2) There are no carnivores in Eden, and Adam's (Mark Gregory) first sonmay very well have really been the offspring of Handsome Bearkiller(Angel Alcazar), a brief extramarital partner enjoyed by Eve (AndreaGoldman) during the pair's estrangement. Never having seen fighting orkilling, the two are totally unprepared to defend themselves afterbeing cast from Eden, and equally astonished to see animals and menfeeding off each other. They make their first clothing not from leaves,but from a pterodactyl's wings, the first creature to attack them andthe first creature they had to kill. These are some of the interesting"facts" depicted by this imaginative take on the first book of Genesis.It's not as silly as it sounds, the acting and action are really quitegood and the different twists to the familiar tale will hold viewerinterest while still retaining the Biblical link. The aforementionedCro-Magnon warrior bearkiller (Angel Alcazar) really steals the showwith his valiant ferocity and desire to appropriate the rather helplessEve from her wimpy Adam.

Where people have to struggle to give from themselves for each other,Miri is constantly trying to recover from the mysterious death of herhusband. Under these circumstances, Miri's sensitive situation isworsened and stands contrary to the values of equality that rule theKibbutz, through the eyes of its members.

Dvir, who's at his Bar-Mitzva's year, is familiar with his mom'scondition and tries to prevent her from losing her mind and kick herback to float with the stream. This purpose becomes even morecomplicated when Dvir has to deal the contrast between the Kibbutz'sequality values and his mother's liberty and freedom to live asmentally-ill person at the normative society, and is about to changehis adolescence and life.

This flick was mastered and crafted by an accurate and sensitivedirection, powerful performances, trembling soundtrack and phenomenalcinematography, and it's well driven by its refined storyline.

Dror Shaul portrayed a personal, yet very resolute story of life in theKibbutz before privatization, alongside a strict, emotionally-precisecoming-of-age tale for independence and dignity.

Young actor Tomer Steinhof is the basis of this film. His performanceis so minimalistic, so moving and so convincing that he just tearsapart the viewers hearts. This kid HAS to win world-wide recognitionand must appear on as many films as possible. Beautiful Ronit Yudkevitzis another supporting-pillar of the film, with a wretched, mercilessportrait of a lapsed and helpless woman. Her physical and mentaldeterioration is absolutely heart-rending. The chemistry between thesetwo marvelous actors and the characters they hand over to the screen isvery convincing and leads to many emotional refractions.

The supporting actors do wonderful job as well; Senior Belgique actorHenri Garcin shines on a 5-minutes, yet very important role, as theforeign aging lover of Miri; Shai Avivi with a role of the"comic-moderator" though a very malice person; Gal Zaid as thecontroversial secretary of the Kibbutz; And many more.

Mixed with mesmerizing music and amazing cinematography, this movieturns to be one of the best Israeli films of all times, if not the bestof them.

I was truly affected by this piece of culture.

2) This is the second feature film by Dror Shaul. Set on an Israelikibbutz Bet-Gvurot in 1974, this provocative film explores life on thekibbutzim in its most hilarious and dark forms. Dvir (Tom Steinhof) isan adventurous 12-year old who protects his mother Miri (RoniYudkevitch), a single parent who is emotionally unstable. Miri forms along-distance romance with an older man in Switzerland Stephan (HenriGarcin). When Stephan comes to visit, Miri emerges from her darknessand for an instant, her life shines. When Stephan's actions bring himinto conflict with the leadership of the kibbutz, he is banished andMiri regresses. Dvir's brother Eyal (Pini Tabger) goes off to fight inthe Yom Kippur War and Dvir is on his own and restless as he approacheshis Bar Mitzvah. The film paints an unflattering image of life on thekibbutz, raising issues such as alcoholism, promiscuity, and acuteisolation. When Shaul offered an advance screening at a kibbutz inIsrael, they were reportedly shocked and offended. A poignant and funnyfilm with a bitter-sweet ending.

3) I couldn't stop thinking about it for days. Brutal and stirring at thesame time. The plot could've taken so many turns at various points: theposter of Stephan on Dvir's wall begging to ripped down by the fief /*metapelet*; Dvir being disqualified from the kite competition on thegrounds that he got assistance from "outside quarters"; Dvir'sblackmailing the mean-spirited member who harasses him. All would'vebeen heartbreaking, but Shaul proves to show us that no matter what thespecifics, the system was rotten and constituted Miri's downfall.

