Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

IanIndependent This film was hopelessly miscast. Why have Americans playing Brits especially when none can master the accent? But, that is one of the reasons to watch especially as Miss Crawford often forgets, or doesn't even try to attempt to be English, in places... sometimes in mid sentence. You can also laugh at the stilted attempts at English Dialogue - "Sister, Mine". "Officer now. Navy. Now I can ask her.". "Feelings Anne. Can't change love.". There's also some clumsy scenes but this was made in 1933 so we were only just out of the silent age so some over dramatic, over egged, over acted scene's are to be expected.Yet, and despite this being a pot-boiler of a love triangle with war and Anglos-American relations as it's background, it is enjoyable for some still superb acting, the way the three main characters a loved by the camera and are give back warmth and honesty in return. Never been a big fan of Joan Crawford but she looks good and (if we forget she is supposed to be British) gives a good performance.The sort of film you watch to look at both the good and the bad of cinema at the time and it gives you plenty to talk about later. And remember Crawford and Franchot Tone met for the first time when making this film. he became her second husband two years later.

SamHardy Looks like MGM threw a lot of money and big stars at this and hoped for the best, thinking that the William Faulkner book would give it a prestige flavor. It's possible that with some major script revisions and a different cast it might have worked. But in it's current state it more resembles a train wreck that you just can't turn your head away from. With it's stars and it's director, expectations are high. Just does not deliver.My major problem with it is that 3 actors in the lead are supposed to be British. Looks like only a half-hearted effort was made by Crawford, Tone and Young to adopt an English accent. The result is some sort of hybrid that not only sounds unauthentic but succeeds in making their dialog almost impossible to understand. One curious thing is that through almost all of it's running time there is no background music. Then towards the end at an emotional high point the sound of a solo piano is heard. Being a high class production you would expect to hear the legendary MGM orchestra. The score for the solo piano is so wrong for this scene that it makes me wonder "what were they thinking?" Crawford does her best over-the-top emoting from start to finish trying desperately to breath some life into this, all for naught.Cooper gives his characteristic laconic reading. Just about right for this part. Tone is not given much chance to show what he can do here. He fools with his pipe a lot and sort of mumbles. (Pipes are a visual cue that shows the character to be British, right?)Young never was much of an actor and never seemed to rise above the level of acting here through the rest of his career. He is just plain wrong here. Maybe Howard Hawks knew early on that this one was going to be a railroad disaster and just sort of punched the clock to it's finish.Waste your time on this one if you insist but in my opinion it is NOT an undiscovered jewel.

calvinnme This film could have been great with some adequate dialogue and character development. For some reason the makers of this film seemed to believe that because three of the main characters were supposed to be British that it was necessary that they speak in incomplete sentences, usually missing nouns, and that they speak as though tranquilized. They all still sound American, they're just having half of every conversation.Bogard (Gary Cooper) is an American who takes over a British estate during World War I before the Americans enter the fray because the current residents can no longer afford it since the father is in the military at the time. The daughter, Diana (Joan Crawford) moves into one of the servant's quarters and her brother Ronnie (Franchot Tone) and their lifetime friend Claude (Robert Young) join up with the British forces and ship out to France. The development of the romance between Bogard and Diana consists (onscreen) of exactly one bike ride in which Bogard declares his love and Diana's one word sentences make her seem disinterested. However, at the end of the ride she says rather emotionlessly that she loves Bogard. The two might as well be using semaphores to communicate, the conversation is that wooden.Diana goes to France to help the war effort, with her brother and childhood sweetheart seeing action nearby. In France she gets news that Bogard is dead, although that news is incorrect. Based on that information she then makes a rash decision that she later regrets when Bogard shows up at her door.On the other hand, the action sequences, both in the air and on the sea, are extremely well done and photographed. It's just a shame when such a fine cast as this film had all have their performances put in a straight jacket. The one thing that even the director couldn't do was put a complete damper on the chemistry between Franchot Tone and Joan Crawford. This is the film where they fell in love, and their scenes together show it, even though they are playing brother and sister here.

moviefreak37 A tolerable romance/war-actioner with the stars doing their best in a boring love story.The movie comes alive only in the war scenes.The interplay between the male stars works better than the romance bit.Roscoe Karns is impressive in supporting part as Cooper's war buddy