Commentaires des utilisateurs

Sometimes melodramatic but otherwise engaging adaptation of popular novel tracks the lives of a group of friends in a small town from childhood to adulthood, as they cope with life's challenges. There are good performances from Cummings as an earnest fellow who wants to become a doctor, Field as a mysterious young woman he loves, Rains as her domineering father, Reagan, in his finest role, as Cummings' best friend, and the radiant Sheridan as the former tomboy from the wrong side of the tracks who loves Reagan. Well directed by Wood, helped by the top-notch cinematography (Howe) and score (Korngold). It beautifully captures the feel of a small town around the turn of the 20th century.

The absolute best picture that Ronald Reagan ever made. Why wasn't he given better film roles after his impressive performance as Drake McHugh? Ditto for Bob Cummings. So sad to realize seeing both of them in the scenes of this picture, young and charming. Unfortunately, both fell victim to Alzheimer's Disease.

The picture is first rate. 1942 seemed to be a big year that Hollywood spoke about mental illness. Claude Rains also starred in "Now, Voyager" that dealt with Bette Davis's breakdown following a regimented life with a tormenting mother.

"Kings Row" deals with schizophrenia. Betty Field did an outstanding job as the doomed Cassie.

The film also deals with a sadistic surgeon played by Charles Coburn, in a terrific brief dramatic performance. As his wife, Judith Anderson was at her usual eerie self.

There are so many themes in this film. We see the class differences among Drake, Dr. Mitchell (Cummings) and in a terrific performance, Ann Sheridan as a girl from the wrong side of the tracks that shows her devotion to Drake when he has a series of unbelievable misfortunes befall him.

Drake's line "Where's the rest of me," when he awakes to find that his legs have been amputated is unforgettable.

"Kings Row" was nominated for best picture in 1942. It would take a classic such as "Mrs. Miniver" to have beaten it out.

I have never been to America, but this movie seems so familiar. It reminds me so much of the apartment building I grew up in Calcutta. Maybe because people everywhere are essentially the same, or maybe because every character in this movie is a carefully thought out archetype. The Good Grandson who is the apostle of virtue, the Sacrificing Best Friend, the Spunky Girl, the men who live on the wrong side of the tracks but are still nobler than the rich old townspeople, the Old Man with Something to Hide, the Evil Man with an Honorable Facade, etc. In fact just the crowd u'd meet anywhere u live. That's what, I feel, gives this movie its timelessness. Add to it James Wong Howe's lustrous b&w photography like an old family photo polished everyday by the doting old maid, the assured editing that pieces together scenes straddling across time [Parris, the good little boy to Parris the good young man] & space [Americana to Vienna, like the new year msg in Parris' letter from Vienna dissolving into another msg scratched out on the snow in King's Row], Sam Wood's confident direction [he had done 'Our Town' too] & brilliant all round acting. Reagan blew my mind & so did Anne Sheridan. Wish Robert Cummings was less wimpy, but you can't take it all, can you?

A great movie, see it!

Sam Wood directed this turn-of-the-century drama that stars Ronald Reagan as Drake McHugh, an amiable young man who plans on becoming a businessman as soon as he comes into his full inheritance; in the meantime, he is also a ladies man...Robert Cummings plays Parris Mitchell, who plans on becoming a doctor, though is in love with Cassandra Tower(played by Betty Field) who lives with her reclusive father(played by Claude Rains) whose fates will be tragic... Ann Sheridan plays their mutual friend Randy Monaghan, who is in love with Drake, and will be invaluable to him when tragedy strikes... Fine acting and interesting plot in this memorable film, based on a successful novel.

Features the famous "Where's The Rest Of Me!?" scene with Ronald Reagan, the future 40th U.S. President.

