You won't be disappointed!

Sick Product of a Sick System

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Unfortunately Edward G. Robinson was in my humble opinion, unable to portray the Nobel winning scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich with any credibility. At first glance Edward G. Robinson's really fake hair piece, mustache and beard appeared to be purchased from a five and dime store. I did not see him speak in any scientific terms either. For example, when Dr. Ehrlich was attempting to gain new funding for his continued experiments when the government cut his funding, he accepted a dinner invitation which his servant like wife (Ruth Gordon) arranged from a wealthy socialite. At the dinner table Dr. Ehrlich proceeds to explain to his wealthy dinner hostess by taking out from his pocket an ink pen and writing out in simple terms directly on to her white table linen by "dumbing down" his scientific experiments using rats, rabbits, and monkeys, such that before he was finished with his explanation, the only person left from the original 24 people was the hostess herself. And yet, we the audience did not hear his explanation(s) to his gracious socialite hostess.I will say that Dr. Ehrlich was known to smoke more than a dozen cigars every day, and his office secretary was very close to him and appeared to know him best which is why her character was portrayed in this film as the caring employee when he took ill. With so many great actors/actresses available in the 1940's era of filmmaking I don't know why the producers settled for the gangster mode image of Edward G. Robinson. I just did not think Edward G. Robinson's portrayal of the famed Nobel prize winner Dr. Paul Ehrlich was delivered with sufficient preparation and final delivery of his lines to be regarded as authentic.I give the film a 4 out of 10 rating for it's historical value, but I had to take away points for the sub standard delivery of the biographical story of Dr. Paul Ehrlich by Edward G. Robinson. I was not impressed.

The thirties were a time when biopics were both common and popular. During this period they usually dealt with businessmen, politicians or scientists, all presented as industrious, inventive, heroic. Tyrone Power founded Lloyd's of London when he wasn't building the Suez Canal, for instance, Edward Arnold was Diamond Jim Brady, at least three actors were Abraham Lincoln, Edward G. Robinson founded Reuters and -- dare we say it? -- Orson Welles was William Randolph Hearst. Later they turned epic and their subjects broadened to include athletic icons, musicians, and artists, like "Lust for Life", and by the 60s they were far fewer but far truer. I'll mention "Lawrence of Arabia." In this 30s film, Robinson is Paul Ehrlich (1854 - 1915), a famous medical researcher whose curriculum vitae must run to dozens of pages covering dyes for microorganisms, the treatment of diphtheria, and finally the first cure for syphilis, called Salvarsan, which antedated the discovery of penicillin by years.These old biographies from the 30s are really enjoyable, even the Nazi propaganda film on Robert Koch, who practically founded bacteriology. Everything is slimmed down, gentrified, aimed at a working-class audience whose demands are low and who are satisfied with a cartoonish simplification of the subject's life. Ehrlich, for example, was responsible for the term "chemotherapy", mentioned only once because it has too many syllables, and for the "side chain theory" of immunization, mentioned once also but never explained. This particular film stands out for dealing openly with syphilis at a time when such things weren't referred to in polite company. Such social problems got the "Reefer Madness" treatment if they came up at all.Ehrlich has an argument mid-way through the film with his old friend and colleague Emil Behring. The conflict is obscure and the argument lasts about one minute before Behring deserts Ehrlich and leaves. Not until the end does Behring admit he'd been wrong -- and there is a tearful reconciliation. In historical reality, the two had cooperated in finding a treatment for diphtheria but Behring managed to sign the contract and make all the money, and took all the credit for the discovery. Adding insult to injury, Behring won the first Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. (Ehrlich won the prize later.) But who cares? The disruption of their friendship and the reunion hug that followed is far more dramatically satisfying.William Dieterle was the director. He'd also directed "The Story of Louis Pasteur." (I'm telling you, there were a lot of biopics around.) Dieterle was a refugee from Nazi Germany and, in casting this film, he must have hired every German within a fifty mile radius of Hollywood. Even the secretary who blows her nose when Donald Meek pipes up was German. At least this cast guaranteed that the name "Ehrlich" is pronounced authentically -- it never comes out as "Erlick." Can I tack on another editorial comment? Throughout, we see Ehrlich and the others experimenting with mice and rabbits before trying their treatments out on human beings, including themselves. When you experiment on yourself it's called "self report," an established and accepted way of seeing what happens when one is exposed to an experimental substance. Sometimes it happens accidentally. In 1943, the Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman absorbed a minuscule amount of LSD through his fingertips and took the first acid trip. It kicked in while he was riding home on a bicycle. It must have been some bicycle ride.Sorry. Lost my train of thought while thinking about that bicycle. The point I wanted to make is that Ehrlich and the rest weren't really interested in mice and rabbits. They're just used because they're more convenient (and more legal) than human subjects. Some of us today are making the same mistake that the non-scientists in the movie make, complaining that too much money is spent on grants to study animals. But, again, the animals are just laboratory tools like scalpels. I don't know what geneticists would do without the fruit fly. Drosophila reproduce like crazy and make it possible to study patterns of inheritance without taking hundreds of years to do it.I should also add that when Ehrlich and Behring decide to treat ALL the children with diphtheria, not just half of them, it poses a neat question in biomedical ethics. It saved their bacon that every one of the twenty children recovered. If the results had been less definitive they'd have screwed up the experiment by eliminating the untreated children, called "the control group." But you don't always NEED a control group. If I can take ten monolingual English speakers and teach them to speak fluent French in two weeks, there's no need for controls. That, basically, is the kind of good luck that Erlich and Behring had in their diphtheria experiment.

