User reviews

Woodrow Wilson was not considered a very successful President before he was "rehabilitated" by FDR during World War II as part of a campaign to show the mistakes the US had made a generation before. This film's glorification of Wilson was clearly part of that war propaganda effort.

Alexander Knox is perfectly cast in this effort, he physically looks just right, and has all the mannerisms. Of course the character is shifted from the reality (a stunningly racist, intellectually isolated scholar) to a "pre-FDR" who talks of "all races working together" and whose every motive is pure and well thought out. The Wilson of this film is pure hero, and always right, if shown as a touch stubborn.

But I was engaged despite it all. And the 1912 Convention scenes early in the film are brilliantly done. Check out Vincent Price as a campaign lieutenant. And Cedric Hardwicke is great as the villainous Republican Henry Cabot Lodge.

This is a film I've wanted to see for a long time since it was nominated for best picture and won a bunch of Oscars in 1944 (in what may be considered one of the weakest years for the Oscar with "Going My Way" winning best film (over the great "Double Indemnity") and Bing Crosby winning best actor). Worldwide as well this was not a great year, as I could only find "A Canterbury Tale", "Ivan the Terrible" and "Henry the V" as memorable films made that year (you could add "Laura" and a couple of Preston Sturges comedies. Blame it on the war). I was also interested in watching a color film made in 1944 in order to compare it with the great British color films made at that time. All in all, the cinematography was very good but the film was dull as hell, I suppose because Wilson was boring as hell and was interpreted by Alexander Knox who gave a performance boring as hell. I heard Henry Fonda was considered for the part and that would have certainly helped the quality of the film and its box office, which was terrible. Regarding historical accuracy, I leave that to others who have studied the matter.

Let us be certain of one thing: Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924), Academician, Historian, Orator, President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey, and 28th President of the United States is a very important political figure in American History. He is usually credited to be one of the top ten great Presidents of our history, but these lists of historians are prone to change when new research shows previous ideas were wrong or too hagiographic towards the former President. In Wilson's case historians of his period are confronted with the problem that he had a great contemporary rival, the 26th President Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. Both men at their best were terrific figures, who accomplished a great deal of positive social legislation (they and Robert LaFollette dominate this period: the Progressive Era), and both (with Roosevelt's predecessor William McKinley) made America a great power. But T.R. and W.W. were both great egotists, and had defects in personality and views that make their achievements questionable. T.R. loved the strenuous life, but he also loved war too much - to the point that his youngest son got sacrificed in France in the First World War. Wilson helped get the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve set up, but he was a Southerner who backed Jim Crow Laws. He did try to keep America out of World War I (as a boy he lived in Virginia and South Carolina during the Civil War, and saw Columbia, South Carolina destroyed - probably by Sherman's men). But he was willing to use our troops to "straighten out" Latin American countries: Mexico (twice), Haiti, the Dominican Republic. His creation of the first international peace organization, the League of Nations, was great, but flawed due to the U.S. not becoming a member - a flaw that Wilson's egotistic fight with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge over accepting the Treaty of Versailles guaranteed.

This film was made in 1944 by Zanuck, a Democrat. It emphasized Wilson as the far-sighted peace seeker, the forerunner of FDR (who was planning the United Nations). FDR actually was in Wilson's administration (he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, like his cousin TR had been in 1897 under McKinley). The audience of the time would have been aware of this. As most of the audience would be white, Protestant, and of anglo-saxon background, it would be assumed that the film would be well received. Actually it wasn't. In the midwest, with the heavy connections to Germany or Middle-Europe, and in Irish-American centers (Wilson was cool towards Irish nationalism)the audiences recalled the unpleasant intransigence and pig-headedness of the President. Zanuck had the film opened in his home town in Nebraska, only to find that few were interested in the premier of the film - they told him they had not liked Wilson while he was in office.

As it is the film is excellent in terms of production and cast, starting with Alexander Knox as the President. His is a great performance, which merited his Oscar nomination. But the film is only positive about Wilson (and correspondingly unfair to Lodge, who may have had doubts about the Treaty of Versailles, but was not conspiring to destroy Wilson - he only had to let Wilson do himself in!). As for the racist side of Wilson, to get a glimpse of it see THE GREAT WHITE HOPE, where the Wilson administration is determined to drive the black heavyweight champion (based on Jack Johnson, and played by James Earl Jones) out of the title he deserves to keep.