For those who made fun of President Reagan's movie career by always citing "Bedtime for Bonzo" and laughing may be surprised if they take the time to watch "Kings Row." Even "Bedtime for Bonzo" is not as bad as those who have never seen it think it is, because of the ridiculous title. The former sports announcer plays Drake McHugh as well or better than any other Hollywood actor of the period could have. He stands tall among an extremely talented group of actors, including several others who have also been underrated and never received their due by the Hollywood establishment, especially Bob Cummings and Ann Sheridan. There's also Judith Anderson of "Rebecca" fame; Claude Rains who first made a name for himself in a part were he was invisible through most of the film; Charles Coburn, the grand old man of 40's cinema, playing against type in "Kings Row" as not such a grand old man; Maria Ouspenskaya in a non-horror role; and Betty Field shines as the tortured soul, Cassie.

Sam Wood's magnificent direction plus the acting keep the story from slipping into soap opera melodrama. True heart-rending sentiment rather than sappy sentimentality emerges from the social and economic conflicts that mix with human kindness and cruelty in small-town America at the turn of the last century. Though there is an element of nostalgia for a vanishing America, it never becomes petty or commonplace.

Set at the turn of the 20th Century, Henry Bellamann's novel seemed to embrace the whole town of Kings Row. Many characters received a page or two then faded into the background. It also contained Bellamann's worldview with insights into just about every aspect of the human condition from birth to death with liberal doses of incest, lust, racism, fraud and bigotry along the way. Kings Row was a busy place.

Some things just couldn't be included in a 1940's movie. Screenwriter Casey Robinson masterfully eliminated buggy loads of peripheral characters while retaining the central story and much of the novel's unique wisdom, although the ending was changed.

This film is a super-charged emotional experience as it follows the three main characters, Parris Mitchell, Drake McHugh and Randy Monaghan from childhood to often-painful adulthood.

The breathless enthusiasm of Robert Cummings' Parris takes some getting used to, but it is Ronald Reagan as Drake who burns himself into the memory with his cry of "Where's the rest of me?" Ann Sheridan glows in her role as Randy, the girl from the other side of the tracks who has more class and substance than most from the snootier end of town.

The supporting cast adds much to "Kings Row" especially Claude Raines and Betty Field as the troubled Dr. Tower and his daughter Cassandra. Charles Coburn plays Dr. Henry Gordon, creating the most sadistic M.D. this side of a horror movie.

Inspired script, direction and photography are topped off with Erich Wolfgang Korngold's sweeping score. His music communicates the unspoken thoughts of the characters and helped create many lump-in-the-throat moments. Remove his music and "Kings Row" wouldn't be the same.

The emotional level may be off the Richter scale, but there is a seductive magic to this old movie. It defies you to remain unmoved.

Many people have already written reviews of this notable film, so I'll skip the plot summary. Most of the reviews are extremely positive. I'm afraid I can't be as laudatory, though I did enjoy the movie and it prompted me to write this.

There are some really fine acting performances. Unlike some, I like Robert Cummings. Yes, he is a bit "one note" as someone wrote, but I think that makes sense. Cummings has accurately portrayed a believable personality. Yes, I agree that Ronald Reagan was excellent. He almost becomes the lead role, and that's part of the problem with this movie. Ann Sheridan I would just say was good, not excellent. She does not deserve to have top billing in this movie. Maybe she was the best known star of the three main actors at that time, and she was given top billing for that reason. Betty Field as Cassandra was good, but overacted a bit in a difficult role. Claude Rains was excellent, as usual.

Two other actors deserve mention, even though they had lesser roles. I thought that the actress who played Louise (Nancy Coleman) was very convincing. And I thought the performance of Henry Davenport as Skeffington was remarkable. He really seemed to be a completely authentic lawyer from the 1890s. It's hard to believe that that was someone acting.

The basic situation and plot were intriguing. Sounds like the novel would be a good read. But the movie disappoints in several ways.

First, it is disjointed. Too many scenes happen quickly or end abruptly. For example, there is a scene about half way through where Parris and Duke are reading a journal of Dr. Tower, soon after someone important dies (don't want to get too specific here). Suddenly Parris says, "but I'm tired." Duke immediately jumps up and says "I'll get the light." He blows it out and they leave. That's just unreal. It's too abrupt. It's jarring. This sort of thing happens again and again.

