VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,0/10
1341
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaJust prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plant... Leggi tuttoJust prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plantation and later goes to war.Just prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plantation and later goes to war.
- Candidato a 2 Oscar
- 3 vittorie e 2 candidature totali
Cedric Hardwicke
- Fleetwood Peyton
- (as Sir Cedric Hardwicke)
Elisabeth Risdon
- Aunt Clarissa
- (as Elizabeth Risdon)
Tom Drake
- James Howard at 16
- (as Richard Alden)
Recensioni in evidenza
Despite rather mediocre reviews here on IMDb and in Leonard Maltin's guide, I really liked this movie. Unlike the few other American Revolution films Hollywood has made, this one was both interesting and did an excellent job in conveying WHY the Colonists were rebelling and didn't paint the British as total buffoons or Nazis (like in THE PATRIOT). Plus, the main character's father-in-law is a loyalist, so the real tensions that existed within families was given decent treatment. As an American History teacher, I must point out that despite coming from Hollywood in 1940, the realism in spirit is quite surprising and I could recommend this to kids, as they'd learn a lot.
It was odd to see Cary Grant as a bit of a rag-tag outdoorsman, but he carried it off better than I'd expected. Plus, his British accent really wouldn't have been out of place in the Colonies at that time.
Another big plus for the film was the relationship between Grant and his sons. Yes, it's a bit manipulative, but I really liked the way the writers dealt with this relationship in the movie. All in all, an excellent film.
It was odd to see Cary Grant as a bit of a rag-tag outdoorsman, but he carried it off better than I'd expected. Plus, his British accent really wouldn't have been out of place in the Colonies at that time.
Another big plus for the film was the relationship between Grant and his sons. Yes, it's a bit manipulative, but I really liked the way the writers dealt with this relationship in the movie. All in all, an excellent film.
I was a bit surprised to see so many other reviewers panning this film, since I had seen it once before and thought it was quite good. I watched it again, and I still believe it's a far better-than-average costume drama.
Several people thought Cary Grant was miscast, and even criticized his British accent. Well, what accent do you think a British citizen from the 1760s WOULD have? His character was a "low-born" British colonist, for crying out loud! I thought he did well, definitely playing against type, and I thought his actual British origins, hardly high-born, made him an excellent choice for the part. His character's progression over time, in this film, was believable and, I thought, well done. I suspect it parallels, in some ways, Grant's life changes from humble British kid to acclaimed Hollywood star.
The film itself, with its use of the colonial Williamsburg settings and attention to detail about frontier life, was refreshing, as of course was the excellent casting overall. I also thought the very realistic historical treatment was commendable, laying out clearly many of the controversies and issues facing the colonies during these times. I'd recommend it for kids, especially, since what they get for American history class about this period of time is truly awful -- what little there is.
I'd give it a solid 8, easily.
Several people thought Cary Grant was miscast, and even criticized his British accent. Well, what accent do you think a British citizen from the 1760s WOULD have? His character was a "low-born" British colonist, for crying out loud! I thought he did well, definitely playing against type, and I thought his actual British origins, hardly high-born, made him an excellent choice for the part. His character's progression over time, in this film, was believable and, I thought, well done. I suspect it parallels, in some ways, Grant's life changes from humble British kid to acclaimed Hollywood star.
The film itself, with its use of the colonial Williamsburg settings and attention to detail about frontier life, was refreshing, as of course was the excellent casting overall. I also thought the very realistic historical treatment was commendable, laying out clearly many of the controversies and issues facing the colonies during these times. I'd recommend it for kids, especially, since what they get for American history class about this period of time is truly awful -- what little there is.
I'd give it a solid 8, easily.
Simpler than it first appears. This movie tries to be an epic about a frontier man transformed into a civic and military leader - but it doesn't try that hard. Cary Grant doesn't look like he knows quite how to play this guy, and I don't blame him. The material isn't wonderful, although it's a nice story. The wrong elements of the plot are emphasized, and the character of Matthew Howard is less a complicated man than a simple cypher.
It's not a bad movie by any means, but it looks like it's trying desperately to copy "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Gone with the Wind" at the same time. It just doesn't have the legs for either one. I give this movie a 6 for Cary's personal magnetism, even in a stifling role like this one.
It's not a bad movie by any means, but it looks like it's trying desperately to copy "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Gone with the Wind" at the same time. It just doesn't have the legs for either one. I give this movie a 6 for Cary's personal magnetism, even in a stifling role like this one.
