Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Micitype Pretty Good

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Jesse L. Lasky. Copyright 13 May 1944 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Hollywood: 3 May 1944. U.S. release: 6 May 1944. Australian release: 10 January 1946 (sic). 11, 928 feet. 132 minutes.SYNOPSIS: The life and careers of Samuel Langhorne Clemens from his birth in Florida, Mo., on 30 November 1835 to his death in Elmira, N.Y., on 21 April 1910.NOTES: Nominated for Academy Awards for Art Direction (black and white) (lost to Gaslight); Music Scoring of a Drama or Comedy (lost to Steiner's own Since You Went Away); Special Effects for which oddly neither Butler nor Linden were nominated. Instead the nominees were Paul Detlefsen and John Crouse for the photography, Nathan Levinson for the sound. (Lost to Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo).COMMENT: Produced on a remarkably lavish scale, this long film traces Twain's career from his birth in 1835 to his death in 1910. This is not the usual reverent, inaccurate Hollywood hodgepodge. The lively, witty script deals first with Twain's boyhood in the Mississippi of Tom Sawyer. The 12-year-old Clemens is well played by Jackie Brown. After glimpsing Twain as an apprentice printer to his brother Orion (played by Russell Gleason), we are plunged into an exciting section dealing with Twain's experiences as a river pilot, based on "Life on the Mississippi". After this, Twain turns to prospecting with Alan Hale and we are introduced to the celebrated jumping frog. I always imagined this incident would defy screen adaptation, but the writers and the director have not only succeeded in doing the impossible, they have turned it into sparkling entertainment. Later, Twain goes on lecture tours and, as they are presented in this film, it is not difficult to imagine why Twain was so popular. He was the Bob Hope of his era - save that he wrote his own material and his jokes are still so fresh they even have present-day audiences convulsed with laughter. Of course, a great deal of the film's success is due to the splendid playing of Fredric March and the very able supporting cast. The sets are also most impressive, ranging from the plush gambling saloon of the "Queen of Dixie" to an accurate reproduction of the Great Hall at Sydney University, and the number of extras is phenomenal. Max Steiner's music score is very effective, particularly in the riverboat-in-the-fog sequence where it is quite out of character with the composer's usual approach - and all the better for this innovation! The fine photography is the work of Sol Polito.

thesadsach I became a writer because of this movie. Frederick March out twains Twain. I mean, he's got twain coming out of his pores, this guy. The part with the frog - I'm STILL laughing. And the comet! How did Frederick March ever come up with something like that! Priceless! When I was watching this movie, one thought kept running through my mind: John Wilkes Booth. Am I right here? Frederick March - as Twain - could just as easily been John Wilkes Booth! Or Edgar Allen Poe. He could have been him, too. Think about it: you've got Frederick March in his Twain drag, starring in three movies simultaneously! He's going from set to set, changing nothing but the character - Twain, to Poe, to Booth, back to Twain, et cetera, ad infinitum! Now for the spoiler - those of you who haven't seen this film may want to stop here - for the rest of you: Twain dies at the end. I highly recommend this movie, but with one caveat: you may want to send the kiddies to bed for this one - the death scenes might be a little too much for them.

gagrice In spite of the discrepancies it was a fine movie. I have read most of the biographical works and this gives a wonderful picture of who Mark Twain really is. It captures his love of his wife & family very nicely. I recommend it to all that enjoy Mark Twain. The acting was better than average for that period in movie making.

Kent Rasmussen This film is fun; it has some fine performances (I especially like Frederic March's lecture scenes) and a great Max Steiner score. However, a faithful biography of Mark Twain it is not. Apart from the fact that the script twists and distorts events in Mark Twain's life nearly out of recognition, it presents a false portrayal of him as a sentimental sap suffering from arrested development who probably wouldn't have written a word without his wife's persistent prodding.Some examples of egregious distortions of fact:* Mark Twain did not go west to get rich so he could marry Livy Clemens (he never even heard of her until after leaving the West)* his jumping frog story did not alleviate the nation's pains during the Civil War (it wasn't published until after the war ended)* he didn't leave Nevada to fight for the Confederacy when the war started (he went to Nevada partly to get away from the war after it started)* publishing U. S. Grant's memoirs didn't cause his bankruptcy (that publication was a huge success; his bankruptcy came 7 years later)* when he went on his round-the-world lecture tour, he didn't leave his wife behind not knowing she was gravely ill (she and a daughter went with him; her health was fine at that time)* his wife didn't make him promise to go to England to accept an Oxford degree (she died three years before he got the invitation)According a friend of Mark Twain's daughter, Clara Clemens Gabrilowitsch, Clara was not allowed to set foot on the film's sets while it was being made, for fear she would confuse the cast and crew with the truth.For a more detailed dissection of the film, see my book, MARK TWAIN A TO Z, which compares the episodes of the film with the real events in Mark Twain's life. And for a film that presents a more honest portrait of Mark Twain, see the 1985 claymation feature of the same title: THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN.Meanwhile, there is a simple test you can make while watching the film: Prepare a list of Mark Twain's books in the order in which they were published. As you watch the film, pay attention each scene mentioning a new Mark Twain book, give it a sequential number, and write that number next to the title in your list. When the film is over, compare your numbers to the sequence in which Mark Twain actually wrote the books. If you want to make the test even more fun, try keeping track of the years in which the books appear in the film. What you'll end up with is a hopeless mishmash, leaving you uncertain whether the film follows Mark Twain's life forward or backward.Is it necessary for a film biography to get all all its facts correct? Probably not. But is it excusable for a film get almost all its facts wrong?Trivia note: An early scene shows the bedroom in which Mark Twain was born. Study the size of the room carefully. Then, when the film cuts to an outside view of the house (which looks authentic, by the way), ask yourself if it's physically possible for the bedroom to fit inside that house--even if it's the only room in the house.You can apply the same test to the steamboat in which Mark Twain later appears: Is it possible that the steamboat you see is big enough to contain the gaming room in which Mark Twain first appears?As I said, it's a fun movie in many ways ... but don't make the mistake of thinking that it has much to do with Mark Twain.