Maverick1962
Okt. 2000 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen6
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Bewertungen410
Bewertung von Maverick1962
Rezensionen332
Bewertung von Maverick1962
Henry King was a great director but this story is from a bygone era that has not weathered well. An unwavering preacher played by the bland William Lundigan, marries a city girl, the feisty Susan Hayward, and transports her to the backwoods and lives amongst simple folks who are mostly godfearing like himself. He easily wins most of them over with the exception of Alexander Knox, a religious sceptic who regards religion as a controlling influence, managed by fear. Knox probably represents many more people today, seventy five years after this film was made.
For a reason that escaped me, Rory Calhoun represents a bad boy, although there is nothing in his behaviour that explains the hatred for him in the film. He loves the daughter of Gene Lockhart who just seems to dislike him but I couldn't fathom why, other than over protection of the girl, who loves Calhoun equally.
Death and depression overhang this movie for considerable periods and all in all I was glad when it ended. It's well acted but the material was so dated I find it hard to give it much credit in 2025. Nice cinematography does help a lot and the spirited Susan Hayward rarely let's an audience down. I watched it through for Hayward and Calhoun as I liked those actors.
For a reason that escaped me, Rory Calhoun represents a bad boy, although there is nothing in his behaviour that explains the hatred for him in the film. He loves the daughter of Gene Lockhart who just seems to dislike him but I couldn't fathom why, other than over protection of the girl, who loves Calhoun equally.
Death and depression overhang this movie for considerable periods and all in all I was glad when it ended. It's well acted but the material was so dated I find it hard to give it much credit in 2025. Nice cinematography does help a lot and the spirited Susan Hayward rarely let's an audience down. I watched it through for Hayward and Calhoun as I liked those actors.
I've seen many films of both William Holden and Deborah Kerr and I'll watch all I can find. The Proud and the Profane is far from their best considering this was made around the same time as The Bridge On The River Kwai (Holden) and The King And I ((Kerr). Nevertheless, I found it somewhat of a relief compared to most modern films that have lost the ability to start at the beginning and tell a reasonably good story through to the end.
The setting is the war in the Pacific 1943, and Kerr, a war widow, joins the Red Cross to give aid to injured soldiers although she admits to her boss, the wonderful character actress Thelma Ritter, she's a bit squeamish.
She knuckles down however and soon meets a lecherous colonel played by Holden, who lies continuously to get her into bed. The Hays Code was still dominant in 1956 when this was made so we don't see more than hugs and kisses.
These three actors, Holden, Kerr and Ritter are so good they held my attention completely although there are some strong supporting actors too. The direction by George Seaton is just steady and capable, but with these actors he was blessed.
It's a fairly straight forward drama, Kerr the good, decent widow is seduced by Holden through a string of lies. One thing leads to another until we reach a satisfactory conclusion but not before various dramas occur to hold our interest.
The film was nominated for two Oscars so it's not to be dismissed. In black and white, but wide screen.
The setting is the war in the Pacific 1943, and Kerr, a war widow, joins the Red Cross to give aid to injured soldiers although she admits to her boss, the wonderful character actress Thelma Ritter, she's a bit squeamish.
She knuckles down however and soon meets a lecherous colonel played by Holden, who lies continuously to get her into bed. The Hays Code was still dominant in 1956 when this was made so we don't see more than hugs and kisses.
These three actors, Holden, Kerr and Ritter are so good they held my attention completely although there are some strong supporting actors too. The direction by George Seaton is just steady and capable, but with these actors he was blessed.
It's a fairly straight forward drama, Kerr the good, decent widow is seduced by Holden through a string of lies. One thing leads to another until we reach a satisfactory conclusion but not before various dramas occur to hold our interest.
The film was nominated for two Oscars so it's not to be dismissed. In black and white, but wide screen.
Some films I don't want to end and others like We Live In Time I can't wait for it to finish. I know it was a box office hit and that was a surprise to discover when I checked the returns. I really don't enjoy realistic films that concentrate solely on suffering but obviously some people do. I assumed this was aimed at women but again, surprised it was written and directed by men.
Florence Pugh is a chef who developed ovarian cancer but us determined to win a top prize so that when she's dead, her child can look back and see that she achieved something. Being her mum who loves her apparently isn't enough.
Dad, played by Andrew Garfield isn't too sure about that either. Still, there we have the story.
The film is choppy in it's handling of the narrative, jumping backwards and forwards in time which doesn't add anything and is at times confusing. It's only really detectable by Florence's changing wigs. I didn't feel any real chemistry between the two leads. They looked to me like they went to work to make a movie, knew there lines and said them. Mr Garfield seemed far too polite to Florence throughout apart from one slanging match towards the end. He looked like he was trying too hard to make a dull story interesting.
We Live In Time is just dreary, not very interesting and much like a fly on the wall documentary for most of it. You can watch similar things on reality tv shows most evenings. I usually like the two leads but this was just depressing and soulless.
Florence Pugh is a chef who developed ovarian cancer but us determined to win a top prize so that when she's dead, her child can look back and see that she achieved something. Being her mum who loves her apparently isn't enough.
Dad, played by Andrew Garfield isn't too sure about that either. Still, there we have the story.
The film is choppy in it's handling of the narrative, jumping backwards and forwards in time which doesn't add anything and is at times confusing. It's only really detectable by Florence's changing wigs. I didn't feel any real chemistry between the two leads. They looked to me like they went to work to make a movie, knew there lines and said them. Mr Garfield seemed far too polite to Florence throughout apart from one slanging match towards the end. He looked like he was trying too hard to make a dull story interesting.
We Live In Time is just dreary, not very interesting and much like a fly on the wall documentary for most of it. You can watch similar things on reality tv shows most evenings. I usually like the two leads but this was just depressing and soulless.
Kürzlich durchgeführte Umfragen
31 Gesamtzahl der durchgeführten Umfragen