Sorry, this movie sucks

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

You have a choice to make. You can fret about Don Ameche playing an Indian and let it ruin the film for you. Or you can just accept that in 1936 there wasn't going to be a full blooded Indian in a leading role of an important motion picture. In other words, get over it.This film is based on a very important novel about racial prejudice, and while I have not read the novel, my impression is that to quite an extent the movie is a too-simplified version of the story. However, racial prejudice in an underlying and ongoing theme of this film, so it still has impact.The other important thing about this film is that it was only the fourth movie to be filmed in 3-strip Technicolor! Unfortunately, the print is not pristine, but the Technicolor is still quite stunning, including with lots of outdoor scenes "on location" in sunny California.Loretta Young was a lovely actress, and her performance here is excellent. Don Ameche, a much forgotten actor, was a fine performer, although here he seems perhaps a bit too refined to be a Spanish-Indian of that period. I don't know that...I'm just surmising. He's still interesting to watch. The other performance of note here is by Jane Darwell, whom most viewers will recall from "The Grapes Of Wrath".When you think of the advances in Technicolor from this film in 1936 to "Gone With The Wind" 3 years later...wow! The film does seem dated, but I think it's worth it to watch an historically important novel turned into a film, with themes that still resonate in our culture today.

Back in the 1930s and 40s, Hollywood was extremely insensitive (and stupid) about casting folks for minority roles. However, that was the time and you just need to keep your politically correct instincts in check when you watch this one! Imagine.....Loretta Young playing a woman who is half American Indian and half Mexican! While this sounds dumb, understand that the likes of Rock Hudson played Indians in films--or Don Ameche cast as a full-blooded native like he is in "Ramona"!! As for J. Carrol Naish--like Anthony Quinn, he played just about everything (except blacks) in films--so it isn't surprising he's in this one playing a Mexican. Plus, frankly, he's played so many nationalities, most everyone at the time had no idea what his heritage really is!! But Loretta Young and Don Ameche--with their lovely American diction (especially Ameche, who is practically the epitome of politeness and class)!!! What were the executives thinking (or smoking)?! "Ramona" must have been a prestige picture for 20th Century-Fox, as it is filmed in beautiful 1930s-style Three-Strip Technicolor--a HUGE expense at the time and something reserved only for the best films. In fact, it was the first such film made by the studio.When the film begins, Ramona is in love with a cultured man from a very good family. So does she....or so she thinks. Eventually the truth is discovered--she's a half-breed! And she's forced to leave her home by some real jerk-faces. But before she goes, her native friend (Ameche) tells her that he's loved her--and she is thrilled, as she loves him, too. So, they run away together and get married. However, their life is tough, as folks are quite prejudiced towards them--throwing them off their farm. Can they somehow find a place that will accept the strangely cultured couple--and their new baby?! Overall, I'd say the writing isn't bad (but it is a bit schmaltzy) and the film manages to be watchable in spite of some terrible casting.By the way, if you want to see other films with equally ridiculous casting, try finding "The Conquerer" (with John Wayne as Genghis Khan and red-headed Susan Hayward as his bride, Bortai)--or most any Charlie Chan film.

Ramona (1936) ** 1/2 (out of 4) A young half Indian woman (Loretta Young) marries an Indian (Don Ameche) but their lives take a turn for the worse when white folks run them off their land. This is an extremely depressing and somewhat shocking film that actually shows the Indians as the good people and the white's as savages, which wasn't common back in the day. The two stars do their usual great work but the direction is all over the place. The Indians aren't well written considering most are talking with Spanish accents. John Carradine has a small role. From what I gathered, this was the forth feature to use 3-strip Technicolor.

While Loretta Young and Don Ameche get top billing, there is no question that the real star of "Ramona" is the "new perfected technicolor" as the film's poster declared in 1936. The film was the 4th to be shot in the "perfected" 3-strip color process."Ramona" does looks beautiful. Its the slow-moving plot that really does the film in. I've seen travelogues from the period that have more to hold a viewer's attention. Basically, the story revolves around a taboo romance between Young (a beautiful Spanish girl) and Ameche (the friendly Indian). The most interesting aspect of the plot is the fact that the white settlers are portrayed as the villains, grabbing the land and possessions of the peaceful Indians...an unusually politically correct position for a mid 1930's movie.If you're a fan of Loretta Young, Don Ameche, or beautiful technicolor, "Ramona" is worth a look...at least once. Repeat viewings could be painful.