Second, a major love interest of one of the main characters is introduced with only about 20 minutes to go. That is very awkward and off-putting. A veritable Deus ex machina.

Third, the movie builds up a major romance and conflict between Parris and Cassandra, only to have it suddenly resolved barely half way into the movie (again, don't want to get too specific). Really, the movie should have ended there. It's as if it were really two movies, parts I and II. It would have been better as two.

Fourth, the character of Randy, played by Ann Sheridan, is very briefly in the beginning of the movie as a child, then abruptly (there's that word again) reappears about half way through the movie and becomes a major character.

Fifth, comparatively minor but still jarring, the actresses playing Cassandra (Field) and Randy (Sheridan) looked amazingly alike. Maybe it would not have been so in color, but in black and white, I was astonished when Sheridan abruptly appeared in the middle of the movie and seemed to be Cassandra! Was this planned by the director?

So I appreciate the basic story. It's very creative. I appreciate the fine acting. But with so many flaws, I can rate it no higher than 7.

• henry

Besides providing Ronald Reagan with his career role and the title of his pre-presidential autobiography, Kings Row is a finely crafted piece of film making by director Sam Wood. The film got Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best black and white Cinematography for James Wong Howe.

Incredibly though, the rich musical score that Erich Wolfgang Korngold did was overlooked by the Academy. That's the thing you will take away from watching the film, even more so than Ronald Reagan's anguished cry of 'where's the rest of me'.

The story takes place at the turn of the last century with an interlude of ten years from 1890 to 1900 where we see the leads as children first and then as adults. Despite Ronald Reagan getting all the notice here, he's actually third billed in the cast. Above him are Ann Sheridan and Robert Cummings and it's really the Cummings character whom the film is centered around.

King's Row is the town these folks inhabit, purportedly based on Fulton Missouri, the hometown of author Henry Bellamann. This may be set in Missouri, but don't expect no Tom Sawyer like story. If in fact the novel is based on Bellamann's experiences growing up, he must have had one Gothic childhood.

Sam Wood assembled an incredible cast of supporting players, like Claude Rains, Judith Anderson, Charles Coburn, Harry Davenport, Minor Watson, Nancy Coleman, and Kaaren Verne. Coburn and Anderson are the parents of Coleman and they don't like the fact she's keeping company with Reagan who's playing the entire Kings Row field. In addition Coburn is a doctor who is also a sadist, he does things like perform operations without use of anesthetic. I'm sure he had heard of Dr. Morton and his successful use of ether by this time.

The best in the cast though is Claude Rains, something he usually was in a lot of films. He's another doctor, totally different from Coburn. He's a famous medical practitioner who has chosen to hide himself away in this small and obscure town. He's got a wife who never comes out and a daughter who grows up to be Betty Field who is suddenly and abruptly taken out of school as a child. It's with him who Robert Cummings studies medicine with to pass the examination and go to school in Europe to become a doctor.

Rains's tragic story is what sets in motion the rest of the story that climaxes with Reagan's anguished cry. Rains creates such a mysterious and sad air about him that you think about him more than anyone else in the movie.

Kings Row begs comparison to Our Town which is partly set in the generation where the Cummings, Field, Reagan, and Sheridan characters all grow up. Grover's Corners has its share of tragedies as well as happy times.

Kings Row and Our Town should be run back to back in order to see what I'm referring to. It's not a bad double bill, in fact quite a literate one.

This starts out as a soap opera to end all soap operas. Shocking revelations follow one on another like kernels of corn popping in a pan.

The casting is not the greatest, either. Ronald Reagan, whom I often like in movies, isn't bad and Robert Cummings isn't bad, either. But he is not right for the character around whom a sprawling epic ought to be swirling. The ladies fare better. Kaaren Verne, in a small role, is extremely appealing. Imagine that she was married to the brilliant actor but not really studly Peter Lorre at the time!

As it moves along, it gains momentum. The scene in which Parris (Cummings) returns to his family home is wrenching. All the supporting players, even the usually (to me) usually risible Maria Ouspenskaya, are very effective. (How can one beat Betty Field and Claude Rains?!)

