Avis des utilisateurs

Of the top 6 reviews I currently see here, 3 are slamming Jennifer Jones for being too old, 1 is slamming producer David Selznick for being in the decline of his career, 1 is whining that it's not like the book, and 1 is slamming writer Hemingway for not doing any fighting in the war (Um... he was an ambulance driver).

While this film may not deserve an Academy award for best picture, it certainly deserves a decent review on IMDb dedicated to the film itself. So here goes my attempt.

"A Farewell to Arms" is a lavish production of a love story set against the backdrop of World War I. In that respect it's in the same genre as other classic war romances "Gone with the Wind", "Casablanca" and "Platoon ". Haha just checking to see if you're paying attention. Everyone knows "Casablanca" was not set in a war but an occupation.

Where "Farewell" differs from these other classics is in the distribution of war & romance. "Farewell" features far more battle scenes (4) compared to "Gone with the Wind" (zero) and "Casablanca" (zero). The result may be a bit disappointing in the romance department, and several reviewers (as well as the New York Times review on the film's release) have complained about the "lack of chemistry" between the two leads. I think this perception is simply due to the fact that less time is spent setting up the romance, putting more of a burden on the viewer to accept a relationship that simply happens. Viewers may also feel romantically cheated because this is not a traditional romance between two traditional individuals who dream of immediately getting married and having kids and a dog. But in fact this purposely informal, slightly dysfunctional romance is what ultimately made it interesting to me because it marked a change of formula in the age-old Hollywood romance.

If you see this movie, pay close attention to Jennifer Jones' excellent portrayal of a reluctant lover who is perhaps suffering from too many demons to actually fall in love completely, the way she wants to. She is riddled with insecurities, conflicts and possibly guilt, making her like the the stereotypical guy who can't commit. Meanwhile Rock Hudson plays a character more like the stereotypical lovesick schoolgirl. If you enjoy stereotype reversals like this, you'll definitely find yourself interested in their "lack of chemistry".

Was Jennifer Jones too old (late 30s) to play the role of Katherine as Hemingway had intended her (early 20s)? Probably. Did Jennifer get the part because she was married to producer Selznick? Absolutely. Does any of this make her a bad actress? No way. Short of Vivien Leigh, I think she was the best person to play the role as she did: the troubled lover whose cynical, morbid thoughts were always brewing not far away, despite her outwardly cheerful appearance. Actually I take back the thing about Vivien Leigh being better; the more I think about it, Jennifer was ideal for this sort of character.

A subplot involving Vittorio de Sica's war-weary character descending into madness is sure to catch your attention. It was actually my favorite part of the movie, and I wish they had spent more time on this complex character shift as well as his interesting polite antagonism of the church (with a spectacular short speech he says to the priest near the end). But alas, with the romance and the battle scenes already vying for screen time, Vittorio's story only got 2 or 3 dedicated scenes. They were powerful nonetheless.

Yes, as others mentioned, the ending seemed abrupt. But after thinking about it, I think it was perfectly in line with some of the interesting & unusual themes that the story set up. In short, this is not a straightforward soldier-meets-girl love story. The conflicts that are presented (particularly in Jennifer Jones' mysteriously troubled psyche) make this romance much more than meets the eye. If you enjoy wartime romances that are not always formulaic love stories (i.e. they may contain hidden dysfunctional surprises), check this one out.

Strange that one of America's favorite writers has no success in having his novels transferred to the screen with any fidelity or improvement over the original. 'A Farewell to Arms' is a lumbering, turgid, over-stuffed movie that never seems real. Chemistry between Hudson and Jones is simply not there--Jennifer Jones, in particular, seems remote and detached as the nurse even when she's supposed to be wildly in love. And then there's the matter of length--it seems to go on forever with a very weak resolution.

David O. Selznick wanted to create something that would rank alongside his 'Gone with the Wind' as an epic romance with a war background--but the talky script defeated everyone. Hemingway himself publicly disowned the movie, claiming that Jones was far too old for the part and unhappy about the film in general. At any rate, it was not the hoped for success and did nothing to halt the decline of Selznick's career--or Jennifer Jones' career for that matter. A big disappointment.

A lot of people are being terribly unfair to this production of A Farewell To Arms. Not that it's a great film, it misses that by a good distance, but that even films that are the best adaptations of Ernest Hemingway's work fall far short for Hemingway purists. And David O. Selznick was far from a Hemingway purist.

