User reviews

Movies about the American Revolution for some reason have never succeeded as well as those about the Civil War. My guess is that the best of them is Drums Along the Mohawk and that was about one of the more obscure theaters of that war.

Like Gone With the Wind, the Howards of Virginia is taken from a rather sprawling novel. But Gone With the Wind was very faithful to the original and managed to hold interest even given its length. The Howards of Virginia is a condensed version of the novel and some of the characterization has been sacrificed in the screen translation.

Nevertheless it's a good story about a fictional Matt Howard from his days as a youth hearing the news about his father's death with Braddock's army in the French and Indian War to just before the Siege at Yorktown. Of course growing up with Thomas Jefferson, it's not surprising that Howard develops the opinions he does.

Cary Grant is cast against type as Matt Howard. Takes a bit of getting used to in buckskins, but I like his characterization. In point of fact if you want to see the real Cary Grant on screen look at None, But the Lone Heart, Gunga Din, or Sylvia Scarlett. That's where you see the real Archie Leach. Cary Grant was the best role Cary Grant ever played.

If The Howards of Virginia were made 10 years later, Burt Lancaster would have been spot-on in terms of casting.

Martha Scott is fine as the Tory girl that Cary Grant woos and wins. It's quite a culture shock for her coming to the mostly unsettled Shenandoah valley among Grant's frontier friends and neighbors, but her best scenes in the film are at that point.

Of course I think both Grant and Scott are acted off the screen when Cedric Hardwicke is on. As Scott's older brother Fleetwood Payton, Hardwicke is easily the best in the film. He's a privileged Virginia aristocrat and loyalist supporter of the crown. He's an aristocratic snob to be sure, but he's also a tender and loving brother to Martha Scott. Hardwicke managed to capture all the elements in Fleetwood Payton well as well as his losing his mind as his well ordered aristocratic world tumbles down about him.

Richard Carlson is very much what I picture as the young Thomas Jefferson, full of new ideas and quite the rebel against his own class. Of course Patrick Henry and George Washington make their appearances as well in colonial Virginia. My guess is that in the book a whole lot of familiar names made it there, but were not in the screenplay.

This is not the American Revolution's Gone With the Wind, but taken on its own terms The Howards of Virginia is good entertainment and does capture some of the motivating spirit behind the Virginia patriots and tories.

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.

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.

When I first started to play this, I was afraid I had erred. The acting seemed second-rate and rather silly. But I realized we hadn't seen the main actors, yet. And even when they came on, they hit their stride later in the movie.

The funny thing for me was that the best performances often came from the child actors. Buster Phelps as the young Thomas Jefferson was especially good. The adult Jefferson was good in general, but did not hold a candle to the portrayal in the HBO John Adams series.

Cary Grant is fun to watch. His accent never quite sounds as rough as it should, but his gruff mannerisms make him convincing enough, so long as you're willing to suspend disbelief.

The best element for me was how Cary Grant's character was developed in relation to his family.

I love Cary Grant and that's the only reason I kept watching this movie. It felt like it was about four hours long.

While the story itself was pretty solid, the execution was very poor. Grant's accent wasn't consistent at all (it was there, and then gone, then Irish, then English, then gone again, etc.) and neither he nor his wife appeared to age (despite the movie taking place over 20 years). I also felt some of the major characters (like his brother-in-law) were too one dimensional.

I'm a huge classic movie buff (and Cary Grant buff) so I'm glad I watched the movie, but it's not on my list to watch again. Unless I have insomnia.

Never realized that Cary Grant appeared in a film which concerned the American Revolution or that he even was willing to give his talents to this type of film. I later found out that Cary Grant did not like this role he was playing in the film and made it a point to never appear in such a film. Many people felt that Cary Grant was not suited for his role in this film and felt he should have turned down this role. There are great supporting actors in this film which are Martha Scott, (Jane Peyton Howard) and Cary Grant, ( Matt Howard) and also Cedric Hardwicke,(Fleetwood Peyton). This film deals with the Boston Tea Party which means that the British were enacting a tax on the people of Boston and the people of Boston were very rebellious against such legislation and made the statement, "No Representation with out Taxitation." You must agree this is not really a Cary Grant film, he was placed in a film which he should never had appear in.

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.

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.

In reviewing this, I'm reminded of an episode from an 80's comedy, where one of the characters was showing off her new dress and asked her roommate what she thought of it and she said, "I like it", but then added: "just not on you." Well, it's kind of the same with this movie, which was good, but not for Cary Grant. It wasn't the type of role he should have played. He's the polished, sophisticated type, which comes across even when he's playing an average guy, and in those cases it's a good fit, but in this role it's a misfit. He can't pull off playing a rough around the edges character and make it believable, it came across as phony. I think the role would have been more suitable for Robert Young (guy next door), or Jimmy Stewart (average Joe), or maybe James Cagney, (tough and feisty), any one of them could have brought their own style to the role and made it work, but Cary's style wasn't right for the part, so it didn't work for him.

