Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

jeromec-2 By the number of reviews, I would guess this film is either little known or little watched.I think this is a great shame. It is one of Edward G. Robinson's better films, because it is so understated and so unlike many of his other films. He plays Dr. Paul Erhlich who in 1908, won the Nobel prize. The film makes us believe that it was well deserved.The film begins with a scene that was a foreshadow of the dramatic ending, a libel trial in which Dr. Erhlich defends himself against claims by his enemies that he had (falsely) been accused of.Throughout the film, we learn that Dr. Erhlich faced obtuse stupidity, prejudice (he was Jewish), scientific dogma and inflexibility and extreme resistance to new ideas. I wonder if the double blind test has any meaning at all when you have hundreds of deaths taking place from diphtheria and those in charge insist that 20 more patients (out of 40) have a cure withheld from them because the science heros needed a control. One wonders if they could really be that dumb. Sometimes what makes good drama makes a lousy truth.Whoever wrote the screen play knew how to set up a logical field of study. Dr. Erhlich is shown to have progressed from organic dyes to basic immunology to solutions to diphtheria cures to the chemotherapy needed to cure a disease like syphilis.An interesting period piece from 1940.

Homer900 A classic biography made more special by the performance of Robinson. I watched with fascination as he aged and watched with longing for the day when movies like this celebrated scientists, explorers and others who set out to better the lot of mankind. I was also surprised too when they finally mentioned the word "syphilis". I imagine it was shocking to audiences of 1940, just a year after the surprise of Clark Gable's RhettButler telling Vivian Leigh's Scarlett that he didn't "give a damn."Oh, for the days of movies like this. No CGI, no explosions, no f-bombs, nothing but pure cinema magic and a story about a great person.

blanche-2 "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" is the story of the groundbreaking Nobel prize winner Paul Ehrlich, credited with many discoveries still critical in the practice of medicine today, and perhaps most importantly, for finding the cure for syphilis. This is an important film for the use of the word 'syphilis' which was the basis of a fight between the Hays code and Warners. But Ehrlich's story deserved telling, and you couldn't do it without using the word syphilis.The beginning of the film shows Dr. Ehrlich in Germany futilely treating patients who have the disease, though nothing can really help them. It chronicles his rise up the scientific ranks through his use of staining organisms so that they could be seen under the microscope, his work in disease resistance, and finally, after long experiments with an arsenical compound - 606, in fact - the discovery of a cure for syphilis.For me, one reason to watch bios is that I develop interest in the subjects and seek out more information; after all, some Hollywood stories are less factual than others. Though I'm sure a lot of Ehrlich's life had to be telescoped, the film certainly hits the highlights, and portrays him as a gifted scientist and vigorous innovator obsessed with his work.Edward G. Robinson was always a good actor in the right role, but as Dr. Ehrlich, he is magnificent, totally immersing himself in the character and drawing the audience in. Stage actress Ruth Gordon, for whom movie stardom was about 28 years off, gives a lovely, understated performance as Ehrlich's wife. The rest of the cast is excellent, from Otto Kruger as a fellow scientist and friend, right down to a small role by Louis Calhern.The movie is a little too sentimental at times by today's standards, I suppose, but the only thing that really bothered me was the lack of presence of Ehrlich's daughters at the film's end. At the beginning of the movie, we see them as youngsters, and reference is made to them later as being married. Would it have killed Warners to have two female extras at the end of the film? We would have known who they were.I don't know if Ehrlich really said that diseases of the body will not be conquered until we conquer diseases of the soul, but it's a great and true thought. He was in fact a victim of a disease of the soul: there was a street in Frankfurt named after him, but the name was changed in the '30s because Ehrlich was Jewish. Later, it was reinstated.This is a marvelous movie, a real must-see.

tanstaafl2004 I saw this movie a few times, years ago when they had a lot of old movies on TV (pre-cable). There is much more in it than the cure for syphilis. Dr. Ehrlich also discovered some amazing new ideas: dye for viewing bacterial slides and identifying those germs; the process of vaccination as a prevention against disease and the difficulty in changing the views of the medical community even with valid & objective scientific evidence. Edward G. Robinson did an excellent job and the portrayal is artfully and humanely done as a early medical pioneer. The scientific discoveries may seem too banal for today's average person but the work was a milestone in medical science.