No Selznick when it came to the career of his wife Jennifer Jones lost all kinds of sense of balance. Another reviewer was quite right, Jean Simmons, Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor all would have made acceptable Catherine Barkleys.

One thing also to remember that we're not even starting out with pure Hemingway to begin with. Both this version and the 1932 version that starred Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes are not just based on the novel, they are based on a play that was adapted from the novel by Laurence Stallings who wrote What Price Glory. The play ran for 30 performances in 1930 and starred Glenn Anders and Elissa Landi on Broadway. I suspect the Depression had a lot to do with the closing as it did many shows that year.

Originally John Huston was slated to direct and he had directed Jones in both We Were Strangers and Beat The Devil with little or no interference from Selznick. But Selznick fired Huston and replaced him with Charles Vidor because allegedly too much attention was paid to Rock Hudson and not enough to Jennifer.

That's ironic as all get out because the novel itself is as all Hemingway works is male chauvinistic in the extreme. If he wanted to showcase Jennifer, any Hemingway just ain't the vehicle. He should have used one of the Bronte sisters.

Since the novel is male oriented Rock Hudson makes a fine Fredric Henry, the idealistic man who volunteers on the Italian front as an ambulance driver to experience war so he can write about it when it's over. On that Italian front it didn't look like it was ever going to be over.

That's another problem with this work, how do you sell it to the movie going public, as a romance or an anti-war tract? If you're Adolph Zukor for Paramount or David O. Selznick probably romance is the aspect that does sell.

The third major character in the film is that of the Italian army doctor Major Rinaldi played here by Vittorio DeSica. This version is more faithful to the book and presents Rinaldi as a three dimensional character.

In the 1932 version Adolphe Menjou was Rinaldi and Menjou did fine with the part as your typical suave continental type. Here Rinaldi's outspokenness about the futility of the Italian campaign leads to tragedy. It also led to an Oscar nomination for Vittorio DeSica as Best Supporting Actor. It was the only recognition A Farewell To Arms got from the Academy and DeSica lost to Red Buttons for Sayonara.

Whether Huston or Vidor did them, the battle scenes and the scenes of retreat are shattering and moving. Given the unique problems of Hemingway and Selznick, we're lucky the film came out as good as it did.

When I was around 17, I came in from a cold winter's day and became engrossed in a film that was running on the TV. The film? A farewell to arms. I could only have seen the last quarter of the film but the final scene reduced me to tears and it's something I never forgot. Consequently, some 10 years later I managed to track it down on video and was a little disappointed.

What is now obvious to me is that 1) the part I saw had little input from Jennifer Jones; 2) the emotion conveyed by Rock Hudson was deeply touching; 3) the setting was also memorable; 4) it was far too long. When viewing the film in its entirety, it is obviously badly in need of the touch of a good editor, although I was somewhat surprised to recently read that it is actually 2 hours and 32 minutes in length. What is particularly disappointing is that Jennifer Jones was clearly miscast, and yes - we all know why.

However, I have seen this actress in other productions - for example 'Gone to Earth', in which she was simply splendid; but her role in this film was most definitely not the kind of part she excelled in.

This could potentially have been Rock Hudson's finest hour, but as with other epic productions of the time e.g. Cleopatra, the best bits most probably ended up on the cutting room floor; however, that said, I can only think of a handful of films that have imprinted themselves on me like this one.

I would be interested in seeing a re-edited version of this with special features.

7 for at least one standout scene; a superb performance by Rock Hudson and its ability to touch someone.

Recently read the book...disappointed by the movie as it departed from the story in several key areas. The scenery was pretty.

I really wanted to like A Farewell to Arms. But despite for love for Ernest Hemingway and for Rock Hudson, A Farewell to Arms just didn't work for me. Granted it does look amazing, with ravishing use of CinemaScope and the scenery and costumes are gorgeous as you can see in the first hour. The direction is fine, and the music is beautiful and cleverly composed. However, in the pace the film was very pedestrian, but the pace wasn't the only dull thing about it. I am especially talking about the story, which was overall uninteresting and wasn't affecting, and the script, which is really stilted in a lot of scenes. The ending also felt abrupt. The acting is not good, considering how talented the actors are. I love Rock Hudson, and he visibly tries hard and looks really handsome here but he seems very out of his depth. Jennifer Jones is miscast, and her performance is a very uneven mix of overacting and underacting, also she seems very detached from her character and Hudson as well. As for Vittoria di Sica, he overdoes it so wildly you feel as though he accidentally walked onto the wrong set. All in all, despite the talented cast and director and the beautiful visuals and score, the film was dull. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Rock was fine, but sadly Selznick ruined what might have been a truly great epic by casting his overage wife as the love interest. Jones was a poor actress and she was not at all believable playing a British nurse. She should have at least made a slight attempt at an accent. The film goes on for far too long and was too overblown for a trifling love story.

