Must See Movie...

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Familiar music plays while a white wooden sign appears that heralds "A David O. Selznick Production;" the orchestral score swells, and the film title in huge letters sweeps from right to left as though too big to be contained by a mere movie screen; a written prologue introduces background to the era; a turbulent romance unfolds against a terrible war; thousands of soldiers march and fight; civilians flee a burning city under attack; an overworked doctor struggles in a make-shift hospital that overflows with wounded soldiers; a woman struggles through a difficult childbirth. "Gone with the Wind?" No, but viewers could be confused by the similarities. Selznick's 1957 remake of "A Farewell to Arms" was the producer's vain attempt to match or surpass his 1939 masterwork. Unfortunately, the big budget production of Ernest Hemingway's love story during World War I falls short.Directed by Charles Vidor from a script by Ben Hecht, the film has some fine elements that include a lush score by Mario Nascimbene and scenic locations in the Italian Alps lensed by Oswald Morris and Piero Portolupi. However, despite the anti-war sentiments expressed, the slight story does not warrant the grandiose production values lavished on an overlong film with much pictorial filler, and unflattering comparisons to Frank Borzage's 1932 production are inevitable. The outlines of the two films are similar; American falls for English nurse; they are separated; he is wounded; she is transferred to the hospital where he is convalescing; their romance deepens; melodramatic consequences ensue.Rock Hudson and Jennifer Jones are an uncomfortable fit as the stars and lack the chemistry of Helen Hayes and Gary Cooper in the earlier version. While Rock Hudson as Lt. Frederick Henry, an American soldier in the Italian army, is at the peak of his hunky good looks, Jennifer Jones, six years Hudson's senior, seems too mature as Catherine Barkley, an English nurse with no English accent. The two stars have different acting styles as well; Hudson is only passable, and he lacks the depth and passion of a man deeply in love. While Jones is credible in a 1940's romantic movie manner, she overplays at times, and her character often seems on an emotional edge. Vittorio De Sica as Major Alessandro Rinaldi, a military doctor, received the film's only Oscar nomination as Supporting Actor. Elaine Stritch as a sympathetic nurse, Mercedes McCambridge as a strict head nurse, and Oskar Homolka as a Swiss doctor also appear. Unfortunately, sequences intended as comic depict bumbling incompetent Italians and are dated and embarrassing."A Farewell to Arms" has too much going for it to be called a misfire. However, the film misses the target as a companion piece to "Gone with the Wind," which remains secure as David O. Selznick's crowning achievement. Perhaps a stronger male star and tighter editing could have improved this Hemingway adaptation. While the movie is passable entertainment, the project had unrealized potential, but Selznick's "A Farewell to Arms" eventually falls flat as an unconvincing overlong romance.

