake). Additionally, Garson Kanin and Dalton Trumbo gave the film a strong Populist and anti-big business slant that was NOT in the original film. In the original, ALL the people of the small town tended to take the poor old doctor for granted, whereas here the average common man DID but the evil business men did not. Considering that both director Kanin and writer Trumbo were both later blacklisted in the 1950s for their leftist sentiments, this isn't all that surprising that they'd give this slant. This isn't criticism of their politics--just how flavored this screenplay. This slant didn't hurt the film much at all, but it did tend to portray the rich in a rather one-dimensional manner. On one hand, this made the film more important as a political and social statement, but on the other it totally changed the meaning behind the original film and lacked the sentimentality as well. Still, all in all, this is an entertaining little B-movie that is well worth your time. BUT, if you only want to see one version, I do recommend you see ONE MAN'S JOURNEY--it's just a bit better.A couple final notes. First, the only known surviving copy of the film was in a Dutch archive and has Dutch language subtitles. This isn't usually a problem and you soon don't notice this--except when letters are shown on the screen--they are in Dutch and TCM did NOT provide an interpretation of the writing! Second, a very odd and kind of creepy aspect of this film I didn't mention above is the relationship between Bowman and Shirley. They are step-brother and sister and late in the film, they seem VERY attracted towards each other. While this isn't technically incest, some might be creeped out by this!