Reviews (13)

One Of My Favorite Movies
This movie is where I first saw Greg Peck, who is always a treat to watch. It is an adaptation of A.J. Cronin's book of the same name. I've read all of Cronin's books and they are a delight, so that is an additional reason for appreciating this film. It is a story about a priest who is a missionary to China and most of the action takes place in (a movie back lot that is supposed to be) China. Excellent characters; both good and bad people. The only flaw might be that the priest played by Peck seems almost too good to be true. But then again, I've known such men. If you like swordplay, guns, and things blowing up, this isn't your film (though it has some of those things). But if you like a good story, lovingly told, you'll like this film.

The Keys of the Kingdom
This is an excellent old movie showing how a Catholic Priest (Gregory Peck) overcomes adversity while trying to establish a Christian mission deep in China. When first arriving, he refuses to use rice to "buy" converts as the previous mission director had, and as a result has no "converts"----only one true believer who comes to offer to be his helper. They pray constantly for God to show a way, and eventually God does answer that prayer and reveals to Peck another way to win converts and save souls----a way of truth and integrity and compassion. This is NOT some dry, stale, boring story----the movie is filled with gun battles, war, the burning of the village, and a lost love, as China is caught up in the policital upheavel of the early 20th century. The best part is the end....one last battle back in the States....and the fruit of all his years in China is revealed.

"how the days tumbled into my lap"
Based on the best-selling novel by A.J. Cronin, who also had a part in writing the script, this is a quiet, inspiring film that follows the long life of Father Francis Chisholm, who was not talented or clever in the traditional sense, but who lead a courageous and adventurous life and touched so many people with his great love, generosity and faith.
It starts with him as a child in Scotland, and when he becomes a priest, he is sent to China as a missionary, where he endures a multitude of challenges and successes.
It is told in the form of a narrative, as Cedric Hardwicke, playing Monsignor Sleeth, reads through Father Chisholm's journal.

This was Gregory Peck's second starring role (the first being "Days of Glory", which was not well received) and it earned him a Best Actor Oscar nomination; he is wonderful in the part, and other great performances come from Thomas Mitchell as Dr. Willie Tullock, Rose Stradner as Sister Maria-Veronica, Benson Fong as Joseph, and Roddy McDowall as the young Francis.
Sensitive direction by John Stahl and music by Alfred Newman complete this film, which is satisfying viewing, and a must for Peck fans.
being 60 years old, the quality of the film shows a little age, but does not take away from the beauty of it. Total running time is 137 minutes.

What really counts!
Since Vatican 2 there has been more dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. This movie should be shown before each discussion. It transcends doctrinal battles, not discounting them, but simply realizing that God saves people in both camps. In this religious strife humility and tolerance are best reflective of the New Testament call for agape love among all. Let God judge and punish, but let His people be kind even on doctrinal differences. The truth exchanged between the Presbyterian doctor and the Roman priest is worth the price of the movie. Psalm 130 is quoted by Father Chisholm at the death of his atheist friend Willie Tulloch despite the religious disgust of the Mother Superior. The contrast between Mealey, the proud bishop and Chisholm the humble priest is dramatically, but not unkindly presented. The cause of Christ would be greatly helped if His followers would show a tad more humility and let He Himself punish the heretics.
I strongly recommend the movie as a spur to buy the book by A.J. Cronin which will, I believe, be profitably read once a year.

Inspirational Film and Performance by Gregory Peck
This is a film perfectly scripted and directed for and delivered by Gregory Peck. This simple yet powerful story is so bright in its message of hope and honesty through good deeds of the human spirit. Gregory Peck the man seems so dedicated to his craft as an actor by putting his talents to such a sincere role as demonstrated in this film that one must take the time and give thanks that such a man as Peck ever walked this earth. This film is among Peck's finest as he demonstrates such dignity of this simple yet kind man. ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Heartbreakingly dissapointing
I read the astonishingly true book A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I loved it- and understood it. I expected so much from the movie- but when it was finished, I was just dissapointed. I understand that sometimes parts of books had to be changed to make a movie. And yet... it was probably the small cast of characters, and the MANY alterations. Wherer is the cruel, evil Granpa Rommely? Why do the characters talk so FAST. They need to slow down, and relax. Where's Little Tilly, or Gussie? The movie, as I can call it, is cute. I would give it 2.5 stars. But, it shows a glossed over version of Francie's life. Francie was a child who lived in a world of brutality. She went to a school (from 6-10 anyway) where the teachers were CRUEL, and DIRTY. She wore smudged clothes, ripped, and patched. She never had enough to eat. The most refreshing aspect of the book was that she was able to find magic IN SPITE or all of this. But the movie changes a mature book into a G-Rated film.I will never hear the names Francie, Neely,Sissy and Katie, and see Peggy Ann Garner, Ted Donaldson,Joan Blondell and Dorothy McGuire. I will always see Francie as a skinny, ragged looking child, with wondering eyes, and a timid smile. I will always see Neely as a scruffy, ragged kid, with a little-boy grin on his face. I will always see Sissy as a dark-haired, full-figured ''bad girl'' sensitive beauty, and I will always see Katie as a wide-eyed, unexplainable fighter.The only acotr who captured the essence of the character is James Dunn as Johnny. Now HE deserved his Oscar. They took too much out of the book to make the movie good. Where's Aunt Evy, and Uncle Wille Flitmann? More importantly WHERE'S THE EXPLAINATION OF HOW KATIE AND JOHNNY MET. They just skipped right past that part. I have always read reviews of movies I loved- and seen one person who gives a 5-star movie (atleast 5-star to me) and gives it 2-stars for not following the book, and I feel angry. But in this case- I urge anyone who loved the movie to thoroughly read the book, then watch it again. The movie COULD HAVE BEEN SO GREAT! They should have followed Francie's life until the end of the book. They should have shown Francie and Lee, her true love. A part in the book read, after Katie had heard Francie call her ''mother'' instead of ''mama'': '' Mother! Katie remembered when she had called her mother ''mother'' instead of ''mama''. She had said ''Mother'' when she had been ready to marry Johnny. When she had called her mother ''Mother'' she had finished growing up. She had never said ''mama'' again. Now Francie.... And this is just the problem. The movie never fully ''grows up''. I hope someday, someone takes the time (though it will take a long time) to make a movie TRUE TO THE BOOK.If people loved this movie, wait until they see a movie that follows the book. They will be astonished at the difference!

