The Worst Film Ever

Sorry, this movie sucks

Simply Perfect

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I really enjoyed this "sampler" of Hollywood's greatest hits of 1939 - a year which (as the title implies) many consider to be Hollywood's greatest. Somewhat thin and rushed in its overall feel, one nevertheless can't deny that this documentary makes a sincere effort to open the eyes of today's movie lovers to a bygone era of Hollywood greatness.The deficiency of this documentary can best be explained very simply: Not enough time! That is to say, the subject matter is really too vast to be condensed neatly into a 75-minute documentary with any expectation that it will reveal enough facts, figures, anecdotes, history and lore of late-30's Hollywood to even begin to satisfy the more serious film buff. So in effect, the documentary comes across more as a compilation of trailers and previews of all those great films of 1939, rather than any sort of serious history lesson.The viewer nevertheless does get a sense of the historical "place" of 1939 Hollywood: it is made apparent that the preceding 8 or 9 years of hard economic times, i.e. The Great Depression, culminated in an end-of-decade perfect storm of masterful film productions. Whether this is cause and effect or something else entirely, is left up to the viewer to decide. Also, one can see that 1939 was a transitional year on a global scale, what with war clouds looming on the horizon, which indubitably cast long shadows into the movie studios of the time. Further, there were some interesting comments about the manner by which major Hollywood studios controlled not only production of their films, but distribution as well (in the form of wholly-owned theater chains), leading to members of U.S. Congress leveling charges of monopoly tactics.I wish there would have been a lot more to this documentary, but I also wonder, how much could they really do with 75 minutes? At what point did they decide to "draw the line," and leave much of the historical context on the cutting room floor, and simply concentrate more on showcasing the finished product - i.e. the films themselves? I think in that regard they did the right thing. As I noted above, the subject matter is too vast for a 75-minute documentary.As a movie lover, and as someone who enjoys exploring movies from the bygone era of Hollywood, I commend this documentary for allowing me to see some of my favorites - Ninotchka, Gone With The Wind, Gunga Din, Stagecoach, etc. - in a new light. In addition, I thank this work for showing some snippets of movies that I have not yet seen, but really must check out: Midnight, Dodge City, The Women, Confessions of a Nazi Spy, etc. If nothing else, I would highly recommend this documentary to anyone interested in getting some "movie night" ideas. Hopefully there is a video store near you that carries many of these movie titles from 1939, "Hollywood's Greatest Year."

I fell asleep twice. The greatest year of movies? It was more like attending a college lecture. No passion. No excitement. The director brought no sense of style or storytelling to a vast canvas known as 1939.No info here that you couldn't get on Google or Wikipedia, in fact that might be more informative.Barely a whisper about Hattie McDaniel's historic Oscar win. Apparently Ingrid Bergman is no big deal either. WIZARD OF OZ could have been the centerpiece but again, it just breezes by.HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT.Classic year, boring documentary. Maybe someday someone will pay the proper respect to the greatest year in cinema...1939.

I was expecting so much more from this profile of Hollywood's greatest year. I was very disappointed that this look at 1939 was so thin and so poorly done.I expected a lot of time to be spent on The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind. I didn't expect this time to be at the expense of other '39 movies. This documentary of 1939 barely glossed over Idiot's Delight (Clark Gable's only appearance singing and dancing) and totally ignored The Little Princess, Bachelor Mother, Stanley and Livingstone, and Intermezzo: A Love Story (just to name a few).I was particularly disappointed that they left out Intermezzo because this would have provided a perfect time to contrast Leslie Howard with his role in Gone With The Wind (he was much too old to play Ashley Wilkes and I feel that showed in his performance, but he was wonderful in Intermezzo). The exclusion of Intermezzo is all the more puzzling because it was the first American film appearance of Ingrid Bergman. How can the debut of such a star be overlooked?Even the attention given to Gone With The Wind is weak. No mention is made of Hattie McDaniel's historic Oscar win (except for a one second moment of footage at the awards). The core audience for this film would have to be newcomers to classic movies. Any fan of classic movies will not learn anything new and will be horribly distracted by all of the omissions.The 70th anniversary of Hollywood's greatest year deserves better.

Narrated by KENNETH BRANAGH, I'd give this one even higher points if the narration included even more key points when discussing actors like Errol Flynn. Scant mention is made of his famous co-star Olivia de Havilland and certainly the fact that they became a great screen team after their first film in 1935 (CAPTAIN BLOOD). Instead we get a brief glimpse of Olivia (a covered wagon close-up from DODGE CITY) and one brief scene arguing with Flynn. Anyone would think their screen team magic in eight films wasn't worth a mention. Indeed, all of his best films were with Olivia at his side.I could mention a few other omissions, but you get the drift. As always in these sort of tributes to studios and stars, there are some that really needed to be pointed out. Spending so much time on STAGECOACH when honoring John Ford westerns without a single scene from his other '39 masterpiece, DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, is an oversight hard to forgive--especially since the narration mentions the stunning new use in '39 of a little thing called Technicolor.The films and stars that get the most attention are NINOTCHKA (because of Garbo), the Bette Davis era at Warner Brothers, the Cagney/Raft gangster films, and the most unusual Warner melodrama that dealt with the Nazis--CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY.At Paramount, we get brief mention of Cecil B. DeMille and Claudette Colbert.At Fox, it's Darryl F. Zanuck and director John Ford's talent for making westerns but still no mention of DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK. Instead, it's the Tyrone Power film JESSE JAMES that's called the most popular western of the year and given the full Technicolor treatment.Then a brief look at United Artists which was formed back in the '30s by icons like Chaplin, Fairbanks and Pickford--and how independent producers like Walter Wanger and Hal Roach found a niche and made some great films. A clip from OF MICE AND MEN shows a tense scene between Lon Chaney, Jr. and Betty Field.At RKO, it's GUNGA DIN directed by George Stevens that cost the most to make and proved highly successful at the box-office. The other biggie is THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and Maureen O'Hara tells how awestruck she was by the masterful sets recreated entirely on a sound stage. The narration mentions that both of these films had underlying significance for audiences at that time--freedom from oppression being the theme in a world on the brink of war.A brief clip of Fred and Ginger from THE STORY OF VERNON AND IRENE CASTLE, and a love scene from LOVE AFFAIR are shown for the conclusion of the RKO segment.Then it's on to Selznick's independent feature GONE WITH THE WIND and all the obstacles in the producer's path before the film was finally made and declared an outstanding success.As noted before, it's the omissions that will grate on some people--but all in all a good treatment of Hollywood's most incredibly creative year under the studio system.