Benedito Dias Rodrigues
A true gem from the thirties,this marvelous picture about a endless hatred between two families around high mountains of Virginia,an unsolved matter told in this famous movie color,the trio Fonda,Macmurray and Syilvia Sidney are a sub plot of a love triangle,the fine actor Nigel Bruce shines like always as a remarkable funny character,but who stolen the show was the little boy Spanky as a smart one,the both feuds in clash here even know when it started and how it will end neither, terrible things gonna happen,the coal extracted of these mountains will be a triggerering event to restart such animosities again, the resoundind final scenes should be a subject matter of cinema's study for forthcoming generations of filmakers, TheTrail of Lodesome Pine was and still has a nostalgic charming even after almost a century!!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.5
Willis Rohrback
John Fox Jr.'s novel "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine" was an enormous best seller in the early years of the 20th Century and was made into a movie several times, but I think this was the last version, way back in 1936. The fact that it was made 4 times (I believe) within a little over 25 years of the book's publishing date and hasn't been redone in the almost 80 years since would seem to indicate that the story is dated. Also, that this once very popular novel is not read anymore.Well, actually, I read it and I think it still holds up well. It's an affecting piece of fiction, very well written, but there's one big problem with it for modern audiences. The main relationship in the story is a close friendship between a grown up man and a young hillbilly girl. I'm not quite sure what the girl's age is at the beginning of the story, but I'm guessing it's around 12 years old. You could tell such a story innocently in 1908, but you can't now. It would simply be impossible. And you couldn't film it as it's written in the book. In the book, the relationship is completely innocent, without a hint of anything sinister, but modern audiences would read a sinister motive behind every action of the story's hero.The film, however, is actually nothing like the book. The filmmakers take the names of the characters and the setting and situation of the book and make a completely different story out of it. I'm sure this is highly irritating to those who love the book (if anyone still does), but it doesn't ruin the movie, at least not for me. Maybe because I saw the movie before I read the book. I look at them as two completely different entities that happen to share superficial similarities.In the film, the girl is played by Sylvia Sidney, who is certifiably an adult from the beginning. This not only changes the story, but eliminates anything sinister modern audiences might find in her friendship, and later romance, with the hero, played by Fred MacMurray. Both these roles would seem oddly cast. Sylvia Sidney, a native of the Bronx, is hard to imagine as anything other than the city girl, which she usually played, in films like "Dead End" or "Street Scene" or City Streets". Yet ignoring what you know of her usual roles, and your expectations based on this knowledge, she does a good job in the part. Same goes with MacMurray. This was early in his career, before he had become known as a light comedian and occasional heel. His character actually has a lot less to do in the movie than in the book, and MacMurray does well with what he has.I'm not a Henry Fonda fan, finding him often preachy & whiny, but as this was early in his career, before he made films a political platform, I thought he did very well with his part, and made what was a secondary character in the book really the male lead in the picture. But his character is nothing like the same-named character in the book, who is younger, meaner, ignorant, inarticulate— almost a villain. The supporting cast was very good. Robert Barrat, one of my favorite character actors, who almost always had very small parts but always made them pay off, is terrific in a couple of short scenes. Same goes with Alan Baxter. Spanky, from Our Gang, has a big part in the picture, and it's peculiar to see him playing serious, but he pulls it off OK. Also, from the Our Gang angle, I could swear one of the other hillbilly kids is Mary Ann Jackson. She is in a couple of very brief shots and you'll miss her if you don't look quick. She is not listed in the cast, nor is this film listed in her filmography. if it's not her, it's a girl who looks exactly like her and there couldn't be two faces like that! Also must give a mention to famous vaudevillian Fred Stone as head of one of the feuding hillbilly clans. Stone, on stage, was known as a comedian and eccentric dancer, but in pictures he seemed always cast, as in this film, as a put-upon old man carrying heavy burdens and on the edge of tragedy (for example, Alice Adams). He acts his part well and even gets to do a stunt with a wagon wheel that called on his old time dexterity as a physical comedian.It's sentimental, but without being hokey. The color is fantastic for what was really an experimental film. I recommend it, but don't expect it to be anything like the book.
kenjha
Based on a celebrated novel, this Western focuses on a love triangle against the backdrop of feuding families. This has the historic distinction of being the first Technicolor film shot outdoors. It looks great. Unfortunately, the script is weak and preachy and the acting is uneven. Hathaway would go on to make some fine films but here the pacing is lethargic and, despite the good cast, much of the acting is over-the-top. Sidney and Bondi are especially guilty of over emoting. Fonda's is a one-note performance. MacMurray does OK. McFarland is cute as Sidney's little brother. Fonda and Sidney would fare better the following year in Fritz Lang's "You Only Live Once."