Tugs at the heart-strings. A compassion-laden film about a true-life German Doctor seeking the cure to some of the world's worst ailments, including syphilis, polio and influenza. When an epidemic hits the country, he goes about pulling out all the stops to find a so- called "magic bullet" as a veritable cure-all, and finally accomplishes his goal in pill 606, named after the number of tries to perfect this ideal drug. After some unfortunate losses in a few allergic reactions, despite his own warnings to the medical community that there still needed some tests to be done, he is vindicated and is eventually and rightfully awarded the Nobel Prize.There are some really moving and inspiring moments in the film, with the contemplation of nobility, ingenuity, and the passionate pursuit of knowledge. It is all worth it in the end when you see the faces of those formerly ill children and grown-ups beaming with healthy life again.

Of all the great biographical flicks Hollywood pumped out in the late 30's and early 40's, such as "Juarez," "The Story of Louis Pasteur," "Abe Lincoln in Illinois," and "The Life of Emile Zola," "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" is the best. And that's saying a lot since the ones mentioned above are screen classics from the Golden Age. In "Magic Bullet" everything seems to gel, from the brilliant acting of all involved, including once-in-a-lifetime performances by Edward G. Robingson, Otto Kruger, Ruth Gordon, and Maria Ouspenskaya, to the outstanding direction of William Dieterle. Also this biography is far more factual and less sensational than the others from the period. Even the subject involved in the biography was somewhat taboo in 1940, syphilis. Many in the movie audiences of 1940 may have reacted the same way the guests at Franziska Speyer's dinner party reacted upon hearing the word. Though not at all shocking today, it must have been somewhat shocking then. I'm sure that's why it was handled with kid gloves by William Dieterle. On the other hand the problems Dr. Ehrlich faced in getting support for his magic bullet is comparable with problems faced by today's scientists in getting funding to do needed research to find a cure for AIDS. The writers, who included John Huston, did the research needed for an intelligent and well-written script. The viewer may hesitate to watch at first when he/she discovers that the movie is about a German scientist who discovered an effective treatment for syphilis, but just pay attention for a few seconds and there is no turning back. Seeing the entire film becomes necessary. So enjoy a masterpiece from the past.