You won't be disappointed!

How sad is this?

Good concept, poorly executed.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

"Kings Row," based on the novel of the same name takes place in a small American town just before the start of 1900s. In it, a young boy, Parris Mitchell lives with his grandmother, Maria Ouspenskaya, who he thinks the world of and she him. He also has formed deep feelings for a girl named Cassie. Parris is a deep thinker and is a compassionate and empathetic soul of others' sufferings. Drake is a bold, brave and virile guy, who likes the fast girls. He is respectful to his elders, saying sir, but is not held back by their propriety. Such are the beginnings of Robert Cummings and Ronald Reagan in this tale of men looking for their way in life. Parris is inspired by Dr. Tower, played by Claude Rains, who gives a very imposing and sobering performance. Dr. Tower has a very good reputation for his intelligence, but is harboring a secret in his family. Betty Field plays his disturbed daughter, Cassie. Charles Coburn is another doctor in town, but his methods are questionable, to say the least. His daughter Louise, played by Nancy Coleman, likes Drake, but she isn't allowed to marry him. Wife Judith Anderson gives a memorable supporting performance in her brief role. Ann Sheridan is "Red," who lives across the track and who likes Drake. She takes Louise's place, even though he still thinks of Louise and it gets him mad over that mad father of hers. Parris has dreams of being a great doctor, the type in books, he says, and goes to Vienna to study. This is a very moving and impressionable film for viewers. In fact, it's reminiscent of "Peyton Place." But in many ways, it's vastly superior. This contains more spirituality, is more emotionally charged and its characters are even more three-dimensional than in Peyton Place. The plots are similar in that everything is told with broad strokes and its characters are in extreme situations. But the love shared between Parris and his grandmother and also between Drake and Red keep the film rooted and we really care for and understand the people. "Peyton Place" was too distant or aloof to really invest the viewers' interest. I have seen this film several times, but I have never enjoyed as much as I did this time. I was moved to tears by Parris' inward thoughts, Louise's desperation, Red's love and devotion for Drake, and Drake's force and will to live. Tragedy strikes people in Kings Row, but a determination of not being defeated by life and others make those who live there survive. With a rousing and melodious score, this is filmmaking and storytelling at its best with all the actors given time to shine in their own role in the little slice of life shown here in "King Row."

I believe that many of us, in our journeys through life, seek nothing more than to retrieve the lost innocence and safety of our childhood. It is a retreat from the cruelties and battles of adulthood. It's not necessarily the physical return to our childhood home - that's usually not possible, or even desirable - but a rediscovery of the home that exists somewhere in our hearts and our spirits. This is a prevailing theme in much of cinema. In "The Wizard of Oz" Dorothy realizes that everything she ever really wanted is back home in Kansas, and Scarlett makes the long journey back to her beloved Tara in "Gone with the Wind". Often home is associated with family. In "The Color Purple" all Celie wants is her sister, whom she hasn't seen since her childhood long, long ago. The final image in that film is the two grown sisters playing the hand-clapping game they once played as children.Then there is the magnificent "Kings Row" which says that, yes, we can go home again, and that things that turned bad can be put right. It is a powerful reverie of a movie and it had me in tears. The story is about several children in a small town who grow up to be adults. The lives they had are ruptured and they are beset by the trials and tribulations of adulthood and failing dreams. The movie is about that extra little bit of growing up they have to do in order to become the people they were meant to be. The challenges they face are brutal, and some of them don't survive. Those that do get to go home again. In the process of telling the story the movie celebrates honour, perseverance, courage, fairness, friendship, true love and the triumph of the human spirit. It shows us these virtues in action. It invites us to look, and it says: "This is what courage looks like." Or: "This is what love looks like in practice." We all need examples to show us the way. "Kings Row" is very much a parable, with dualistic symbols solidly in place - the two friends with opposite personalities; the two children's birthday parties, where one child is popular and the other isn't; the two real estate acreages; the two sides of the train tracks; the two households, early on, one where life is nurtured, the other where it is snuffed out. It's also the earliest movie that I, personally, have seen which depicts mental illness and psychiatry with any kind of detail and balance.This movie has one of the best opening chapters I've ever seen, introducing, with clarity and precision, all of the main characters as children and the nexus that will play out later in the story. Although the story covers a lot of time and dramatic territory I never felt that the movie was rushed or pared down. Every scene is remarkably efficient in the way it conveys information and dives right into the dramatic and emotional crux of the moment (the letter-writing segment is particularly brilliant), and every scene segues naturally into the next. The final two scenes, in one of which Parris recites part of William Henley's poem "Invictus", lift the movie into a kind of delirium. By the end I experienced, not exhaustion, but exhilaration by having gotten to know these people so well and having shared in their joys and sorrows. This is rare. In the end, the characters are so well defined that I wouldn't change a single performance by a single actor. All this AND the rich and detailed cinematography of James Wong Howe and the glorious, evocative music of Erich Korngold (the moment I heard the first chords I recognized him as the composer for "The Adventures of Robin Hood"). It's Warner Bros. all the way - bold and brassy. This is the kind of movie that provokes people to say, "They don't make 'em like this anymore." Old or contemporary, "Kings Row" stands alone. It is a wonderful movie.

I just saw this some 67 years after it was in the theaters. I remember during Reagan's political career his detractors used to deride him as a "B-Grade Actor" with such classics as "Bed Time For Bonzo".King's Row is about 2 boyhood friends growing up in 1890 in a small town somewhere in America. Without spoiling anything I'll just say there are enough subplots that, by themselves, would still make a great movie but together make it a great movie.Others have described this movie as being like a soap opera - I think it goes deeper that.The central characters are Drake (Reagan) and Perris (Cummings) - how time has changed them - molded them - and their other friends - with some of the town's long held secrets finally revealed.

I just watched this excellent melodrama two nights and was very impressed with it all round. Superb acting, gripping plot, and a memorable Korngald score.It reminds me heavily of Peyton Place, with the idyllic town hiding an dark underbelly of secrets. I understand that much of the original novel had to be watered down due to the Code, but the film still manages to touch in many subjects virtually taboo in the 40's. Pre-marital sex (the tortured Cassie and Parris' embrace and fade out to Korngald's score and the lashing storm), medical sadism, madness. The book apparently also touches on father-daughter incest.I guess this is Parris Mitchell's story, and his coming-of-age, but it could also be Drake McHugh's story. In a way, Drake is more sympathetic than Parris. Parris is almost unbelievably good, while we can relate more to Drake.We have three doctors in this tale, who all (at least to me) make the crucial mistake of mixing personal feelings with medical practice. Parris is the only one who overcomes this.I find it interesting that Warners cast three actors virtually untested in dramatic films for the three central roles in this major release. Ronald Reagan is especially good in what would have to be his best film performance. He never came close to matching his work here again. His work here was ceryainly worthy of an Oscar nomination. Cummings is an actor I have grown to like more every time I see him in something new-- he was capable of strong dramatic work in this, and films like "Black Book" and "The Lost Moment". But it is Ann Sheridan who holds the film together in the second half.But the whole cast is impressive. Charles Coburn, usually lovable, is truly frightening as the sadistic doctor. Judith Anderson normally leaves the audience trembling in her eerie wake, but here she is effectively silenced by her monstrous husband. Nancy Coleman and Betty Field both give affecting, disturbing portrayals of daughters driven mad by dominance and repression. Maria Ouspenskaya is touching as Parris' beloved grandmother. Claude Rains is mysterious. And Kareen Verne is refreshing as Parris' eventual love.Sam Wood, a very competent director, leads us through this nostalgic tale with flair. A wonderful film, 10/10.