"Wilson" is in the grand tradition of biopics of great men in which the subject has no significant faults and only a few foibles, and those serve mainly to humanize him. This is an extremely well-made movie on just about every level. It largely gets the history right, except where things have to be fudged to maintain the great man's image. One fact that's never mentioned, for example, is Wilson's reimposition of Jim Crow laws in the District of Columbia.

Perhaps most interesting is how the film handles Wilson's remarriage. His first wife died in 1914, and Wilson remarried in less than two years. His new wife was younger and more glamorous than the first Mrs. Wilson. The filmmakers include a scene in which the dying Mrs. Wilson tells her daughters that their father is a strong and good man, but that he needs the love of a woman. She thus exculpates Wilson from the unseemliness attendant with remarrying so quickly (though this haste was the subject of considerable gossip at the time).

"Wilson" is a well-made, entertaining and interesting period piece that provides some accurate history. Compare its treatment of President Wilson with the way in which presidents are depicted in film today -- Oliver Stone's "Nixon," for example. And can you imagine a widower president carrying on a romance in the White House in today's intolerant political and moral climate?

I don't know how many modern-day film viewers would sit through this long a biography (154 minutes) of a fairly boring man but it moves pretty well and is generally entertaining account of our 28th U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson.

When I watched this, I was unfamiliar with the lead actor, Alexander Knox, and I still am! However, he did a fine job as Wilson. The supporting cast did have some "names," such as Charles Coburn, Thomas Mitchell, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Cedric Hardwicke, Vincent Price, Ruth Nelson and much more.

When they made Technicolor films of the 1940s, which wasn't often, they were very pretty and this one is, too. They also did a nice job re-creating the early 20th century.

It's a nice film but nothing memorable, to be honest, and certainly biased in favor of Wilson....but still worth seeing. With it's length, one viewing would be enough.

When watching this film one first has to take into account the fact that it was made in 1944, the heyday of patriotic Hollywood propaganda. Hollywood had joined the war just like the rest of America, and its job was to keep up moral, foster hope for a better future, and keep people doing their jobs in the war machine with enthusiasm.

If you can take all that with a grain of salt, then you will probably like Wilson, because the goofy and embarrassingly obvious moments of propaganda (and Wilson idolatry) are the movie's only major flaw.

What this movie has going for it is Henry King's direction, many very impressive big crowd scenes and great sets (where you can actually see the ceilings), Woodrow Wilsons somewhat tragic life story, and Alexander Knox who plays Wilson. Knox gives very endearing, powerful, and emotionally resonant performance. He makes Wilson a real character that comes through even the thick layers of propaganda. The rest of the cast is good as well (especially the women in his life), but it is Knox and King that carry the movie.

See it for Wilson's excruciatingly intense final political speech. It's forceful.

7 out of 10 (for great spectacle and emotional effectiveness).

Before I really get into the meat of this film, specifically why I wasn't impressed by it, I want to first mention what I liked about it. It was a gorgeous movie to view. The film wasn't afraid to use lush colors, especially in scenes in the White House's Blue Room. I also liked the use of period newsreels juxtaposed with (then) current, black and white footage of the actors. This movie was pleasing to the eye. Unfortunately, it was not so pleasing to the ear and mind.

There's really not much to Wilson from an intellectual point of view. It gives a very school book depiction of the man as the Ivy League President turned United States President. You can tell they tried to humanize him by putting a great deal of emphasis on his relationship with his family (especially in the first half), but in general the 28th President came off as dull and overly pious. I applaud Alexander Knox's effort, but it came up short for the most part. In general, the depiction of the characters came off as two-dimensional, cliché and generally hokey.

When you factor that along with the overly sappy score consisting of "heavenly" choirs and slow, orchestral strains of patriotic tunes and terrible pacing (the movie was a little over two and a half hours, but it felt much longer), it's no wonder why it bombed at the box office. In an era when audiences had a much higher tolerance for over sentimentality, this one pushed it too far.

This 2.5 hour movie won FIVE Oscars and was nominated for FIVE more!! It is the best major presidential biopic that I have seen in that it covered Wilson's entire presidency--not just a portion of it. This is my 2nd viewing of the movie, and I got MUCH more from it this time than I did from only one viewing.

This movie was made during WWII, and I suppose that audiences were more drawn toward experiencing WW II, as in Since You Went Away (1944), The Seventh Cross (1944), or Lifeboat (1944)--or escaping from it, as in Going My Way (1944) or Gaslight (1944) did. My assumption is that movie audiences did not much want to look backwards towards WW I.