I am a kibbutz member and have lived on two other kibbutzim, so thereviewer was right who wrote that each plot item could have andprobably did happen on one or more kibbutzim, yet probably not allhappened on any single kibbutz. No matter: It was a twisted system, nodoubt about it, and Shaul is certainly qualified to show it to us ifanyone is. Good work, Dror and cast.

4) Have just seen the European Premier of this film at the Berlin FilmFestival where it deservedly won 1st prize in the 'Generation14k Plus'Section.

The story is set in a Kibbutz in Israel where 12 year old Dvir (TomerSteinhof in his debut movie) faces many trials as he is entering hisbar mitzvah year. The most difficult one is coping with his mother Miriwhom he loves above all else. She lives in a very fragile mental stateand Dvir knows he must protect her from herself. A romance with a newlyarrived Swiss visitor briefly raises her spirits, but the romance isdoomed to failure and Dvir must make the most difficult decision of hisyoung life.

The photography is stunning and the young actor who plays the leadgives an astonishing performance as the boy who loves his disturbedmother so deeply. The ending is truly heartbreaking yet strangelyuplifting. I urge you to see this wonderful film if it comes to yourpart of the world, and hope that a DVD release is not too far distant.

5) I saw this film in an audience of about 80 American Jews passionatelydevoted to Israel. Most had visited Kibbutzim, a number had lived onone or more. Some thought Dror Shaul's theme — the claustrophobicatmosphere and pressure inflicted on a mentally unstable Kibbutz member– reflected aspects of kibbutz life they had witnessed. Others saw itas a complete distortion of an Edenic, well-intentioned if ultimatelyunsuccessful, experiment. One thought it should not be shown toAmerican audiences because it reflected badly on Israel. It is,frankly, an emotionally draining and heart-wrenching story about ayoungster (Tomer Steinhof) and his unstable mother (Ronit Yudkevitz),whose instability is seriously aggravated if not caused by theunforgiving atmosphere on the kibbutz. Depending on your perspective,you might hate this film because it doesn't conform to your vision ofkibbutz life. You may find it excessively unpleasant and dislike it forthat reason. However, though it is undeniably dark, the movie ispowerful, well-acted and beautifully directed. It provoked a longdiscussion among members of the audience whom I saw it with. Many weremoved, some were angry. Most thought it was well worth seeing, as do I.

6) There aren't many pieces of art regarding life and suffering inkibbutzim. So any one that comes to describe one specific case of akibbutz character, for good or for bad, can be charged as having theresponsibility to support the kibbutz model as a whole – which isabsurd. Any story that would describe in detail the perversefunctioning of one specific family shouldn't be said to be underminingthe fundamentals of traditional family model. Adama Meshuga'at makes avery sensitive clinic of the very possible perverse human attitudeswhich happen to occur within any common society but which may get avery own representation in a utopic socialist kibbutz, as a very muchclosed human group within itself, regarding it's very own history,geography, economy and culture – including the country of origin of itsmembers, as we see in this particular movie with many Kibbutz memberswith French accent, possibly just by chance here. As there is a bunchof very much perverse families, anywhere in the world, there would havebeen most certainly a bunch of very specific kibbutzim where thisperversity could have been very systematized, undermining very much itsquality of life, determining illness and suffering. Some kibbutzimended because almost none of their "children" would want to stay inthere and only very old members who collectively owned everything anddecided over everything, but couldn't work properly any more, wereabout to stay alone in there, unable to generate enough income tosupport themselves. If this movie had come about at the '70s, perhapskibbutz life alternative would still endure, and we wouldn't have asnow the baby thrown out with the bath's water – everything wonderfulabout life in a kibbutz ended because of unsolved systematic problemsin its very own human system.

7) I saw Sweet Mud at the Philadelphia Film Festival last night. My friendand I were expecting something slow-moving and maybe boring at times,but we were pleasantly surprised. The movie sold out (word must havegotten around) and you could tell by the audience's reactions thateveryone loved it. This film gives such a detailed view of life on acommune, and at the same time it showed a young boy's struggle with hisdepressed single mother with plenty of comedic moments. I'm not much ofa reviewer but I highly recommend seeing this film… it's playingagain in Philadelphia this Tuesday at the Ritz Five, for those of youwho live in the area!

The cinematography in this film is somewhat fantastic. For this I feelthe production team really succeeded and proved that amongst otherinternational contemporary film makers, Israel can too present a filmthat is aesthetically pleasing.