In a sense, the star is the famous but still poignant Korngold score. He was a very fine composer who wrote some gorgeous operatic arias; and his talents are very much on display here.

I guess I should preface whatever remarks I'm going to make with the admission that I did not watch the whole movie. I got as far as maybe the first ten minutes after Ann Sheridan's appearance. I didn't finish it because I just didn't have the patience for it; didn't have the patience for the musical score, beautiful as it was, because I found it intrusive in so many scenes; didn't have the patience for Robt. Cumming's wide-eyed, little-boy line delivery; didn't have the patience for the stereotypical ladies' maid breaking down in tears at the death of her mistress; nor for the histrionic performance of Betty Field. Less is more, Betty, a lesson she learned and put to use more than effectively fourteen years later in "Bus Stop." What else didn't have the patience for? How about for the stilted dialog and the stilted way the performers would respond to each other, as if they were thinking, "Okay, my line's next; I'll deliver it now," rather than making it seem as if they were really listening to one another. In fact, The only character I really believed in was Claude Rains's (sp?) Dr. Tower. Sorry, guess I'm a crank, but I found the whole thing overwrought and amateurish.

I've only recently seen this film in its entirety (after decades of watching the clip of Ronnie Reagan's best scene in it) and am totally surprised by how fine this film really is; in fact, when it ended, I found myself wanting to burst into applause. But to appreciate it you must put yourself into the time it was made, mid- to late 1941. This picture was meant to be an "A" picture (that is, the first picture to be shown on a double bill, or the only film being shown) showcasing the up and coming generation of Warners actors. None of the young players was particularly well-known, except in supporting roles. The older players were all familiar to film, theater and radio audiences. Radio, since radio drama was a major national venue then and all of these older players, in fact, most major stars, had starring roles in radio plays.

This picture would have been shown in its first run in the chain of theaters owned by Warners, mostly large ones, and shown in a large house, holding an audience of a thousand people or more, with a very large screen yards wide and high and a sound system that was louder and definitely more "high fidelity" than any member of the audience had at home or had heard anywhere else.

The book on which the film was based had been a scandalous best seller two years before and many if not most had read it (people read books then!) and in fact many in the audience were probably alive when this film takes place, in the last decade of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th. Everyone would have been familiar with the style of dialogue and acting, which seems stilted to us, since it originated on the stage, with no microphones; the costumes, customs and speech would have been in living memory for many watching it in its first run, if not theirs, then their parents'.

As for Korngold's superb score, this too was a familiar part of a theatrical experience at the time. Most stage plays had live incidental music accompanying them. All major Broadway plays did. Opera, operetta and vaudeville were all part of the audience's experience, all with live music as part of the experience, and no one would have found Korngold's score obtrusive, just part of the show and gorgeous to hear. In fact, Korngold's score for "Robin Hood" in 1938 was premiered live on network radio as a major event, before the picture opened!

As for black and white, these films were truly in "black and white" on the big screen. Blacks WERE black and whites were silvery white. We see then on video screens, and so far, even with the best of those, these films look to be in "gray and grayer", with not the high contrast they had in the theater. So we dismiss them as flat and lifeless; in the theater, black and white has quite a lot of depth and sparkle.

So in its proper context, this film is really quite astonishingly good. The production design is by the same man who designed the look of "Gone With the Wind", so there are the gorgeously composed shots, the depth of field, use of light and shadow and attention to detail in that film. Even the landscapes, matte paintings that so many of them are, most have looked quite beautiful projected large. The acting is all first rate. All the actors, in their late twenties and early thirties, are playing younger than their ages. Cummings has the right wide eyed innocence of an only child reared in relative isolation by his grandmother, Sheridan is beautiful and true, Reagan lively and cocky, and Field, the disturbed adolescent. Reagan is the real surprise here; totally unaffected, he acts effortlessly here on film, building a character, listening to the actors in the scene and reacting in the moment. And his best scenes, "THAT" one, and the final scene, are excellent.