Still, there is some good history, here, presented in an entertaining and enlightening fashion. I felt that Alexander Knox gave a convincing— perhaps Oscar-worthy--performance as Wilson. The movie generally presents the legislative accomplishments of his first term and his struggle with WWI and trying to get his 14 points and the League of Nations approved during his second term.

It also inserted some real black-and-white newsreels from period. Also, I am quite sure that Knox gave a couple of Wilson's speeches as they were originally written. e.g. his speech to Congress asking them to declare war on Germany.

I have two main reservations with this movie: 1) It only covered the positive side of Wilson's presidency and did not cover his negatives (but I suppose that is typical of a Hollywood movie). 2) I felt the internal designs of the White House were a bit too ornate.

If you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it.

Neither its quality nor its good reviews alas were sufficient to prevent this biopic being Darryl F. Zanuck's most expensive failure.

Canadian Alexander Knox was a little-known character actor when he landed the role of Woodrow Wilson and he comes through with flying colours, especially as it is far more difficult to play 'good' than 'bad'. He deservedly won a Golden Globe for his performance.

Great support from Thomas Mitchell, Charles Coburn and Cedric Hardwicke who wisely avoids an American accent as Republican Henry Cabot Lodge. Mrs. Wilson the second is played by the wondrous and captivating Geraldine Fitzgerald.

An Oscar was awarded to Barbara McLean for her superb editing and Leon Shamroy picked up the third of his four Oscars for his stunning cinematography.

Certain aspects of Wilson's presidency have been conveniently passed over of course, especially his support of segregation whilst his role in the Treaty of Versailles is ambiguous. Despite his assurances to President Clemenceau that Germany would never again be allowed to attempt world conquest it was the punitive reparations that France was allowed to impose that enabled Hitler to gain power and to make WW2 inevitable.

Wilson's advocacy of The League of Nations as a means of securing world peace, although well-intentioned, turned out to be a pipedeam as that organisation proved itself as worthless as its successor, the so-called United Nations.

Although Wilson was no saint he was certainly a cut above the assorted crooks, charlatans, shysters and sociopaths who have inhabited the White House in recent decades.

Despite its inaccuracies as an historical record this film justifies its two and a half-hour length and is well directed by Henry King who gets the best out of his cast. Even to non-Americans who have little or no interest in the chicanery and jiggery-pokery of American politics, this should still be of interest to those few who appreciate good film making.

The problem with reviewing a film like 'Wilson' is that audiences today often concentrate on how the film should've been rather more than what it actually is. 21st-century preferences can be OK with accepting a Marvel opus as 'plausible', yet frustrations occur because a biopic from the '40s lacks incisive accuracy or revisionist aspects.

The term 'solid' used to crop up in reviews a lot if the film deserved it. Most everything about 'Wilson' is certainly solid. The production values are a triumph of the studio technique. The creative team at 20th needs no introduction here, but Zanuck ensured everyone was in peak performance mode. Shamroy's camerawork is solid to say the least, as if he's shooting in Todd-AO. Lamar Trotti's (original) screenplay is steady, credible, stately-paced, and most of all, intelligent. Trotti was Zanuck's most trusted screenwriter, and for good reason. Henry King's direction - talk about solid! One of the most reliable, capable, and admirable of the great directors, King didn't need a 'style' to tell the story. Yet he always delivers the goods. Speaking of competent, Barb McLean is certainly among the star women editors of the era.

Almost needless to say, Alfred Newman's score does much of the heavy lifting throughout the picture. One of Zanuck's strong points was, once he had great creative talent under contract, he let them do their thing. His own thing was mostly the script, so he never had to worry about what his head of the Music Department (the best in Hollywood) was going to come up with.

Especially during the war, the studios wanted to engage audiences with the familiar old songs and flag-wavers. 'Wilson's got 'em, but the Newman treatment comes on strong, with freshness, confidence and purpose.

I'm sure Alfred would've preferred to avoid the cliches, but in this and all his other scores, he (and orchestrator Ed Powell) always enhance the familiarity, so that they sound like variations instead of dutiful renditions. His original themes are interwoven, and one wishes they could have been allowed more screen time. His theme for Wilson himself is epic and inspiring, but wisely understated.

For such an unconventional film, it's also highly entertaining. It draws you right in, from the dignified credits and right into the football game onwards (the coverage is spare, but epic), the drama is engaging and intriguing. Of course it's not for everybody, and it certainly doesn't have to be. At the time, Hollywood aimed for as broad an audience they could get. Still, a few years later, O'Neill's 'Mourning Becomes Electra' would be tackled over at RKO, with a young Kirk Douglas. Running time: 173 minutes,

All the players in 'Wilson' put in solid performances. It's all Good Acting, and to my mind, unnecessary to pick apart.