What a Great Film !
From the opening scene, this movie hooks you in. It is the story of a little girl, Francie Nolan, and her family. The setting is turn-of-the-century Brooklyn. This film stands up to repeated viewings, something movies seldom accomplish. The basic story line centers around Francie, an intelligent girl filled with wonder. Her father, Johnny Nolan, loves his daughter and does everything he can to support her wishes. The mother is the serious, single-layered breadwinner of the house, and is often more concerned with public perception of her family than with the family itself. Starring Dorothy McGuire, James Dunn, Peggy Ann Garner, Lloyd Nolan and Joan Blondell, it doesn't get much better than this, folks...have some tissues readily available. Elia Kazan's direction makes tear-jerkers out of certain scenes, like when Francie throws her arms around her father and proclaims "I just love you so much, Papa". Another GREAT scene is when Papa is in Francie's room, just before going to look for a job. The piano scene. The tree catching scene....and on and on. A real classic.

Faithful to the book
Even though this movie has been around for quite a while, one wonders (and worries) how faithful the movie-makers were to the book, especially since the novel made a come-back thanks to Oprah and her gang. What a relief it was to find out that "A Tree Grows" was mostly like the book. One can only hope that McCrae's "The Bark of the Dogwood" will receive similar treatment when it is made into a film--let's hope so. I highly recommend this heart-warming tale of life in Brooklyn, even if it does have its ups and downs.

Francie's World
A Tree Grows In Brooklyn is a beautiful and thoughtful book. The screen version is one of my favorite films of all time. It tells the story of Francie, a poor girl growing up in Brooklyn at the turn of the 20th century. The acting, with Peggy Ann Garner as Francie, James Dunn as her father and Joan Blondell as Francie's aunt, is superb and evocative of that bygone era. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. You never get tired of it.

The Tender Passage of Youth
Betty Smith's heartfelt and timeless novel of a young girl's passage through her youth in the Brooklyn slums was transformed by director Elia Kazan into one of the most touching and deeply felt films ever made. It has that rare ability to break your heart one moment and make you smile the next. There is a tenderness here that has rarely been captured on film. Many point to Elia Kazan's flashier films, but it was this sentimental film that was his crowning achievement. There are moments in this film when even those who never cry at the movies will be moved to tears.

Peggy Ann Garner was so wonderful as the young and sensitive Francie, the Academy gave her an Oscar for Most Promising Juvenile Performer. James Dunn garnered an Oscar also as Francie's loving father, Johnny Nolan, a singing waiter with a gift for dreaming he passes on to Francie, who wants to be a writer. Francie's papa makes their hard life worth living and Francie worships him. He understands and adores her.

But when he isn't working, Johnny is usually drunk. Everyone in their poor neighborhood knows Johnny is a good man, however, and loves and respects him. He is the one who will find a way for Francie to attend the school she dreams of, even though it is far from their home. Francie's mother is the only one who doesn't seem to see how special Johnny is.

Dorothy McGuire gives another terrific performance as Francie's hard working mother, Katie, who tries desparately not to love her boy Neely more than Francie, and fails; tries desparately not to become bitter with the charming lad she married in her youth, but can't; and tries desparately not to let her heart grow cold and hard, and fails once more.

Francie and her family may live in poverty, but Kazan takes the time to show the joy that can be found in the small things in life. For Francie, her father represents happiness and living. Joan Blondell, as Katie's sister and Francie's aunt Sissy, with her free spirit and big heart, adds to Francie's joy in life. It is one of Blondell's finest roles.