And when it ends, with a flourish those audiences would have found entirely familiar and even comforting, I can imagine an audience of a thousand bursting into prolonged applause.

"Kings Row" is truly a gem. The acting, photography,direction, script, and memorable score are outstanding. A number of reviewers have criticized Robert Cummings as not being up to the role of Parris Michell. I have to disagree. His earnestness and sincerity are what I appreciate in his characterization which is central to the storyline. Claude Rains, Harry Davenport, Ronald Reagan, and especially Ann Sheridan are outstanding in supporting roles.

I am not an "old geezer", a phrase used by Ronald Reagan in describing Dr. Gordon, who appreciates films from the 30's and 40's; unless being 59 qualifies me as such. I find myself viewing this movie several times a year on tape and Turner Classic Movies. Korngold's theme is truly one of the five top film themes. This is a sensitive and entertaining movie which stands the test of time.

This is a wonderful film with one of the greatest musical scores Hollywood ever produced. Eric Wolfgang Korngold is a splendid composer, and this may be his best film score. And the star cast makes the film historically very important. All the major parts are beautifully done. I especially admire Claude Rains and Charles Coburn as the psychiatrist and the sadistic surgeon. The scenes at the beginning with the characters as children is also wonderfully nostalgic and evokes small-town life at the turn of the 20th century effectively. This is Ronald Reagan's best film. It is a disgrace that this film is not yet available on DVD. It would be a good candidate for inclusion in the Criterion series. When can we purchase this film on DVD?

The story takes place in a small town at the turn of the 20th century and centers on the relationship between two friends, Drake (Ronald Reagan) and Parris (Robert Cummings), and their lives and loves from early childhood to young adulthood. There is enough turgid melodrama here to satisfy any soap opera fan.

Given its cast, a score by Eric Krongold, and cinematography by James Wong Howe, I was hoping for more. I found Robert Cummings to be weak, always effecting the demeanor of an eager Boy Scout; he always seemed to be just reciting lines, without any real feeling. This was particularly true in one of his final scenes where he took it upon himself to recite the first two stanzas of "Invictus," coming across as a middle school student rushing through memorized lines. After saying that he couldn't remember all the words, he recited the first two stanzas word for word, but then did not even recite the most famous final lines:

I the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

Parris' final words to Drake had a miraculous effect, in the literal meaning of "miraculous." Unbelievable, actually. At the other end of the acting spectrum I thought Claude Rains was very believable in the role of a psychologically tortured medical doctor. Between the bad and good of Cummings and Rains the other actors did well enough, except the child actors were a bit stilted. In the time since this movie was made the quality of child actors as advanced dramatically.

Released in 1942 this is prototypical of movie-making of the time, which may make it worth watching for film history buffs. The acting styles are dated--millennials will have a hard time with this, being astonished by its lack of realism and its deus ex machina ending. A quote that will have modern audiences reeling was when Drake's wife told him, "Of course you'd have to tell me everything to do, I'm only a woman." I did not detect any tone of irony in her delivery of this line. I found the Korngold score repetitive and intrusive, common features of scores for 40s movies.

Given the world situation at the time this was released (shortly after Pearl Harbor) I imagine audiences at the time felt it was oddly irrelevant. On the DVD is an extra that has the United States Marine Band playing several rousing tunes, starting with the Marines' Hymn--this segment was filmed in 1942 and I suspect that it might have been commonly shown along with "Kings Row."

