CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Beanbioca
As Good As It Gets
BelSports
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
JohnHowardReid
Director: WILLIAM DIETERLE. Screenplay and original Story: Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings. Uncredited script contributor: Edward Chodorov. Photography: Tony Gaudio. Film editor: Ralph Dawson. Art director: Robert M. Haas. Costumes: Milo Anderson. Make-up: Perc Westmore. Music composed by Heinz Roemheld and Bernhard Kaun, directed by Leo F. Forbstein. Dialogue director: Gene Lewis. Assistant director: Frank Shaw. Associate producer: Henry Blanke. Historical research: Herman Lissauer. Producer: Hal B. Wallis. Executive producer: Jack L. Warner.Copyright 31 January 1936 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. A Cosmopolitan (William Randolph Hearst) Production. New York opening at the Strand, 10 February 1936. U.S. release: 22 February 1936. U.K. release: 3 July 1936. Australian release: 20 May 1936. 85 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Chemist has a bug about germs.NOTES: Academy Award, Best Actor, Paul Muni (defeating Gary Cooper in Mr Deeds Goes To Town, Walter Huston in Dodsworth, William Powell in My Man Godfrey and Spencer Tracy in San Francisco).Academy Award, Original Story, Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings (defeating Fury, The Great Ziegfeld, San Francisco and Three Smart Girls).Academy Award, Screenplay, Sheridan Gibney and Pierre Collings (defeating After the Thin Man, Dodsworth, Mr Deeds Goes To Town and My Man Godfrey). Also nominated for Best Picture (The Great Ziegfeld). Number 6 in the annual poll of U.S. film critics conducted by The Film Daily. Number 2 (after Mr Deeds Goes To Town) on the National Board of Review's 1936 list of Best American Pictures.Negative cost: a paltry $260,000. Shot in 5 weeks from mid-August to late September 1935. The subject is also treated in the French film Pasteur (1935) from writer/producer/director/star, Sacha Guitry.COMMENT: Dieterle's direction is not as impressive as his subject matter, though it has its memorable moments (the darkened laboratory as Pasteur goes to fetch his rabies vaccine and enters the door with the light behind him). Fortunately, the film itself with its exceptionally lavish production values and its grand array of character performances, is one that can be enjoyed again and again. The pace is brisk and the screenplay crystallizes Pasteur's opposition quite excitingly. I also liked the way Pasteur is shown working with a team of assistants. The film breathes authenticity. And I loved Lister's ironic comment as the crowd cheers some acrobats, "Such is fame!".
jacobs-greenwood
This true story of the French scientist's battle to establish modern medical methods is not to be missed. It features Paul Muni's Academy Award winning Best Actor performance. The strong supporting cast includes: Josephine Hutchinson as his dependable wife, Anita Louise as his daughter, Dickie Moore as a child who gets rabies, and Henry O'Neill, Porter Hall and Akim Tamiroff (among others) as doctors. The film also won both writing Oscars and was nominated for Best Picture too. Directed by William Dieterle.Pasteur is an outstanding scientist, one whose discipline and methods allow him to achieve great insights, enabling him to discover the root causes of deaths in livestock and people (e.g. germs). Unfortunately, since he is not a doctor, much of what he learns is discarded or viewed with suspicion, seemingly none of what he says is believed. However, during his struggle for credibility, he slowly wins over his former critics and is recognized today for many great accomplishments, including the discovery of several diseases, how they spread, and preventative vaccines.
vincentlynch-moonoi
Many of us see 1939 as a watershed year in American cinema. Not just because of the quality of film elements, but also because of a maturity in scripts. In a sense, I always compare films in this general period to "Gone With The Wind". And compared to GWTW and several other films of 1939, this film -- made only 3 years earlier -- seems very old-fashioned. That is not to say that it is not a good film. It is excellent.It's one of several great bio-pics of that era, and one that earned its star (Paul Muni) an Oscar, as did the screenplay. Both well deserving.I'm sure that there will be those who will point out inaccuracies in the film...liberties that the screenwriters took to make it a good story. But, from what I can see the gist of the story is accurate and makes the key point -- how daring such early scientists were, basically starting with nothing but an idea, pursing it, and developing great discoveries. It is really is rather inspirational.The cast here is superb. As I mentioned, Paul Muni received the Best Actor Oscar, and it was only right that he did. A number of the supporting actors did a terrific job as well: Josephine Hutchinson -- a much underrated actress as Marie Pasteur. Donald Woods as an associate doctor. Halliwell Hobbes as Dr. Lister. And more.A wonderful bio-pic; highly recommended...and perhaps deserving of a place on your DVD shelf.
edalweber
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.
