Opiniones de usuarios

Yes, whilst investigating whether Karl is actually a doctor, the coroner definitely asks him if he's a sturgeon. Fishy faux pas besides, this is better than you might think - just about.

It is however not a good film. In addition to having a ridiculously unrealistic story, the acting is terrible. You can't blame Michael Curtiz and you can't even blame Richard Barthelmess - it's just one of those consequences of churning out films on a production line. Curtiz was one of the greats but this was one of those times where he'd just turn up at Warners at nine o'clock to find out what picture he had to direct that day. Not too much thought had gone into this, it was just his 'nine to five' job. There are however some signs that this is made by Curtiz particularly the magical flowing fluidity of the camera. He made this visually very appealing - a shame about the acting though.

Maybe it was because he couldn't believe in his character (no sane person could) but Richard Barthelmess sleepwalks his way through this. He was absolutely brilliant in HEROES FOR SALE so he certainly knew how to act but you'd never guess from this. Neither would you think that anyone else in the cast were proper actors - they all seem to want to be somewhere else.

Despite the general rubbishness of this picture, it's weirdly watchable and because it's just so absurd, it's almost enjoyable.

He's happiest while manning the plow on his Austrian farm, but brilliant student Richard Barthelmess (as Karl Brenner) goes to medical school in Munich. A naturally gifted surgeon, Mr. Barthelmess is named valedictorian of his graduating class. Unfortunately, a tragedy occurs just before Barthelmess graduates. He takes the rap for his irresponsible foster brother Norman Foster (as Stephan Brenner) after the latter gets drunk and botches an operation on a female companion. Barthelmess is later mistaken for his brother and takes his place as country doctor, after a freaky accident threatens the life of a young boy. Upon saving the kid's life, Barthelmess is offered a big job in the city. However, he must pretend to be his foster brother, which is not legal...

The long shots introducing Barthelmess' character, by director Michael Curtiz (or, possibly, Lloyd Bacon) and photographer Lee Garmes get this off to an artful start. Later, set work by Anton Grot keeps it looking good. In college, Barthelmess and foster brother Foster are amusing, with the latter successfully impersonating a perpetually partying student. We do wonder, however, how Foster was able to obtain a medical license. Raised like they were brother and sister, Barthelmess and foster sister Marian Marsh (as Lotti) are ill-suited young lovers. Veteran Lucille La Verne makes the most of the mother role. And, Nigel de Brulier is mystifying but terrific as a silent, menacing autopsy surgeon. Alas, as a story, "Alias the Doctor" is not very convincing.

***** Alias the Doctor (2/25/32) Michael Curtiz ~ Richard Barthelmess, Marian Marsh, Norman Foster, Lucille La Verne

They don't do melodramas such as this one anymore.Had Sirk seen it in the fifties,he would perhaps have thought of a remake .There's everything in this short movie (hardly more than an hour):two brothers,both students, one of them studying day after day to get his diploma,the other one wasting his time with alcohol and semi-whores .Both come from the country,but only the "bad" boy is the true son of the peasant mother who dreams of a better life for her son(s).All that follows is melodrama ,only melodrama and nothing but melodrama:the good boy unfairly thrown into jail ,imposture (but do not panic ,for good reasons)the good doctor who cures the poor for peanuts and charges the wealthy outrageously ,who is a saint in a hospital ,but who's got secrets to conceal.The only ambiguous character is the mother:does she urge his son to take his brother's name for the sake of suffering humanity or for personal ambition? Probably both.

Best scene:Barthelmess ,screaming in front of the medical board :" let me operate her!She's my mother! don't be inhuman! I'm the only one she puts her trust in!".If you hold back your tears ,you do not like melodramas.I do love them.Michael Curtiz wanted to be John M.Stahl and he pulled it off brilliantly.

The plot to "Alias the Doctor" is incredibly hard to believe...so it's important you try to suspend your sense of disbelief and just watch the film. If you do so, you'll probably enjoy the movie very much.

Karl (Richard Barthelmess) was adopted by a nice family long ago. But there is someone in the family who is a jerk--Karl's step-brother, Stephan...though Karl inexplicably loves him. The pair go off to medical school and while Karl is at the head of his class, Stephan is more interested in drinking, partying and chasing women...though he somehow manages to pass enough courses to be able to graduate along with Karl.

Ultimately, Stephan's extracurricular behavior leads to disaster. One night, just before graduation, he comes to tell Karl that he was drunk and attacked his girlfriend....injuring her badly. But instead of taking her to the hospital, he operates on her in her apartment!! Now, not surprisingly, she's getting worse and with a bad fever....and Karl goes to try to help.

The girl dies and here is where the film gets a bit stupid. Instead of letting Stephen take his medicine and go to jail, Karl says HE was the one who operated on her and he's sent to prison!! Now I understand Karl has a strong sense of family and obligation to his adopted folks, but this is ridiculous...especially since Stephen ends up drinking himself to death soon after Karl is sent to prison.

