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

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

preppy-3 Paul Lukas (in an Oscar-winning performance) plays a German freedom fighter. He flees Europe to America with his wife (Bette Davis) to live with Davis' mother. At her house he meets a nasty Romanian count (George Coulouris) who is pro-Nazi...and begins to discover that Lukas is a freedom fighter.Based on a play written by Lillian Hellman this is well-done but ultimately doesn't work. People don't talk here--they give speeches. It gets annoying. Lukas and Lucile Watson give great performances but Coulouris and (surprisingly) Davis give terrible ones. It also moves slowly and their three kids are incredibly terrible. Even THEY stand around giving speeches. Not a bad movie but an underwhelming one.

JohnHowardReid The stage play opened on Broadway in April 1941 and closed after 378 perfor¬mances on 21 February 1942. It starred Paul Lukas, Mady Christians and Lucile Watson. Here's where I and contemporary critics part company. Watch on the Rhine undoubtedly had an effective message for early 1940's America, but that message is now way out of date. In any event, nothing can disguise the play's many obvious shortcomings: Instant information preaching from characters who are no more than walking puppets, mouthing pretentious platitudes; situations that are pure soap opera; and, above all, dullness. The only piece of action in the entire play (and the film) occurs offstage. In this movie version, no attempt whatever is made to handle the proceedings cinematically. Herman Shumlin's direction is incredibly old-fashioned, with the players studiously hitting their marks and rattling off their lines. The groupings are stage groupings, with the actors standing around, stock still, while waiting for their cues to bring them to life. In my opinion, Lukas did not deserve his Academy Award (which should have gone to Bogart for Casablanca), but Lucile Watson should have defeated Katina Paxinou. Only Miss Watson (who admittedly has the most interesting character and dialogue) can fully overcome the play's dated propaganda, though George Coulouris makes a good stab at the impossible role in which he is miscast (he is able to convey the seedier aspects of de Brancovis effectively, but misses out on the charm). Donald Woods is ridiculously gauche (though few players would have fared better with such a part). Davis and Fitzgerald act in the somewhat overblown style then fashionable on the contemporary stage.

Tad Pole . . . notes Fanny Farrelly, long-widowed survivor of a U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice. She's just heard a house guest murdered in her garage, and provided a getaway car to the killer. With sons-in-law like that, who needs flower blossoms? Her young grandchildren remain upstairs, plotting their own future lives of violence. However, Fanny's biggest concern is that her good silver not be scratched. After all, house guests are a dime a dozen, but they may not make that pattern any more. WATCH ON THE RHINE went from Broadway to America's big screens in 1943, and something apparently got lost in the transition. There's neither a "watch" nor a "Rhine" in this film, but there is some pretty good acting (including the killer "Pops" Muller--who sort of combines Baron Von Trapp from THE SOUND OF MUSIC with Hannibal Lecter--for which Paul Lukas won an Oscar). WATCH ON THE RHINE came out when many Nazi sympathizers still sat in the U.S. Congress. That's why a character has to be so apologetic about killing Nazi sympathizers on screen. Evidentally, not enough films apologized to this extent, as Congress mounted a full scale assault on Tinsel Town a few years later.

MiloMindbender All the dialog in this movie is written as if it were a sermon. Not only is the movie too preachy, but the acting is either too stiff (the children) or too hysterical (Bette Davis, in one of her weaker performances). Another weakness of the movie is that all the dialog revolves around generalities rather than specifics. Fascism and Nazis are bad! Maybe in 1943 this was groundbreaking, but today the simplemindedness of the writing makes this a story of caricatures, rather than a story of real people. The plot of the movie could have survived if this had been filmed as a film noir with unknowns in the leads instead of a melodrama for actors pining to win an Oscar.