Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

utgard14 Pedestrian Revolutionary War drama with a miscast Cary Grant as a young Virginian stirred to rebellion while falling in love with Loyalist Martha Scott. There's some interesting stuff here, as others have noted. The movie is a little more nuanced about the war and the relationship between the Americans and the Brits than the average movie of its type back then. This was probably influenced by the current world events of the time this was made, when Americans were being sold on solidarity with our British cousins. The location shooting at Colonial Williamsburg is certainly a plus. However the movie drags on way too long for such a straightforward plot. Also Grant's role doesn't really play to his strengths. The rest of the cast is decent, with Richard Carlson playing a likable Thomas Jefferson and Cedric Hardwicke being Cedric Hardwicke, which is always great to watch. A young Peter Cushing has an uncredited bit role as well. It's not a bad movie, just a little dull and overlong. Obviously Cary Grant completists will need to see it and maybe Revolutionary War buffs might like it, too.

vincentlynch-moonoi I like to think of this film as Cary Grant forgetting the Cary Grant he was turning himself into...and just acting. Beginning with "Topper", he was developing the Cary Grant persona, and it showed up in 8 films before this one. But here, he doesn't play himself at all. He plays the character Matt Howard.I'm surprised when I see what a low rating this film gets by IMDb reviewers. I think the reason, perhaps, is that if you are expecting the suave and sophisticated Cary Grant, well, you're going to be disappointed. Instead, Grant portrays a rather "backwoods" oaf, who does mature as time passes.My main gripe about the film is that it takes place in Virginia (where I lived for over two decades), but many of the exterior shots were clearly photographed in the American west (where I now live) -- Santa Cruz, to be specific. Sort of like in the movie I watched last week that included all those mountains...in Florida. A minor point, perhaps, but nevertheless annoying as heck.On the other hand, a number of segments were filmed in Williamsburg, not long after it had been restored. Bravo for the film company! This is a powerful film, and overall it does a pretty good job of telling its story within accurate history of the American Revolution.Grant does somewhat overplay his role...but I assume that to be the fault of the director, Frank Lloyd. On the other hand, Martha Scott is magnificent as the wife. It was not until this evening that I realized she also played the mother in "Ben-Hur", a performance I have always admired. Sir Cedric Hardwicke is also excellent as the embittered pro-British father of Martha Scott. Other roles are also played well, though none of the supporting actors stands out, except for Richard Carlson, who does a nice turn as Thomas Jefferson.I, too, prefer the suave sophisticated Cary Grant, so this film will not make it to my DVD shelf. But, I've watched it several times on TCM, and probably will again. It's that good.

Rangerick-1 When I first started to play this, I was afraid I had erred. The acting seemed second-rate and rather silly. But I realized we hadn't seen the main actors, yet. And even when they came on, they hit their stride later in the movie.The funny thing for me was that the best performances often came from the child actors. Buster Phelps as the young Thomas Jefferson was especially good. The adult Jefferson was good in general, but did not hold a candle to the portrayal in the HBO John Adams series.Cary Grant is fun to watch. His accent never quite sounds as rough as it should, but his gruff mannerisms make him convincing enough, so long as you're willing to suspend disbelief.The best element for me was how Cary Grant's character was developed in relation to his family.

LadyWesley What a disappointment! I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake. And poor, dull Martha Scott -- who could believe that she inspired such love and devotion after one meeting. Personally, I could have done without quite so much "Tom" Jefferson.The plot was simplistic; the dialog mundane. I couldn't take it for the entire two hours.