Hellen
I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
VividSimon
Simply Perfect
Limerculer
A waste of 90 minutes of my life
drjgardner
When you consider that the film was made in 1932 it is certainly impressive, especially with the intermittent montages to show the passage of time.I'm a big fan of Ann Harding and this is one of her best films ("It Happened on 5th Ave" and "Magnificent Yankee" are my favorites). And you can never go wrong with Edna May Oliver and Guy Kibbee, although perhaps they lay it on a little strong in this one.I've never been a fan of Richard Dix. I thought he was wooden. But in this film he ages 60 years and the elder Dix does a fine job. FWIW he has a few scenes with himself as a young man, and he appears to be mocking his own acting there as the young man. So I gained a new appreciation for him as an actor.Another reason to watch the film is the director, Wild Bill Wellman, known for films like "Wings" (1927), "Public Enemy" (1931), "A Star is Born" (1937), "The Ox Bow Incident" (1943), "The Story of GI Joe" (1945), and "The High and the Mighty" (1954) among many others.Seen in the context of 1932, with Herbert Hoover in the White House, the economy still slipping, banks continuing to fail, etc. this is one brave film.
dbdumonteil
Not only Richard Dix plays the banker from youth to old age ,but he also portrays his grandson and the scene in which "they" are together is fascinating."The conquerors is a fascinating saga:although rather short,it's so compact we have the strange feeling of having watched a hours + work.remarkable sequences (and ****SpOILERS)-the death of the young boy and the old doc: avoiding any trick of the tearjerkers ,Wellman shows the mother picking up the toys on the bedroom floor and putting them into the chest ;she and her husband close the chest :that's all but it's enough to make us feel their despair.-The scene in which the clients ask for their money which predates that of Frank Capra 's 'it's a wonderful life" by more than 10 years; -The birth of the grandson while at the very same moment,the father takes his own life.-The old banker talking to the portrait of his late wife.William Wellman ,like his equal Frank Borzague ,shows an infinite sympathy for his characters;it shows in such works as this one,but also in "wild boys of the road" "heroes for sale" or "the ox -bow incident'
MartinHafer
When I first started watching this film I thought it was going to just be a rehash of CIMARRON. After all, just two years earlier Richard Dix starred in this Oscar winning film and now that he was back in an epic Western again, I just assumed it was going to be pretty much the same thing. However, despite some similarities, THE CONQUERORS turned out to be a good film in its own right. Instead of being like CIMARRON, the film turned out to be a lot more like CAVALCADE--an Oscar winning film that was to appear a year after THE CONQUERORS. Like CAVALCADE, the film follows two families through roughly the same time period--showing their many ups and downs--deaths, war as well as great wealth. The biggest difference being that CAVALCADE was set in Britain and THE CONQUERORS was set in the American West.The film begins with Richard Dix and Ann Harding wanting to get married. However, Harding's father refuses to allow the marriage to Dix--after all, Harding's family is very wealthy and Dix has few prospects. However, when the stock market crashes and Harding's family is ruined, they are able to marry and travel westward. On the way, in Nebraska, Dix is nearly killed by bandits and they end up making their home in a town on the prairie.The rest of the film consists of the families many ups and downs. Despite many hard knocks, the family's spirit is never crushed and they persevere. In this sense, they are archetypes of the new American spirit and are meant to show the audience that despite many problems, there is light at the end of the tunnel--an obvious metaphor for the Depression. In other words, things may now look bleak in 1932, but like this family we will make it.The bleakest periods were surprisingly moving and very, very vivid. In fact, because the film was made during the so-called "Pre-Code" era, the intensity of some of the violence was pretty surprising. For example, there is an impromptu mass hanging that is among the most realistic I have ever seen, a train that plows through two people and a suicide! Yet, despite all this, the family manages to carry on and thrive.The acting was generally very good and the script kept my interest throughout--providing a nice history lesson and homage to the pioneering spirit. Richard Dix was as solid as ever and both Edna May Oliver and Guy Kibbee provide lots of color and laughs in supporting roles. The only negatives were Ann Harding's rather listless performance and the movie using a dumb cliché by having Dix play both the patriarch of the family AND his grandson! This was just silly and only in movies would you see this sort of cliché--much like Patty Duke playing identical cousins! Overall, though, there is very little not to like about this film.
jacobaustin
The last thirty minutes of this film have a fascinating cinematic depiction of the 1929 stock market crash. Check it out.Edna May Oliver is a gem. The acting style is super theatrical; so much so that it's almost post modern, actors commenting on acting on stage. It would be interesting to remake this picture now with a film within a film screenplay, the actors of that period moving in and out of character.Take a look with your nostalgic eyeballs in your head and you'll enjoy this old RKO picture.