Taken for what it really is instead of what it isn't, 'Wilson' is an excellent drama and a top-notch production. Besides, like other 'presidential' biopics, just because the last name is used for the title doesn't mean it's the last word on the subject.

Whenever possible is always good go back to the past to take a look in some facts, this time Woodrow Wilson, seemingly a honest man, leading America twice, this long biography is harmed by an ambitious atmosphere of cheap nationalism, Wilson certainly wouldn't approve such thing, in any Wilson's speech sequence the national anthem is rung, making part of the soundtrack, too appealing in my vision, Alexander Knox portraits perfect the president, the movie reach the target showing us several facts from those days, how and why America stays absent on world war I and how and when the country came in, Wilson has a decent life, if the producers didn't hidden the fact he was a proponent of eugenics on USA, whose main thesis is that all black people and others ethnicities non-white should be sterilized for good, in this Zanuck make sure to put under the carpet, as I know that I'm not perfect neither, I won't criticize anyone, overall a pleasant bio if you cut off the score music and pay attention on the real facts!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / DVD / Rating: 7

If you want to dramatize Wilson's life, you can either approach it as either a tragedy or a hagiography, and Fox chose the hagiographic route. Considering the era and that the only biography at the time was the uncritical one by Ray Standard Baker, this is hardly surprising. Thank God, however, they cast the unknown Alexander Knox rather than an established star such as Gary Cooper for the title character; when you see the film you can't imagine anyone else playing the part.

This movie proves that the Hollywood era could do films with some integrity beyond the standard fare from MGM or Warners. Twentieth-Century Fox's Zanuck was the only mogul who had the guts to make a motion picture as expensive as this, with an unknown in the lead, and on a President who, unlike say Teddy Roosevelt, strikes many people as a cold fish. I love this film, despite its simplifying of history and its wartime propaganda because it's very special in many ways. There are plenty of movies like JEFFERSON IN PARIS or YOUNG MR. LINCOLN or ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS or THE PRESIDENT'S LADY etc., but aside from NIXON, Zanuck and King's WILSON seems the only theatrical film that dramatizes a President's life while he served in office. For those of you who find it undramatic, think again: it's a film to cherish

For those who dismiss Wilson as a propaganda war time film, they are making a vast mistake. It's propaganda to be sure, but it's propaganda concerning our war aims both in the First and Second World War and how they fell short of the mark. At least the mark set by Woodrow Wilson who was our 28th president and subject of this biographical film.

Prior to our entry into World War II, the country was in a great debate, with it almost split down the middle as to whether we should get involved in the second World War. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor that debate ceased and we went to war with only one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives. The isolationist Senators who opposed the American entry before Pearl Harbor became an endangered species. Most over the elections of 1942, 1944, and 1946 in the Senate were defeated or chose to retire.

It was an article of faith that had we entered the League Of Nations as Woodrow Wilson wanted there might not have been a second World War. The pressure for American entry into a new world organization was near irresistible. And this film makes the case for the reason why.

The film covers that portion of Woodrow Wilson's life from the time some Democratic political bosses approached the President of Princeton University to see if he'd be interested in being governor to the end of his term in the White House in 1921. The film covers roughly an 11 year span. It does get the main points of Wilson's life accurately recorded.

Some names were changed, Thurston Hall's character of the political boss who approached Wilson was actually named James Smith and was a former US Senator who desired to go back to Washington. The characters that Charles Coburn as one of Wilson's professors at Princeton and William Eythe as a student whom we last see going to France as a doughboy are as far as I can tell completely fictional. But both serve as sounding boards for the Wilson character.

The women play a great part in Wilson's life, he was married twice and had three daughters with his first marriage. Ruth Nelson plays Ellen Axson Wilson his first wife who dies in the White House a year after his inauguration. She was a person who could occasionally bring him to a halt when he got too self righteous which even his devoted admirers agree he could.

The second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson played by Geraldine Fitzgerald was also supportive. She however tended to mirror and exacerbate the worst features of his personality. She is also credited with being our first unofficial female president when Wilson suffered his stroke in September of 1919. Maybe she was in fact because she controlled who and what had access to his person during the last 16 months of his term.