This film is crowded with assets. It starts with children playing in the perfect idylls of a small town, and you start wondering if this might be a children's movie. Then they grow up, and things happen. Two of the girls are unlucky, while the third, the poorest one, almost makes the film by her charm, intelligence and courage: Ann Sheridan, always giving enjoyable performances. Robert Cummings is the one who grows up to be a doctor under the guidance of Claude Rains, who actually is the most interesting character in the story: making a horrible insertion based on a nightmare diagnosis that no doctor ever wishes to face. Ronald Reagan makes the best performance of his life and actually outshines Robert Cummings, they are best friends since childhood here, they are both young and bright in the beginning of their careers, which both tragically ended in Alzheimer. There is a lot of medical ethics here, there are several doctors involved, faced with the conundrum of doing right or wrong. One reluctantly feels the necessity to do wrong in order to avoid something worse, while the other deliberately does very wrong indeed and has to pay for it. Judith Anderson's part is small but extremely poignant in her anguish, refusing to admit or realize that her husband the doctor did wrong, and thus worsening his wrongs by sacrificing their daughter - this is the most arguable part of the plot. It's a great film and human panorama, almost like a novel by A. J. Cronin, while it is all gilded and adorned by a magnificent score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold.

Intriguing drama.

Builds slowly, initially quite innocently but then more and more with a sense of menace. Some sub-plots emerge along the way which obscure the main plot. Eventually they all tie together, but they provide too much of a smokescreen, ultimately.

This prevents Kings Row from being a great movie. The sub-plots create this rambling story with several climaxes. You want to build up to one climax, but instead you have several, and these make you feel like you've watched several stories back-to-back, rather than one story.

Ultimately, worth watching, but it could have been so much better. More intense focus on just one of the many and varied subjects and plots, and the dilution and even omission of the others, would have made this great.

I have to admit, the reason I wanted to watch this movie was because I was curious to see the future president act so I started watching and I didn't like it. It took me two years to get back to this movie and when I turned it on I realized I'd already seen those scenes but that time it was different. Two hours flew by so quickly I didn't even stop for a second. And only with a rewatch I finally understood the real power of the movie - first time it showed me how to grow up and the second time it showed me how much I did.

"Kings Row" stars a whole bunch of brilliant actors and actresses: Robert Cummings, one of the most underrated actors of its generation who's as good in comedies as in dramas like this one; Ronald Reagan who's best known for this role and, having watched several movies with him, I have to agree on that - he played his guts out in this one; lovely Ann Sheridan whose character is so alive, warm and unbroken despite everything, she can bewitch any person watching into loving her. Supporting cast includes the great Claude Rains who is kind of typecast in his role but still is pretty damn good in it and fabulous Charles Coburn who vice versa surprised me the most by playing a vengeful and sadistic character so far gone from his usual type of role that I couldn't help but being amazed by his actions in the movie. Although he has only a couple of scenes in the movie his character is crucial to the story and Charles succeeds in delivering the best performance possible. I guess it's true that there are no small roles.

"Kings Row" doesn't allow you to relax for a second; it puts every character through one misfortune after the other and helps them grow, it leads them to where they belong, it shows them the way of growing up and finally makes the real people out of them. But most importantly, it makes me think of my life, who I am in this world, what I can do and what I've already gone through myself because that's what great movies do.

I finally had a chance to catch this classic - home of Ronald Reagan's most famous movie line ("Where's the Rest of Me?") - on TCM. It made an interesting contrast to "Some Came Running", which I had seen in the previous week or so. Both are soap operas, in that they deal with the darker side of the personal lives of a small set of characters. While "Some Came Running" left me cold, "King's Row" had a story line and characters that kept me involved as their tale unfolded over time. Although the actors here, with the possible exception of Claude Rains, are B-level, they all put in workmanlike performances and the direction keeps the story line moving along. Although I've not seen a lot of Reagan's work, I suspect this may be one of his better performances. All in all, well worth watching.

Considering the great cast and reputation, this was very disappointing. I guess the reputation comes from the national critics, all of whom are very liberal and this movie is Left Winger's dream. You see a weak preacher (Hollywood's only kind), you hear some of the Liberals favorite words like like "repression," and "narrow-mindedness," and you can get in on all the small-town gossip and secrets. This movie is so catty-womanish, it's sickening.

What a shame considering the talents of Ann Sheridan, Ronald Reagan, Bob Cummings, Charles Coburn, Claude Rains and more. Reagan, by the way, was a very charismatic politician but didn't have that aura on screen.

Not only is it awful, it's long - 126 minutes. To sit through this again or have another root canal at the dentist's is a tossup.