The story itself was good, especially for me, since the time period is one that I'm very fond of, Martha Scott and the other actors gave good performances, and I love when actual historic characters show up (like Jefferson), so those things were appreciated by me. I also liked the change of heart Matthew has regarding his son, Peyton and how Jane makes him realize the reasoning behind his unfair indifference and resentment. (No need of a psych degree for that intuitive lady!)

It's a good movie, just not a great one.

And this is his. This is a slightly dopey, cornball historical romance from Columbia Pictures and director Frank Lloyd, and yet it always seems to make the cut for Turner Classic Movies' 4th of July films. Colonial Virginia farmer Matt Howard (Cary Grant) wants to travel to the dangerous Ohio frontier to claim land, but his well-meaning friend Thomas Jefferson (Richard Carlson) convinces him to stay, even playing matchmaker between Matt and wealthy socialite Jane Peyton (Martha Scott). Despite the protestations of Jane's snobbish brother Fleetwood (Cedric Hardwicke), she and Matt marry and head to the Shenandoah valley to cultivate Matt's new thousand acre farm. However, differences in temperament and upbringing cause marital woes that are slightly alleviated by having children, and when Matt becomes involved in the brewing American independence movement, their marriage may not withstand the strain. Also featuring Alan Marshal, Paul Kelly, Irving Bacon, Elisabeth Risdon, Anne Revere, Includes Jason Robards Sr., Richard Gaines as Patrick Henry, George Houston as George Washington, and even Peter Cushing shows up in this one.

I've heard of this being one of Cary Grant's worst films, and one that he regretted the most. It's not as horrible as all that, but it's not very good, either. Grant is miscast, and his acting is frequently terrible in it. Martha Scott comes off better able to sincerely sell the often hokey dialogue. The settings and costume work are good, as is the score. I liked seeing Peter Cushing in one of his small Hollywood roles he made during his ill-fated initial attempt at film stardom in the US. He would return to his native England in 1941 and wouldn't find success in movies until the mid-50's. The movie earned Oscar nominations for Best Score (Richard Hageman) and Best Sound.

What a disappointment! I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.

I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)

Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake. And poor, dull Martha Scott -- who could believe that she inspired such love and devotion after one meeting. Personally, I could have done without quite so much "Tom" Jefferson.

The plot was simplistic; the dialog mundane. I couldn't take it for the entire two hours.

I love the premise of this story about the founding of the U.S. but was disappointed in the acting. I am a big Cary Grant fan and have seen many of his films but this is a terrible performance, unlike any of his other films. No wonder he refused to do any more period pieces after the failure of this movie. However, it must be said that the director shares the blame and should have done a better job of directing Mr. Grant in this movie. His acting was over the top- too loud, too brash, a caricature of backwoods men of the late 1700s. His leading lady also did her share of overacting but nothing to compare to Mr. Grant. Overall, it is worth watching to get a sense of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and the war itself and to see Mr. Grant in a role uncharacteristic of his usual fine acting.

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.

This was an unbelievably annoying performance by Grant. The script writing and direction were no better.

The only reason I watched this film was to see my Grandfather. He is the guy who hands Cary the bottle of booze in the house, then is shown again when Martha Scott comes out of her room and sits at the table. He is standing just to the left of her (screen left). But back to the flick. Cary was too hyper in this film. Everything he did was at 100 miles per hour! And that hair was the worst! Oh well. All of Cary's other movies more than make-up for this one. By the way, my grandfather's name is Dan White (I) (imdb.com)

Sad that so many Cary Grant fans had their bubbles burst. It certainly was strange to see him play such a character, but did anyone have any problems with the actors who played the other backwoodsmen? Grant could not have played his dapper persona while being from the Shenandoah Valley, especially in scenes with those crude and embarrassing frontiersmen and women. They must have been extras. I doubt if that kind of acting is taught at UCLA or Princeton.

One reviewer was critical of the director because the irony of Matthew Howard turning into a kind of Fleetwood Peyton was not portrayed. But from early on in the movie, Tom Jefferson and Matt Howard thought it would be grand to develop the 1,000 acres in the Shenandoah Valley into a PLANTATION. That was the American Dream, to achieve success through hard work. Then it meant that the most successful planter had slaves and went to Congress. But Matt Howard didn't want to run at first, and when pressed said he would go if only to improve the roads and bridges and repeal the Stamp Act. He had no thoughts of aristocratic power unlike Fleetwood.

