BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

James Hitchcock During the 1950s director Douglas Sirk was noted both for his accomplished use of colour and for the melodramatic nature of his plots in films like "Magnificent Obsession", "Written on the Wind", "All that Heaven Allows" and "Imitation of Life". "Magnificent Obsession" was a remake of a film from 1935, which I have never seen; both films are based upon a novel of the same name by Lloyd C. Douglas. The story is an essentially religious account of one man's redemption. The main character, Bob Merrick, starts off as a spoiled wealthy playboy, but eventually reforms, resumes his medical studies (which he abandoned when inherited his family fortune upon his father's death) and ends up as a brilliant surgeon, widely admired not only for his surgical skills but also for his kindness and philanthropy. A key figure in Merrick's redemption is Wayne Phillips, another brilliant surgeon, widely admired not only for his surgical skills but also for his kindness and philanthropy. In the 1935 film the doctor had the surname "Hudson", but this was changed to "Phillips" when Rock Hudson was cast as Merrick in this film, presumably because the studio felt that it would be confusing to have a character sharing a name with one of the film's stars. The more recent "Margot at the Wedding" is another example of the same phenomenon; it was originally to have been called "Nicole at the Wedding", but the name of the main character was changed when Nicole Kidman was cast in the role. Hudson seems to have been a favourite actor of Sirk, who used him in starring roles not only here but also in "Written on the Wind" and "All that Heaven Allows". Merrick never meets Dr Phillips, who does not actually appear in the film and who dies near the beginning, but both he and the audience hear a lot about the late doctor from his friends and family. According to them Dr. Phillips both preached and practised a philosophy of altruism, believing that to achieve anything worthwhile in life one needs to do good to others without hoping for anything in return, either in terms of financial reward or in terms of reputation. Hollywood may sometimes preach a gospel of altruism, but it has more difficulty practising it, and it has never been entirely comfortable with the doctrine that virtue is its own reward. Surely it must bring some more tangible rewards as well? Although, therefore, we never get to see Dr Phillips, we do get to see his house, and it turns out to be a magnificent lakeside villa, the sort of house I would more readily associate with the Bob Merricks of this world than with a self- sacrificing humanitarian who supposedly died relatively poor because of his generosity to others. An important factor in Merrick's transformation is the romance which develops between him and Phillips's widow Helen. I think that we are supposed to assume that Helen is considerably younger than Phillips, who had an adult daughter by a previous marriage, but nevertheless significantly older than Merrick. Rock Hudson was Hollywood's resident toyboy of the fifties and early sixties. At a time when "boy meets girl" usually meant "older man meets girl young enough to be his daughter", Hudson was regularly cast as the love-interest of actresses older than himself. Sometimes the age difference was only a minor one, as in his series of comedies with Doris Day, but sometimes it was more significant as with Jennifer Jones in "A Farewell to Arms" or with Jane Wyman here. (Hudson and Wyman were also cast together in "All that Heaven Allows"). Sirk's work is characterised by careful composition of his images and his accomplished use of colour. His backgrounds are generally muted and dominated by greys and browns, but there is generally a prominent, brightly-coloured object in the foreground. In "Written on the Wind" this object is normally red, yellow or green, which gives a certain stylistic unity to that film, but here he uses colour more indiscriminately, with blues and purples also much to the fore. Despite Sirk's skill as a director, "Magnificent Obsession" is not a favourite of mine. The plot is excessively melodramatic and sentimental, too heavily reliant on coincidence and at times too improbable to be credible. The worst development comes when Merrick woos Helen, who has been blinded in an accident, under a false name without her (at first) realising his true identity and without any of her friends betraying his secret. Even more improbably she falls in love with a man whom she previously disliked, even though he was partly to blame for her accident. Special mention should be made of Frank Skinner's dreadful musical score, all lushly swooping strings and quasi-angelic choirs chanting "Ah-ah-ah", which intensifies the general atmosphere of corny sentimentality. In some of his films, such as "Written on the Wind" or "Imitation of Life", Sirk showed that he was capable of transforming melodrama into art. But not here. 5/10