Today historians firmly believe that Wilson made two disastrous blunders by first calling for a Democratic Congress to be elected in 1918 and the war weary public responding in the opposite. Not the way to go if you want bipartisan support. And secondly not taking members of the Senate who had to pass on the treaty with a 2/3 vote to help in the negotiation. Wilson's predecessor William McKinley in ending the Spanish American War had no less than five members of the Senate involved in the process.

If the film has a villain it's of course Henry Cabot Lodge played by Cedric Hardwicke, unrecognizable in the white mane and goatee that the real Lodge had. Lodge may have wanted to kill Wilson's treaty by increments because it was Wilson's treaty, but he also raised some valid points about American sovereignty. Historians today recognize the strengths and faults of both men.

Whatever else Wilson was, he was a person of high ideals who did quite a bit in his term in the White House. The idealism of Wilson is what Alexander Knox captures well. Wilson was 20th Century Fox's prestige picture for 1944, it received ten Oscar nominations and won five Oscars that year in technical categories. Unfortunately it was also up against Going My Way in 1944 and it lost Best Picture to that classic, Bing Crosby beat out Alexander Knox for Best Actor, and Henry King lost for Best Director to Leo McCarey.

Historical revisionism has dated Wilson badly and it doesn't hold up well. Woodrow Wilson isn't on quite as high a plane as he was in 1944 when we were trying to sell the United Nations to the American public. Still it's not a bad film, but should be viewed with a whole salt shaker.

I expressly watched this on the same day as ANTHONY ADVERSE (1936), despite there being at least five titles which ought to have preceded it, on account of both these films emerging as perhaps the most overlooked of all the ones that had proved multiple Oscar winners. This, in fact, had an impressive 10 nominations to its name and, even if it only won half of them, it was still a considerable feat at the time: Best Original Screenplay (Lamar Trotti), Color Cinematography (Leon Shamroy), Color Art Direction/Interior Decoration, Editing and Sound Recording, while its other nods were for Best Picture (personally produced by Fox head Darryl F. Zanuck), Direction, Actor (Alexander Knox in easily the role of his life), Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (Alfred Newman) and Visual Effects.

The film deals with the career and personal life (encompassing two wives) of the 28th American President, Woodrow Wilson, whose two terms of office lasted from 1912 to 1920, thus encompassing the First World War. However, for all its accolades, this was a notorious commercial flop – which can be ascribed to a number of factors, and not just the political elements within the narrative (the speechifying is often undeniably inspiring, yet it does eventually prove heavy-going at 2½ hours). Indeed, the quaint atmosphere redolent of the early 20th century (especially the collective singing, both at college and at home, which takes up a sizeable part of the running-time!) was already far removed from the conflict (WWII) that was under way when the film was released. Incidentally, Wilson's overly cautious attitude and his failed attempt to initiate a League of Nations in order to maintain world peace must not have gone down very well either – but, in retrospect, he would be vindicated as a visionary instead of a mere idealist when the United Nations was eventually established in 1945 (the opening text maintains he was as seminal a leader as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln)!

Still, one of the main virtues here is the sheer number of stars and character actors roped in to comprise the supporting cast: Geraldine Fitzgerald (as the second Mrs. Wilson who, when the President suffers a debilitating stroke towards the end of his tenure, takes over for him in addressing routine official matters!), Sidney Blackmer, Charles Coburn, Marcel Dalio (as French Prime Minister Clemenceau), Eddie Foy Jr. (playing his own vaudevillian father), Thurston Hall (as the Senator who first recommends Wilson for the Governor's seat then sees his corrupt practices exposed by him!), Charles Halton, Sir Cedric Hardwicke (virtually unrecognizable under white whiskers and a wig as Wilson's political rival), George Macready, Edwin Maxwell (as William Jennings Bryan), Thomas Mitchell (as Wilson's secretary but who bafflingly keeps calling him "Governor" even after he has entered the White House!), Vincent Price (bearing a most unbecoming haircut!), Stanley Ridges (as the Presidential physician but also, apparently, a military officer since he is seen parading in full regalia at one point!), etc. Apart from the pleasure of recognizing so many familiar faces (including genuine newsreel footage of Silent movie stars "Fatty" Arbuckle Marie Dressler, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford rallying for the war effort), the elaborate campaign sequences are vividly-staged and the confrontations (notably Wilson's uncharacteristically vociferous putdown of the Kaiser's envoy and his similar outburst at the 1919 Versailles peace treaty) compelling – yet it is Knox's dignified but nuanced portrayal which holds the film together.