Anyone see John Wayne in The Searchers? Early in the film he wanted to murder his niece Natalie Wood because she was kidnapped and lived with the Redskins. He too was playing a character from an earlier time when there were other mores.

Talk about provincialism! It's thriving even today.

Collectivism versus individualism is being played out today on these movie reviews. Am I being too critical to suggest that those who are most critical of this move are doing so on political rather than on artistic grounds?

July 4, 2009

I watched the film again this year on TV. It's becoming an Independence Day (don't call it the 4th of July) classic, something like Jimmy Stewart's the 25th of December classic, "It's a Wonderful Life."

I can't answer all the other reviewers individually here. Basically, I suspect that the "Cary Grant as Matt Howard" detractors are either in love with the suave Cary Grant or are against the political principles of Matt Howard. His performance in the beginning as a backwoodsman was energetic and realistic. He pulled no punches. The depiction of his friends as toothless and illiterate, and his love and respect for them was outstanding. His speechifying at the conclusion, espousing the distinctly American virtues of freedom, self-reliance and industriousness, sounded heartfelt.

I don't know what Cary Grant felt later about the film, but the film is essential now both as a political debate and a period piece.

Read the reviews at the Cary Grant web site: some of them written when the film came out in 1940 when we were allied with England in WW II. Think about today's political climate, what with tea-partyers (the original Boston Tea party was referred to in the movie) and the current debate on levels of taxation and government controls (the Stamp Act was also a plot element in the movie).

Also, in case there's some doubt, Cary Grant wasn't always perfectly elegant. Early in his career he played a heavy. "In a string of films he had supporting parts, including the heavy who nearly destroys Marlene Dietrich in Blonde Venus 1932) and Mae West's foil in She Done Him Wrong (1933) and I'm No Angel (1933)."

Later in his career, after he had established his elegant style, he played in a couple less-than-exemplary roles, costarring with Jayne Mansfield in 1957 in "Kiss Them for Me" and playing a heartless swindler and a Cockney in 1943 in "Mr Lucky."

I don't see why he can't play against type in this patriotic film. Maybe he was still trying to establish his bona fides as an actor, or he could have believed in the principles of Matt Howard.

In support of the second theory, Cary Grant became an American citizen on June 26th, 1942. Might not he actually believed the lines he was reading because that is what they were teaching our naturalized citizens in those days?

July 4, 2010

Such a thing as outright disastrous Cary Grant exists in the form of the emotionally unstirring catastrophic period piece which engages top talent for all the wrong reasons.

The screenplay remains the biggest fault of the movie, due to mindless indulgence of the writer about Virginian high society and love that comes in the most rigid form of unconvincing passion. Frank Llyold's idiotic and alarmingly dated direction doesn't help ailing elements any further.

Cary Grant would have been better off fronting his appearance under a different name. He looks ridiculous in a long haired wig, and with an unconvincing accent, seems an embarrassment amongst the most elegant folk in Virginia.

After a succession of brilliant Cary Grant projects at Columbia, the dated ill fate and dull proceeding of this movie makes one wonder at the film's very existence.

The best movie of *1927*. The pioneers of sound could have made more interesting short work of this as a cinematic experiment. Maybe it would have been more successful.

Rating: 4/10

Cary Grant was terribly miscast in an historical film set in the 18th century. It doesn't help that he looks 40, almost twice as old as his character for much of the film.

We really found this an interesting movie, since we lived near Williamsburg, and are familiar with Virginia history, especially in the Albermarle County and Wiliamsburg/James River areas. It was interesting to see so much use of the Colonial Williamsburg settings. And the story was a good encapsulation of some early American social and political currents. Unfortunately, the script is weak, the acting uneven, and the moral lessons are not subtle. If you are looking for a sweeping drama, historical epic, or subtle story lines--skip this one. If you want a look through a simplistic lens, then it will be worth your 90 minutes investment.

Pedestrian Revolutionary War drama with a miscast Cary Grant as a young Virginian stirred to rebellion while falling in love with Loyalist Martha Scott. There's some interesting stuff here, as others have noted. The movie is a little more nuanced about the war and the relationship between the Americans and the Brits than the average movie of its type back then. This was probably influenced by the current world events of the time this was made, when Americans were being sold on solidarity with our British cousins. The location shooting at Colonial Williamsburg is certainly a plus. However the movie drags on way too long for such a straightforward plot. Also Grant's role doesn't really play to his strengths. The rest of the cast is decent, with Richard Carlson playing a likable Thomas Jefferson and Cedric Hardwicke being Cedric Hardwicke, which is always great to watch. A young Peter Cushing has an uncredited bit role as well. It's not a bad movie, just a little dull and overlong. Obviously Cary Grant completists will need to see it and maybe Revolutionary War buffs might like it, too.