It is no surprise that Jones did very little after this film had flopped at the box office and received such terrible reviews. Rock would soon recover however as he moved into comedies.

The gigantic battle scenes are impressive, but too brief. Sadly they are not enough to save this flop.

David Selznick loved Jennifer Jones and per John Huston in his book "put everything on the line for his adored Jennifer" I met Douglas Fairbanks Jr years ago at a party when he was in New York and Fairbanks remarked that of major producers he knew, David Selznick stood out because of Mr. Selznick's love of great literature. David Selznick's brilliant productions of Gone With The Wind, Rebecca, David Copperfield, et al reflect Selznick's great love of great novels. (David Selznick wanted to but could not get financing for War and Peace starring of course Ms.Jones) One wonders why David Selznick insisted on remaking A Farewell to Arms but push ahead he did. David Selznick made a releasing deal thru 20th (Likely because of Jennifer Jones' attachment and successes at 20th Century Fox -Song of Bernadette, Love Is A Many Splendored Thing, et al) and hired John Huston to direct again possibly because of Jennifer's past history with John Huston (Beat The Devil, We Were Strangers). David Selznick micro managed his productions and fired John Huston whom he felt was titling the picture towards a war film versus a highly romantic film, i.e. favoring Rock Hudson over Jennifer Jones. Charles Vidor replaced Huston and also had clashes with David Selznick. In the mid 50's a gigantic production shot on location in Italy had to be a logistical challenge: Selznick also fired Arthur Fellows as line producer. Some of A Farewell To Arms scenes are brilliantly photographed and large in scope as is the trademark of a Selznick International picture.

Jennifer Jones was a beautiful movie star. I would recommend a review of Ms. Jones career, as Ms. Jones is sadly forgotten but was a huge box office star and acclaimed screen actress of her day: Madame Bovary, Good Morning Miss Dove, Duel In The Sun, Ruby Gentry et al Some carp over Jennifer Jones' age in this film but Jennifer Jones looks fine in this picture (but ironically would look even much better years later in a fine and underrated film 20th's Tender Is The Night). My quibble with this film is the dialogue between Jennifer Jones and Rock Hudson which seems so stilted and phony. Has anyone counted the number of times the word "darling" is used?

Rock Hudson, then a gigantic box office star after George Stevens great film Giant and his run at Universal with hits such as Magnificent Obsession, All That Heaven Allows, etc got first billing over the veteran Oscar Winning Jennifer Jones. Elaine Stritch is wonderfully sassy in a small but pivotal supporting role.

We are likely never to see the likes of David Selznick again, a pioneer in film. Of all David Selznick's movies I liked Gone With The Wind best but also the splendid WWII Film Since You Went Away starring Ms. Jones and a superb Claudette Colbert I wish Selznick had done an original film like Since You Went Away rather than a remake of A Farewell To Arms. Mr. Hudson adored by his female co-stars such as Doris Day, Elizabeth Taylor, Kim Novak, Jane Wyman, et al never really had much to say about working with Jennifer Jones. Ms Jones until her death never commented much about anything ever about her career, her Leading Men, or about her stormy private life.

A book on the back story filming of this movie would prove to be interesting. Reading Memo From David O Selznick and David Thomson's Showman would help understand David Selznick's obsession with Hemingway's A Farewell To Arms and Ms. Jones in particular.

This was the final film personally produced by David O Selznick.

David O. Selznick immediately signals his intention of making another 'Gone With the Wind' by pompously scrolling the credits in big letters across the screen. It's far too long but otherwise not too bad. Everyone complains that Jennifer Jones was too old for the part, but no one objected that in the earlier version Helen Hayes and Gary Cooper were also in their thirties.

This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.

Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.

Obviously, a great deal of time and money was lavished on this project. Producer Selznick intended it to be a vindication of a career that peaked with "Gone With The Wind" in 1939, and then began a long, slow, almost painful decline. By the mid fifties he had become something of a "has-been" in Hollywood. The result? Pretty much a miss. The book is probably unfilmable, of course, but the screenplay still leaves much to be desired. Rock Hudson is far too shallow to make a go at the over-the-top emotionalism this story needs. The usually wonderful Jennifer Jones, for whom this project was conceived, somehow doesn't seem to exhibit the idealism and resolve the part needs, and that she demonstrated with such seemingly effortlessness in many other films. The direction is stilted and sometimes downright awkward, more the fault of producer Selznick, I would bet, who had a reputation for micro-managing his films, than famed director Charles Vidor.