By the way, the copy I watched (which, dim as it was, does not do the colour justice) was a rip off Spanish TV, with forced subtitles in that language!; for the record, the film was recently released as a Fox "Cinema Archive" DVD-R…but the quality, reportedly, still leaves much to be desired!

I can see why this film was a bomb in its time and is all but forgotten today. I just saw it for the first time, and on a big screen.

I left after about 40 minutes. There simply wasn't one interesting or dramatic scene. Wilson was depicted as a wooden saint, and everything he wanted -- getting nominations, passing bills -- happened without any apparent effort by him as he sat quietly in a room and waited for everyone to come to their senses.

This film to be epitomizes the word dull. I can see why it's forgotten. It is simply bad bad bad bad bad.

I just added those to get to 10 lines. This film isn't worth spending more time talking about

I recently saw this film on cable, and I was surprised by how much I liked it and how good it was. Wilson is portrayed by Alexander Knox as a prickly sort who is much easier to admire than like. He was a brilliant man but ultimately a naif, outfoxed and outgunned in Europe by the likes of Clemenceau and at home by the likes of Lodge. The films only flaw is that it lets Wilson go on too long with his preachy rhetoric, but this can be forgiven because, after all, it was made and released during wartime. Well worth seeing.

Rating: 8/10

Zanuck - his name is all over this bio-pic of Wilson, and he was heavily invested in both the war waging at that time and a peaceful future, as advocated by Wilkie's book ONE WORLD. The budget was lavish for the film and Knox was perfect, as was the rest of the cast. Many reviews are more negative and I tend to agree. Certainly Wilson has his bad aspects to the story, most of which were not known in 1944 and, besides, 2 hours is an indecent limit of time to pose on a biography of anybody. It can't be done, but some do it better than others. Zanuck tried to get it right and succeeded on some levels as above. He violated, though, Capra's singular rule of film-making: boredom. The film has zero visual movement, takes run long and dynamic it is not. Zanuck was too close to his subject to see this flaw. It is worth the view to see the performances and learn about an interesting President, one for the shelf and to be watched when the interest is up.

It's funny how they left out the fact that he segregated the military and segregated all government facilities in Washington DC such as, restrooms, drinking fountains etc. He belonged to the Progressive Party which highly admired the Russian Socialists and wished to implement the same government in the US. He began the Secret Service which was used to spy on Americans which opposed this particular view and had thousands of ordinary Americans imprisoned for opposing the Progressive/Socialist ideology. This was one of the most racist presidents our country has had. Why is this information kept out of history books? He premiered the racist silent film, "Birth of a Nation" in the White House in 1919 which was produced by the KKK to depict blacks as criminals and whites as victims. Why are there grade schools named after him, why is there a school at Harvard named after him? Progressives have always been a political party which has a negative ideology.

As was mentioned elsewhere, this was perhaps one of the first "big films" to win and compete for so many Academy Awards and be a flop at the box office. Now the divide between box office and critical acclaim is largely a predictable abyss, but it was still novelty in 1944.

This was Darryl F. Zanuck's personal project, created after he returned from his service in WWII. Zanuck supervised every phase of production, and wanted to give Americans a film about an American that personified the ideals they were fighting for in Europe and in the Pacific - those of the equality of all men, and that Americans value peace but will fight if confronted and when they do fight, they pull out all the stops. In 1944, if one was to make a biopic about such a man, the obvious choice would be Woodrow Wilson. FDR might be a more obvious choice today, and his legacy has largely eclipsed that of Wilson, but at the time FDR was still alive and the sitting President, so portraying him in a biopic would be inappropriate.

Alexander Knox was a perfect choice to play Wilson, looking, moving, and even talking just like him. Most might find this rather long at two and a half hours, and the Technicolor will not impress in the year 2013, and Wilson's views on race have been conveniently omitted, but I think it's time well spent to remember a President, a film, and an actor not often remembered today. As a special treat, you even get to hear Charles Coburn sing!

This film has many remarkable things: Above all, it's a great recreation of the ambient of the beginning 20th century, done with a strange realism for being a Hollywood movie (the politicians are crying constantly for make himself hear, as it really was before microphones). And the choral scenes (and there are many!!) are really well done. On the opposite, the film seems in 2D, probably because of the color advisers of the Technicolor System, that gives that ugly colors and that kind of lightening, all full of light. But the main thing that makes the film boring is the lack of psychological characterization on the characters, above all, on Wilson, that Alexander Knox play as if he was made of wax. And, of course, because you end with a big stomachache of "democracy" a word that you can hear no less that 90 times.