Some time passes. Karl returns home and there is an accident outside their home. A child is dying and Karl cannot help but operate on the boy...and saves the boy's life through his great skills. A famous and important doctor arrives later to check on the boy and he's so impressed by Karl's skill, he invites him to work with him...not realizing Karl is not really a doctor. Karl's mother instructs him NOT to tell...and use Stephan's identity to practice medicine.

More years pass.... Karl/Stephen is a brilliant and world famous surgeon. It's odd no one has recognized he's an imposter, isn't it?! He also has a problem with his step-sister. It seems she's fallen for Karl and wants to marry him but since Stephan and Lotti are biological siblings, marry the fake Stephen is out of the question! What's next? See the film. Rest assured...it's quite the soap opera...and things get crazier!!!

While the acting is very good and the story very interesting, it certainly does push the boundaries of common sense! Again...you CAN'T think too much about the plot...just accept it as it is. And, if you can do that, it's a very good and interesting film.

I think the film might have been better had they done two different things. First, Stephen SHOULD have operated on his girlfriend while trying to do an abortion...it would have made more sense. But apparently, even though it is a pre-code film, the studio was reticent to go there. Second, Stephen should have insisted to the police that Karl did it...instead of Karl taking the credit for the botched operation. Then Karl would go to prison after being set up by the brother. It just was tough to believe otherwise.

Overall, it's a very good film with some lovely acting....and a plot that is just hard to believe.

Richard barthelmess and norman foster are the brenner brothers. Karl is hard working, successful med student, while stephan is a loafer, and doesn't take things seriously. When stephan injures his girlfriend, and performs a procedure, karl takes the blame. Bad things happen, good things happen. More bad decisions. Not sure exactly what the lesson here is... karl keeps making wrong decisions, and has to live with those bad choices. According to the trivia section, there was more risque material (for the time period) in the original story, some of which was removed from the finished script. I get the idea that so much was removed, that the remaining story isn't as cohesive as it might have been. It's okay, but i feel like they ran out of film, or money, or time.. it ends so abruptly. We get a quick glimpse of how things turn out for karl, but we skipped a lot of steps to get there. Directed by michael curtiz. Based on the play by imre foldes. Imdb also shows uncredited direction by lloyd bacon; multiple directors could have added to the strange ending.

This could be used in a film class to demonstrate how to make a perfect one-hour movie. All the elements combine brilliantly:

• The expressionistic design of Anton Grot

• The "telling" visual style of directors Michael Curtiz and Lloyd Bacon. The final operation alone is as perfectly shot as the shower scene in "Psycho."

• The acting. Richard Barthelmess shows why he was the best pre-Code actor; Lucile LaVerne is a revelation to me; and everyone else in smaller parts does a bang-up job.

Also interesting as a display of state-of-the-art medicine in the early 1930's.

I love Lucille La Verne. She supplied the voice for the Evil Queen in the animated Disney film, "Snow White". She is always a delight to see. And this time, she gets to play a loving mother and even dresses up in nice clothes and looks elegant as her son does well in business.

This film is on my list of a good classic because it made me think. The film deals with a moral dilemma. And it makes you the judge of what should be done and what happens after the film ends.

Richard Barthelmess is an adopted son to La Verne. Her real son and he are going to medical school. He is also engaged to Marian Marsh. Her real son gets into trouble and performs surgery on a girl while he is drunk and does not have his license yet. To protect him, Barthelmess takes the blame saying it was him and not his brother because he knows how much his adopted mother wanted her son to be a doctor. It is her dream and she put them both through school even though she is poor.

The girl who was operated on dies and Barthelmess is banned from a license and even has to go to jail for several years.

When Barthelmess has served his time in jail, he comes home to find out his adopted brother has now died. Before dying, he tells his mother and sister the truth. Before he can try to clear his name, there is an emergency and he is forced to operate on a little boy pretending to be his "licensed" brother.

La Verne sees this as a way to have her dream of a son who is a successful doctor. He becomes a huge success and does most of his work without charging the poor and he saves many lives. But Marion Marsh still longs to be with Barthelmess and when they try to meet they realize, to the outside world, it will be looked on as incest.

There is a great scene between La Verne and Marsh where the mother is begging Marsh to give him up to help keep the charade going. But Marsh declares she is going to go to him and live with him in sin - not married and not caring if it appears as incest.

At some point in the film, all the truth must come out. When it does, the viewer is asked what should happen? Barthelmess is a successful and very talented surgeon. He has saved thousands of lives including those who could never afford a surgeon. But he is unlicensed and living a lie.

Nothing La Verne or Barthelmess have done has been done out of malice. They really wanted "the best" for all around them, but at what price? Are deception and lies justified if "good" is the result?

The movie ends very quickly and stops. At first, I thought this was an editing mistake, but now I feel it was done to leave the end up to me. It was abrupt in order to put the moral question in my hands.

So, this film will present you a morality play. It will, or should, make you think. Do "two wrongs make a right"?

Check out this Classy Classic and let me know how you judge what happens after the film ends.