CARY GRANT insisted that he would never do another costume film after THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA and it's easy to see why after viewing the film tonight on TCM. Except for a couple of well played scenes with his sons (TOM DRAKE and PHIL TAYLOR), Grant's performance is way too broad to be acceptable as part of a serious historical epic.
Director Frank Lloyd never once tones down Grant's performance and lets the hyperactive Grant overact at any given moment in a role he clearly doesn't know how to play. At least we do get more restrained work from MARTHA SCOTT as Grant's aristocratic wife and SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE as her snobbish brother who sides with the British during the Revolutionary War period.
Obviously a lot of expense went into creating the right atmosphere for this story of the turmoil surrounding America's independence among the colonies, and there are times when you wish even more had been spent to produce the film in the gorgeous Technicolor of that era. But the script is a weak one, never able to maintain the sort of interest it should have had over a running time of two hours.
The banal dialog that closes the film is about as jingoistic as you can get and enough to make anyone wince. The story was probably chosen because the producers hoped to make another DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK or GONE WITH THE WIND--but they failed utterly to do so.
Summing up: Sad to see Grant so badly miscast and not given proper direction.
Director Frank Lloyd never once tones down Grant's performance and lets the hyperactive Grant overact at any given moment in a role he clearly doesn't know how to play. At least we do get more restrained work from MARTHA SCOTT as Grant's aristocratic wife and SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE as her snobbish brother who sides with the British during the Revolutionary War period.
Obviously a lot of expense went into creating the right atmosphere for this story of the turmoil surrounding America's independence among the colonies, and there are times when you wish even more had been spent to produce the film in the gorgeous Technicolor of that era. But the script is a weak one, never able to maintain the sort of interest it should have had over a running time of two hours.
The banal dialog that closes the film is about as jingoistic as you can get and enough to make anyone wince. The story was probably chosen because the producers hoped to make another DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK or GONE WITH THE WIND--but they failed utterly to do so.
Summing up: Sad to see Grant so badly miscast and not given proper direction.
I liked this movie despite the dreadful miscasting of Cary Grant. His performance beggared all description. What were they thinking? Cary looked like he had been on amphetamines, jerky and hyperactive. He sounded like an Englishman trying to speak like he thought an American should sound. Grant realized that his performance was woefully bad and vowed never to do a costume drama again. Unfortunately he must have forgotten that pledge for seventeen years later he starred in The Pride and the Passion with Frank Sinatra and Sophia Loren. While he was bad in this role too, he did not stand out as much as Frank and Sophia were equally inept. Cedric Hardewick, Richard Carlson and Martha Scott were competent in their roles in HOV which contrasted Grant's fiasco.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe film's failure hit Cary Grant so hard that he refused all period roles he was offered, until Orgoglio e passione (1957), which ultimately failed to make a profit.
- BlooperThere are several inconsistencies in the chronology of Matt Howard's life and the progression of the American Revolutionary milestones presented in the film. Matt's father is killed in the early years of the French and Indian War, which would place his death no earlier than 1754 (more likely no earlier than 1756). The film then shows a title card indicating that twelve years had passed, thus placing the timeline of the film in the mid-to-late 1760s. Matt, however, learns of the recent passage of the Stamp Act and England's taxation measures toward the colonies. The Stamp Act was instituted in 1756, making it impossible for Matt's father to have died in the French and Indian War and for twelve years to have passed. As an adult, Matt then meets, courts, and marries Jane Peyton (presumably in 1766 or 1768 according to the date of his father's death) and moves to western Virginia to homestead and fathers three children. Matt learns of the Boston Tea Party (December 1773) and the Intolerable Acts of 1774 near the time that his family visits the Peytons' home in Virginia. At this time, Matt's three children are an unspecified age, but Peyton (the oldest) appears no more than five years of age, and James (the youngest) is just a baby. The male children, however, join their father in the Colonial Army. It is strongly inferred that the young men join Matt during the lean Winter of 1777-1778, and it is clear that they are seasoned soldiers by the Battle of Yorktown (1781). The film depicts the sons as teenagers, slightly under the age of eighteen when they join their father and presumably older than eighteen by the Battle of Yorktown. However, using news of the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, and Intolerable Acts as points of reference, the oldest boy would have been no older than eleven and the youngest no older than nine by the date of the Battle of Yorktown, (Presumably they would have been even younger unless Jane conceived each child almost immediately after giving birth.)
- Colonne sonoreThe Huntsman and His Master
(uncredited)
Composer unknown
Performed by an unidentified male (piano and vocal)
Reprised a cappella by Cary Grant
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Howards of Virginia?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Howards of Virginia
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 56 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti