Sexyloutak
Absolutely the worst movie.
Nessieldwi
Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.
Fatma Suarez
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
calvinnme
... and by prescient when it concerns the next war, really, the only thing they got close to right was the date. In 1933, when Hitler was still considered just a buffoonish little man, this film predicts 1940 as the date of the next world conflict. They were only off by one year, so really not bad on the timing predictions.The film begins with a real precode moment - a young flyer (Robert Young as Geoffrey Aiken) and a nurse (Diana Wynyard as Laura) are in the process of dressing in a dimly lit room, obviously after a session of love making. They are in love, but Geoffrey dies after his very first mission, before they can marry. Laura is pregnant, a fact discerned by Edward Seward (Lewis Stone). Edward has been tenaciously pursuing Laura up to this point. He knows she loves someone else, but after Geoffrey's death proposes marriage again to avoid scandal for Laura and her child, and be there to take care of her. She agrees. Geoffrey's son is born, and WWI ends.The film picks up again in 1940, with Edward now Secretary of State, and the Seward marriage may not be a passionate one, but it does seem to be at least tender and loving. Laura's son (Philips Holmes as Bob) has grown up into a handsome young man who has already started to make a name for himself in the field of chemistry. This is where the trouble begins, and where the film gets the next world conflict wrong.The film paints the next conflict - that of 1940 - as one in which all the countries of Europe and part of Asia have united into one country, and one that starts just as WWI began - with an assassination. It's all about patriotic posturing and defending one's honor and not about American interests being encroached upon. Maybe the advice given by the pacifists in this film might have worked in WWI, in which decades and even centuries of pointless bickering erupted into one pointless conflict, but as we all know, just refusing to fight would not have worked against Hitler or Japan.There are several interesting pieces of futuristic technology including a video phone used by Secretary of State Seward when talking to Laura's now grown son. Yet when war erupts it is the old-style WWI prop planes that are being flown. I'd recommend this as an offbeat kind of film, well done and well acted. Also, it is probably one of Philips Holmes' best roles and rather eery when you realize he would die nine years later in a mid-air collision while serving during the actual WWII. I just think this film is more about how people looked back on how WWI might have been prevented versus being helpful on how to prevent WWII. But then we all have the gift of hindsight.
max843
Quite amazing in its prophetic way. And how did they conceive of a telephone with a screen showing the person with whom you are speaking - back in 1933? Did they really believe we would have that by 1940? I thought I was seeing things.Ah, if only everyone could have taken this movie's message to heart between the two wars. I lost two cousins in WWI; my aunt lost all five of the fellows she dated in high school in Quebec. Her brother who did return was forever changed - he and his pal had taken a German officer into custody who was showing them his timepiece. Suddenly the officer pulled a small handgun and shot dead my great-uncle's friend. The family barely recognised Uncle Russell on his return.These stories continue today - never ending.Diana Wynyard is quite impressive. TCM showed three of her performances back-to-back this morning. Excellent casting. Read Ms Wynyard's bio on IMDb and found due to her death I just missed seeing her in 1964 in Ibsen's "The Master Builder" with Laurence Olivier when the National Theatre Company came to Oxford.
MartinHafer
During the 1930s, quite a few antiwar films were made. Considering how wasteful and unnecessary WWI was, it's no surprise that these films flourished. The problem, however, is that while the films were absolutely right about the pointlessness of wars like the First World War, they also didn't take into account that there sometimes are wars that need fighting. After all, Hitler was truly evil.While many of these idealistic films are true classics (such as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, J'ACCUSE (the remake), GRANDE ILLUSION, WESTFRONT 1918), some, like MEN MUST FIGHT are not. Now it is very thought-provoking and unique--and it certainly gets points for that. Unfortunately, the film also comes off as a bit preachy, morally ambivalent as well as quite dated. But it does try.The film begins with a nurse (Diana Wynyard) and a pilot (Robert Young) having a tryst in a rented room (after all, this is a Pre-Code film--where the moral values of the late 30s and into the 40s were NOT at all evident in many Hollywood films). Unfortunately, he is soon killed and she is pregnant. Nice guy Lewis Stone marries her knowing this and she vows to raise the child as a pacifist.For a while, Stone seems happy raising this boy this way. After all, he becomes Secretary of State and his role is as a peacemaker. Unfortunately, though, when war threatens with the fictional country of Eurasia, he joins lockstep in the American war effort and expects this pacifist son to do the same. Well, the son doesn't and the mother spends much of the film heading a national pacifist movement. Naturally, this leads to conflict and chaos within the family.The problem is that the film was awfully hard to believe sci-fi. While it was cool watching everyone talking on videophones in the future year 1940, the film doesn't seem to make a good case for pacifism or going to war. Perhaps if the acting had been a bit better and less earnest AND the film not been so morally ambiguous it would have succeeded. Instead, you have no idea why the war occurs, who is at fault, what is at stake or the events leading to this conflict. As a result, it's quite watchable but also not a necessary film to watch.
David Atfield
This brilliant film deserves to be re-discovered. Made in 1933 it predicts a world war in 1940, and even shows a catastrophic air-raid on a major city (in this case New York, but it certainly echoes the destruction soon to be unleashed on London, Berlin etc). The film carefully presents the pacifist and nationalist arguments in an amazingly contemporary way, embodying the argument in the character of a young pacifist man who must decide whether to fight or not. The irony that the actor playing this part, Phillips Holmes, was later to die in the real World War 2, adds to the power of this remarkable film. Diana Wynyard is extraordinary as his mother - indeed the strength of the female characters is one of the film's greatest achievements - few people will not applaud the sentiments of the final scene. Great futuristic design too - including televisions and video telephones. It is very sad to see this film now, knowing that the warning it gave to the world went unheeded. I urge you to watch it. I imagine that the reason it is so little known today is that MGM found its anti-war themes embarrassing when they found themselves having to support the war effort, and buried it in the vaults. Now it should be seen to warn others not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