Blake Peterson Magnificent Obsession is exaggerated, nearly ludicrous soap, but it knows it. It cackles when Jane Wyman's smooth complexion is interrupted by the urge to break into a violently dramatic monologue. It quakes at the nearest sight of pastel interiors. It even seems to be aware that Magnificent Obsession is a title that instantly evokes a feeling of excessive melodrama. For a casual viewer, it may be too overwrought for its own good; but to only watch it for its woeful theatrics would be a mistake.In the 1950s, the name "Douglas Sirk" certainly did not mean much to critics or audiences. He was a director of flamboyant tearjerkers, easy to chow down on yet ultimately difficult to value. But now that Bette Davis is a bad bitch again, vintage Coca-Cola ads are viewed as art fixtures, and film noir has turned into a singular, sexy alternate to old Hollywood, you can say that time has been kind to Douglas Sirk. What was overtly flashy back then is intellectually artificial now; dramatic performances come second to the aggressively Technicolor style. When viewing a Sirk directed film, there is a feeling of parodical intuition from behind the camera. Unlike many filmmakers of the time, Sirk knew that he was building an elaborate women's picture, doing everything possible to accentuate the slightly unbelievable tone of the tragedies traded off between characters. Take one look at the hospital in which much of the film takes place — artificially painted flowers greet incoming customers, big, blocky signs indicate who's the concierge and who's the cashier, halls resemble leftover corridors from a highly budgeted romantic drama — and you can only soak in the rich, comical illustrations that illuminate the adversarial people who drench themselves in drama. The film opens with millionaire Bob Merrick (Rock Hudson) zooming around on a speedboat, a blonde by his side. Surrounded by scenic waters, he is everything a dangerous romantic lead should be: fearless, fun, and arresting. His charms come to an abrupt halt, however, when he crashes, nearly getting himself killed in the process. Though resuscitated by nearby onlookers, he is guilt-ridden when he finds out that his elaborate rescue inadvertently caused the death of the local Dr. Phillips, who suffered a heart attack but was not able to be revived in time.His wife, Helen (Wyman) is devastated, unwilling to accept donations from the town's population to keep his practice up-and-running. Bob wants to make right, but Helen is much too angry; things only take a turn for the worse when Helen accidentally steps in the path of an oncoming car when avoiding Bob's advances. The accident leaves her blind. And as if things couldn't get more contrived, not only do Helen and Bob eventually fall in love (he uses the guise of a student to cover his true identity), but he decides that the only way to truly make up for his past mistakes is to become a doctor and continue Dr. Phillips' work.Magnificent Obsession slowly but surely becomes an overdone mess in terms of story, but Sirk's ornate eye for visual detail makes up for the silliness of everything else. The plot serves as a metaphor for overcoming literal and metaphorical blindness, but that all seems like hogwash especially if you have two objects on your face called eyes. For most of the film, I felt as though turning the sound off wouldn't affect the overwhelming artistry and impact of the expressive images. Sirk makes everything (and I mean everything) absolutely beautiful; but there is not a single image that doesn't manifest a penetrating feeling of portraited longing. Among the pretty people, the pretty houses, the pretty trees, the pretty cars, there is a deep despair waiting to be renewed. The plot doesn't tell us so: the expressions of the actors, paired with Sirk's evocative style, sting an exquisite sting.Magnificent Obsession is only notable because Douglas Sirk directed it. Without him, it certainly wouldn't look as good. Without him, it certainly wouldn't feel so luminous, so somber. Rarely can the appearance of a movie completely make or break its successes, but in Magnificent Obsession, it is one of the most important components in its longevity and its vigor. Read more reviews at petersonreviews.com

Armand an old story. using not new themes. but beautiful for the good science to explore and use elements for common melodrama. and the basic virtue is science for choose the right cast.and for the charm of gentle performance who preserves the flavor of romance but transforms a classic romance in a not bad lesson about noble purpose of life. a film who seduce. for the acting as ladder to a different manner for present the story and its pieces. sure, Rock Hudson is master for translate his character metamorphose, Otto Kruger - ideal guru and Jane Wyman gives grace, force and precision to her role. but that is only a way. the viewer seems see a different by a long and powerful tradition. and that is really important.

JLRMovieReviews Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman star in Magnificent Obsession, a remake of an Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor film. Both movies in fact catapulted their male stars into stardom. Before their respective films, neither Hudson or Taylor had been a household name. I am not prepared to discuss the differences, as I haven't seen the older version recently. But in this film, Rock plays an obnoxious, rich, and reckless bachelor, known for his frivolous lifestyle and his lack of regard for anyone else. When a skiing accident causes him to need a resuscitator, one is taken from the home of local doctor, who has it for a heart condition, and therefore it is not at the house when the kind doctor has a heart attack. Therefore the life of a self-absorbed bachelor was saved, instead of a doctor who saves lives. This point is brought up 4 or 5 times in the first 30 minutes. When he tries to apologize to the doctor's widow, Jane Wyman, another accident happens. From there on, it swerves into left field and goes beyond the point of no return with developments and contrivances to prolong the film and defy logic. To explain any details would be too exacting. But for all the grade-A production values that producer Ross Hunter and director Douglas Sirk use in retelling this story, basically I just don't buy it, or buy into it. I think the far-fetchedness of it is what I don't buy, plus some of its over-the-top acting and dramatics and corny dialogue in parts. Most of the acting I'm referring to Barbara Rush's performance as Jane's stepdaughter, in the first half of the film. But, Ms. Wyman's performance was very restrained and she was Oscar-nominated for it. And, Rock gives a very earnest try in his performance. In the commentary of this film, they mention that "Written on the Wind," another Hunter/Sirk film, is regarded as the most overblown film of theirs, but I think this has to be the second. Then, there's the philosophy of the kind doctor, in helping his patients and asking nothing in return for it and to keep it secret. While this is basically a Christian attitude that should be more prevalent today, it doesn't come across as real or genuine here; instead it comes across as forced and hokey. Otto Kruger is a believer of it and was a good friend of the deceased, and thought he was a wonderful man. And, character actress Agnes Moorehead's presence gives the film a little more credence. With all these comments thrown in, where are we now? I felt overall that the film was artificial and manipulative and therefore I was not emotionally invested in the characters; in consequence I don't think it's the great film it's purported to be. But I will give it a '7' (I think I'm being kind for doing so) for good actors on the whole who weren't given a very credible story for the viewers to accept.