I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

As Good As It Gets

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Wonderful film adaption of the Sinclair Lewis novel. We find a physician who is dedicated not only to his patients, but to research as well.Ronald Colman is that doctor and with the love of his life, his wife, Helen Hayes, the two embark upon a life that will ultimately lead to success, but with tragedy abounding.The film shows the dilemma faced by the doctor in his research to find a cure for bubonic plague.We see that in the process of trying to save lives,certain decisions have to be made which could be looked upon with disdain and are certainly controversial in nature.A wonderful movie dealing with the trials and tribulations of such a life.

I can't think of any other actor from the Golden Age of films who was miscast as many times as he was because of the age factor. So it was with RONALD COLMAN who was already forty by the time he played the idealistic young doctor of ARROWSMITH opposite stage star HELEN HAYES.To his credit, he was still playing romantic leads in the '40s (RANDOM HARVEST) when he was in his fifties--and somehow, audiences accepted him regardless of what I call "the age factor". Here, in ARROWSMITH, it's painfully obvious that he was not the best choice for this title role in a trimmed down version of a Sinclair Lewis novel.Surprisingly, the screenplay is by Sidney Howard, who had no trouble adapting Margaret Mitchell's lengthy GONE WITH THE WIND to the screen, but here seems to be obligated to cut out huge sections of the book to get to the main plot line in a hurry. Possibly, because films in 1931 did not run three hours and forty-five minutes.Whatever, the result is a disjointed screenplay that condenses the story in a way that makes motivations and events incoherent at times. Arrowsmith begins his practice as a rather clumsy country doctor in farm country who develops an interest in serum when a neighbor's cattle become infected. When his serum is a success the doctor and his young wife move to New York where he's to work at a big clinic.Soon he neglects his wife while he buries himself in his work to eradicate bacteria. When an outbreak of bubonic plague breaks out--well, you can see where the plot is going.RONALD COLMAN is earnest and already quite distinguished looking as young Arrowsmith and HELEN HAYES suffers nobly as his neglected wife, infected herself through a careless action by her doctor husband. And toward the end of the story, we get a glimpse of the young and seductive MYRNA LOY in a role that is either underwritten or underwent extensive cuts. Cuts seem obvious in the abrupt ending too.Arrowsmith's experiments in the West Indies bring a conclusion to the story. But sad to say, the film is a relic in almost every sense of the word. Hard to picture John Ford at the helm of this project--even though there is a brief glimpse of Ward Bond (one of his favorite players) in an early scene.Summing up: Nothing deep to say about medicine nor does it work as the story of a dedicated doctor who wants to save lives during an epidemic. And it's certainly not Ronald Colman at his best.

Although the film has not aged well, "Arrowsmith" was well regarded when it was released and garnered four Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. Perhaps in those early days of sound, competent use of the camera and decent recording equipment were regarded as high values that merited praise. However, with the exception of some occasionally striking cinematography by Ray June, this John Ford adaptation of the Sinclair Lewis novel is choppy, unevenly acted, and betrays its age.Later in the 1930's, Sidney Howard adapted the sprawling historical novel "Gone with the Wind" into a fine screenplay that left viewers with the feeling that they had seen the entire book on screen. However, his adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize Winning "Arrowsmith" omits the core message of the novel and rushes through events in the life of Dr. Martin Arrowsmith in brief vignettes that leave viewers confused. Characters appear and disappear, decisions and moves are made without deliberation or motivation, and Arrowsmith himself comes off as a shallow individual with little regard for either those he supposedly loves or those he supposedly has dedicated his life to saving.Ronald Colman is generally a fine actor, and his idealism in "Lost Horizon" appeared genuine. However, Colman's suggested idealistic behavior in "Arrowsmith" is not convincing, despite a few effective scenes towards the end of the film. Helen Hayes has a few good scenes as the doctor's wife, although Myrna Loy has little to do but look seductive, which she does quite well.Unfortunately, the scenes in the Caribbean seem demeaning to the characters, and a local doctor's willingness to allow what is effectively experimentation on his fellow countrymen borders on the criminal. However, these attitudes were considered the norm when the film was made and should be viewed in the context of the period. Although most films seem far too long, "Arrowsmith" is much too short to convey the canvas that Lewis painted in his novel. Almost like a Clift Notes version of the book, John Ford's "Arrowsmith" disappoints, especially when the talent expended on its production is considered.

This film is truly atrocious! I am, by no means, an expert on "classic" films, but, I must say that I really disagreed with this film.The Sinclair Lewis novel is _way_ better than this film. Screenwriter Sidney Howard seems to have read the Cliff's Notes version of the book. He smashes the first 13 chapters or so into maybe 20 minutes. Most of the information in the novel is lost here, and I assume that the scenes would be a series of non-sequiturs for those who hadn't read the novel.However, the section detailing Martin's discovery of the "X Principle" (though probably not called this in the film; it is the bacteriophage) is decently done. I think that the utter chaos in Martin's life is portrayed as effectively as the miscast Ronald Colman (way too old to play the part of a young doctor) possibly could.Overall, I think that the film would be decent, barring background information of the novel. The film, however, has an entirely different message than the original work.