Many critics didn't like this movie when it was first released and still don't if reviews on IMDb are anything to go by. I think that many films, especially from the late 50's and early 60's, took a critical hammering at the time because they seemed old-fashioned in the light of the great changes in cinema that were just starting. But now, over 50 years later, a film such as "A Farewell to Arms" can be evaluated more dispassionately, and as the film is actually set 40 years before it was made, it is now relatively free of the baggage of 1957 and Selznick's interference – I feel that it has far more merit than some would allow. The film follows Hemingway's novel with Rock Hudson's Lt Frederick Henry wounded while serving as an ambulance driver in Italy during WW1. While recuperating, he falls in love with an English nurse, Catherine Barkley, played by Jennifer Jones. After returning to the front, he is caught up in the retreat of the Italian army, and almost executed as a traitor. With as much danger from his own side as from the enemy he decides to desert to Switzerland, taking the now pregnant Catherine with him. Although they reach safety, tragedy awaits. The final scenes of this film are harrowing and haunting; they also put to rest any doubts about Rock Hudson's acting ability. A major criticism of the film is that Jennifer Jones at 38 was too old for the part. From my reading of the novel, Catherine Barkley is an indeterminate age, but she would seem to be older than the reviewer who claims she was 21. After all, she tells Lt Henry that she had been engaged for 8 years to someone who was killed on the Somme – surely Hemingway wasn't suggesting that she had become engaged when she was 13 years old. The affair is based on fact, details of which didn't emerge until after Hemingway's death. Hemingway was an ambulance driver in Italy, was wounded and did fall in love with his nurse. Her name was Agnes von Kurowsky, and she was actually an American. If you Google her name, there are quite a few of photographs of her; it's easy to see why Ernest fell for her – she was gorgeous. But she was also 7 years older than the 19-year-old Hemingway. They didn't run away to Switzerland together, in fact Hemingway was invalided back to America and never saw her again. She sent him a letter from Italy, "…I am now and always will be too old, and that is the truth, and I can't get away from the fact that you are just a boy – a kid". He was dumped. It affected him deeply, and Agnes turns up in a number of his stories. "In Love and War", starring Sandra Bullock, is a well-made, but somewhat fictionalised account of the real story. So there you are, Jennifer Jones was 6 years older than Rock Hudson, probably not the ages the novel vaguely suggests, but I feel too much has been made of this aspect. Oh, just for the record, Jennifer Jones looks fantastic for an 'old lady' of 38.Technically there is much to admire – the scenes of the Italian army advancing and retreating are amazing, while Mario Nascimbene composed a lavish score with a recurring raindrop motif that is very effective within the context of the story. The novel was adapted into a play in 1930, which all the films have drawn material from. "A Farewell to Arms" was first filmed in 1932 starring Gary Cooper, and also appears in a slightly different form as one of the segments in "Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man". But I feel that Selznick's 1957 film is the best version, and still has a lot to offer.

The very successful producer, David O. Selznick, had a very publicized affair with a young actress, Jennifer Jones. Selznick divorced his wife, married Jones and spent the rest of his career trying to make her a star of the first magnitude. Unfortunately, he OFTEN miscast her and the quality of his films was sometimes compromised. His once golden touch was gone and this film was his last--and his last attempt to promote Jones. Now I don't hate Jones--she was fine in some films such as "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit" and "Portrait of Jenny". But, she was also quite terrible in a few of his movies because she was just wrong for the parts. In particular, she was ridiculous in the sleazy and extremely silly drama "Duel in the Sun". "Indiscretion of an American Wife" was another mistake--a bad film that was ill-matched to her screen persona (though I am not sure if anyone could have saved this film). Here in "A Farewell to Arms", Selznick is trying to get his 38 year-old wife to be believable as a 21 year-old nurse. Poor Jennifer....I think her career actually would have been better had she not been promoted by Selznick, as her Oscar-winning role in "Song of Bernadette" came before he became involved with her career.The original film starred Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. It was a hit back in the early 30s but hasn't aged well. In particular, the sound is a SERIOUS problem if you try to watch it. So, the notion of a remake isn't a bad thing.In this version, Rock Hudson and Jones play the fated couple. Hudson is an American who has volunteered as an ambulance driver for the Italians. The US has not yet entered the war and some Americans did volunteer with Brits, French and Italians...and even the Germans (after all, the US was neutral during most of the war). This character was based, in part, on Ernest Hemmingway's own experiences driving an ambulance in the war.Hudson falls for a very young British nurse (Jones). At first, his advances are boorish and she rebuffs him--for a while. Later, when he's injured in combat, he's sent to the hospital where he meets her again. This time, they BOTH are madly in love. So far, so good--these things DO happen. But eventually their attraction for each other becomes dangerous and all-consuming. She becomes pregnant, he is almost shot for dereliction of duty because the Italian army is run by idiots, he goes AWOL, finds her, they run away together, the baby is stillborn and she dies. A lot of stuff happens in between (after all, it runs over two hours in length)--though this is pretty much the film.The chemistry between the two characters is only fair--but not what you'd want in such a film. Jones was especially poor, as she was SUPPOSED to be British but sounded like an American. And, the dialog between them often sounded silly. The audiences apparently felt the same way, as the film failed to make money when it was first released and the critics were pretty harsh to it. Now the film DOES look nice--the budget was very good and it's obvious that Selznick wanted this to be a big picture. Overall, it's painfully slow and should have been a lot better.

I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not. The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him. Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.