Simply put, I'm never convinced, not even for a moment, that what is happening is real and not just another movie. Too bad.

A Farewell to Arms (1957) Rock Hudson

David O. Selznick production is based on a novel by Ernest Hemingway, this is a story of the love between ambulance driver, Lieutenant Henry (Rock Hudson) and Nurse, Catherine Barkley (Jennifer Jones) during World War I Italy. The story is made complex by the interference of Major Rinaldi (Vittorio De Sica.)

Well, I must admit that I have read Hemmingway but not this book. I did, however, see the Gary Cooper movie first. However, it is a story about Love found - love lost - love found - love never lost.

This version seems a little fuller and a lot more colorful than the 1932 version. However, the story is also filled with slapstick comic relief and conversational filler tripe. This is still a tearjerker. It has been suggested that Jennifer was a tad old for the part of a 23-year-old nurse. I was so busy with the story that I did not notice. As far as Rock, I think he was thrown into lots of these movies on his handsome leading man's reputation. Vittorio De Sica acted his part quite well; however, I keep seeing him as Cardinal Rinaldi in Les souliers de Saint-Pierre (1968) (1968.)

See Dr. Emerich (Oscar Homolka) again in 7 ans de réflexion (1955) (1955.)

The most boring overacting I have ever seen. Rock is so gorgeously handsome and I don't understand why Jennifer Jones looked so red-cheeked throughout the movie. Maybe it's just because he is so handsome that she looks dowdy, even homely, though her photo posted on IMDb is attractive. I would like to see the film of the same title from the 1930s.

It was always going to be hard enough to adapt this novel for the screen, and given Gary Cooper did an OK job with it in 1932, I am not quite sure why David O. Selznick concluded that is might be a ripe vehicle for Rock Hudson to reprise. He is the American "Lt. Henry" serving in Italy during the Great War when he meets British nurse "Catherine" (Jennifer Jones). They take an immediate shine to each other but needless to say the War has no time to stop and indulge their affection and the film follows the ups and downs as they try to stay alive and, ultimately, make it to safety with their as yet unborn child. The thing with Hemingway stories, I found, is that they rarely work on a big screen. They are detailed, descriptive and requiring of the reader to use their imagination to create the scenario that's all too easily replaced by the visuals here. That also requires the actors to deliver strong and intricate characterisations that deal with their own issues, sure, but with the issues of loyalty, of professionalism and of tough choices made amidst the atrocities of conflict. Neither of these two here have the gravitas to do those complexities justice and that frequently turns this gripping wartime romance into a not so gripping romance set amidst a war. There is quite an engaging effort from Vittorio De Rica as the inspirational surgeon "Rinaldi" and Elaine Stritch is also to be seen here before she became a lady who lunched. The film looks good, the wartime imagery potent and at times we get a little indication of the true horrors of this war, and of the strains it put on people both in and out of the military, but there's no getting away from the weak and rather insipid casting. Pity!

Rock Hudson wasn't bad but it was painfully obvious that Jennifer Jones was a lot older than him. It was absurd she was supposed to be English when she sounded just as American as Hudson and Elaine Stritch. The film is spectacular but too overblown for a trifling romantic story.

What is wrong with this film? The main problem is that there is nothing wrong with it. Everything is just perfect and couldn't have been made better, both the script and the screening far outshines the Gary Cooper/Helen Hayes bathos version of 1932, the script by Ben Hecht takes care of all the best of Hemingway's, the war scenes are realistically impressing enough, there is nothing wrong with the acting, Jennifer Jones always reliably doing her best, and here even Vittorio de Sica adds some virtuoso excellence in one of the most important characters of the film, in brief, no complaints. So why are so many complaining? Maybe in 1957 the First World War felt so far away and outdated by the Second, or maybe Hemingway had just been filmed too much? At least "For Whom the Bell Tolls" of almost 3 hours in 1943 was trying enough, where nothing happened until they at last got down to some fighting in the end. Well, well, I simply can't agree with all the thumbs down for this film. Even the music is a success, sweetly caressing the lovers all the way, and even Rock Hudson isn't too bad. I think it's time for this film for some exoneration.