It is Peggy Ann Garner's emotional performance, however, you will always remember. She brings a sweetness and sincerity to Francie that makes her unforgettable. Purchasing this film is an opportunity to own one of the true masterpieces in American cinema. It will touch your heart and remind you what Hollywood was once capable of, and make you wonder where it all went wrong. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Made two years afterCitizen Kane, this 1943 version of Charlotte Brontë'sJane Eyre sure looks like star Orson Welles muscled his way behind the camera much of the time. (In fact, costar Joan Fontaine--who plays the title character--has maintained that Welles methodically did just that every day on the set.) Not that the film's official director was a hack: Robert Stevenson, who later had a busy career at Disney making numerous live-action hits for the studio, such asMary Poppins, gets the credit. But there's no mistaking Welles's masterful hand in the film's bold and creative look, and there's no getting away from his enigmatic charisma as Rochester, the widower who takes in Jane as a governess to his daughter. An engrossing, gorgeous film, there's even a small role for Elizabeth Taylor at the beginning as Jane's unlucky, doomed friend at a cruel boarding school.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Perfect Casting - Jane Eyre
This movie is one of few that the casting was impeccable.Joan Fontaine is perfect as the timid, yet strong Jane and Orson Wells is the perfect Mr. Rochester.He is gruff and endearing at the same time, no easy task to convey.It is one of my favorite movies that I love to watch with my daughters.A bonus is Elizabeth Taylor as a child in the dreary orphan school with Jane.She is wonderful.You'll love it.

Good 1940's movie but laughable adaptation of the book
Of all the cinematic Rochesters I've seen, Orson Welles most closely resembles him.But that's where the similarity between the book and this movie end: Welles' performance is a string of screaming fits, nothing like the multi-faceted character of the book.

Joan Fontaine is completely wrong for the part; she's absolutely gorgeous (Jane Eyre is supposed to be extremely plain.)Joan tries to portray Jane's plainness by keeping her head down and shoulder's hunched forward, so we all know that she's plain and humble.Sorry Joan!It doesn't work!You still look gorgeous and completely wrong for the part.Furthermore, Jane wasn't beaten down psychologically, as she is portrayed in this film; considering all of her negative circumstances, she should have been, but she was always able to maintain her steely self-respect.Joan Fontain looks absolutely crushed throughout the entire movie.

The relationship between the two main characters consists, then, of Orson screaming at Joan and Joan hunching down -- not exactly romantic chemistry and nothing like the book which depicts one of the greatest romances of literature.

I can understand the problem screenwriters have shortening a story for a screen adaptation, but this one really takes the cake: Jane is about to go back to Lowood School of all places (where she was starved and mistreated as a child by the sadistic schoolmaster, Mr. Brockelhurst, and later worked as a teacher) when she hears Rochester calling her back to Thornfield.Instead of verging on accepting St. John Rivers loveless proposal of marriage -- an important character who was completely cut from this movie -- she almost agrees to work for Mr. Brocklehurst again before Rochester's long distance cry saves her.It appears that the screenwriters didn't fire Brockelhurst during Jane's childhood as did Charlotte Bronte.

All that being said, a 40's movie is a 40's movie.If you generally like movies from that time period (and if you can forget about the book for a few hours), there are some very interesting and enjoyable aspects to this; it's a quality film.But if you love the book, I would recommend re-reading it instead of watching this.

Hauntingly Beautiful!
This video was the first black and white movie I had ever seen (with the exception of Lon Chaney's "The Phantom of the Opera," and Mexican Cinema star Cantinflas from the 40's). After watching this movie I became a weird teenager who was all into black and white movies.

This movie is missing some important stuff from Bronte's novel, but it is still a spectacular film with a plain but pretty Joan Fontaine and an intimidating tall dark and handsome Orson Welles. The whole plot makes the story perfect for the effects of black and white film. I've seen newer color versions and I must say that none of them come even close to this one.

I have no idea why in the world this movie isn't out on DVD over here. I've even written to the people that make the Criterion Collection and have suggested to put this movie in with all their other good stuff. Still, I keep watching the video every two weeks. I can't get bored of this one.

WOW!
I loved this movie! The beginnig DEPREESED ME THOUGH! This is movie is 10/10! It was great,suspensful and romantic!

the 1996 one is so much better
I have seen the 1996 Jane Eyre first, and then this one.

I feel that the 1996 is so much better, except for the two little girls in the 1944 version.

1. The main actor and the actress, to a lesser extent, say their lines as if they are performing in a stage play.It is not normal speaking.It feels like they are reciting.

2. the music... boy, it feels so awkward.If the scene is supposed to be a surprise, then you will hear a drum or a trumpet.If the scene is supposed to be sad, you will hear some sappy violin.In the modern movies, there is such music but it blends in with the movie.Nothing as dramatic like in this movie.

3. what's the problem with shining a light one the main actor's eyes?If you see carefully, you can see that the other parts of the actor's face is intentionally darkened, while a beam of light shines on his eyes.oh boy... the eyes are intense but not particularly attractive...

4. what's with Jane saying "I do" and then lightning strikes and thunder hits and wind blows?Do it naturally... otherwise it feels like a junior high school performance... ... Read more