In the director's cut, Dror Shaul claims that the film is of 'one boysvision' of his own current affairs and that there are no politicalviews that hide behind the surface of the film. I disagree with thisstatement and although I have never experienced a Kibbutz before I amable to understand that this film takes on a very one-sided stance ofthe system, propaganda and regime of the kibbutz. Shaul fails tobalance out the film and portrays it as an obsolete institute of totalcorrupt. He paints the opposite of an idealistic vision over it and Ifeel this might cause a bit of controversy amongst previous or currentkibbutz members.

The story line is emotional. It really seems as though the director,team and actors have put a lot of effort and time into producing astory which is captivating yet subjective, submitting a senseful andsensitive drama which encourages the viewer to follow and react inaccordance to the actors emotions.

It is a film to watch and certainly one of the greats of upcomingcontemporary Israeli cinema.

9) I think that it is unfair to say that this film is a vehicle toquestion the justification for a Jewish state, as the reviewer abovenotes. The film is a stark examination of the social and culturalpressures operating within the closed community of the kibbutzcollective. No doubt, the response to the main character's illness bothfrom the collective and from the individuals of the community receivesharsh treatment here, but I fail to see this as a global condemnationof Israeli society. The main characters unraveling and her family'sattempts to deal with this are very well done and the treatment issincere and thoughtful. It's hard to believe that the story takes placeas recently as 1974.Hadn't we come farther than that by then?

10) Tainted look at kibbutz life

This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, butthe deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the firsttwo minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes oneof his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of thecharacters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two maincharacters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every oneelse in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of well…evil.

The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowlydrags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitablyfollows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz.Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vicelike misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. Forexample, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome Europeanlooking 12 year old boy – his older brother is a typical kibbutz youthcomplete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality.He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of hisdying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his littlebrother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen ina long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote – "Linda, gotake shower and I cum in two minutes."

There is one other "good" character in this movie – a Europeanforeigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapisttries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breakingthe rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for"violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy:The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacherpreaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love andgives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous forthe audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing thehead of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the littleboy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse.

The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children getyanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to someritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by thekibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz,although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as theychoose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can restassured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents areanother pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on themother and her son.

That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, overdramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keepstrying to hammer itself into the audience's head – that kibbutz lifewas degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in."I feel sorry for the guy who made this film – obviously he had a badexperience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a fewkernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into hugeatomic stereotyped bombs.

He becomes the first man, as it were, of a new world of the Governor’sdesign. What better way to kill two birds with one stone? The convictswillbetter themselves by bettering the land. Character and fortitude, alongwithimproved land can be gotten with toil and sweat. In this experiment, Adam(Bridges) is forced to partner with the wretched-looking Bess (JaneMerrow)with attitude to match. She has had her head shaven and is dirty and notamenable to partner with Adam.

Merrow and Bridges give a full fleshing-out of their characters and actwithgreat depth and dimension. They cause the viewer to be sympathetic witheachperson. I was captivated by this film and found it very easy to suspend mydisbelief and enter their characters’ world. I haven’t seen the movie foryears, but I have been searching for it.

Now the question is this – Why can’t this movie be found on video? Whydoesn’t it receive air time on TV? Somebody is dropping the ball on thisone!

2) I saw this movie in 1973 in Chicago late one night on TV and wasthoroughlytaken with it! It’s the kind of story that will last forever,– so why isit impossible to find??? If I could get my hands on a VHS or DVD of thismovie I’d watch it all the time! I’d give it to everyone I know forXmas/Birthdays/etc.!

3) This was an underdog movie if ever i saw one. He (Beau Bridges) waswrongly accused of murder and forced to the Austrailia penal colony. Hemets this tenasious woman (played by actress Jane Merrow) who teacheshim the value of love and commitment. Like his brother (Jeff Bridges inthe Fisherking) he plays a character trying to get out of a badsituation by paying his dues and moving on. However, he realizes thatthis life is really the life he longed for and together they build anew life in Austrilia. The real irony of this movie is that Austriliawill not let you into the country if you have a criminal record. One ofmy absolute favorites!

4) I too once saw this movie and can not really understand why it isunavailable for purchase. Don’t want to write a spoiler but it is oneof the best movies I can remember with Beau Bridges and John Mills. Thestory is one of the most unique I have ever seen portrayed. ProbablyJane Merrow’s performance explains this uniqueness and it is herperformance that I would most like to experience again to understandher character’s purpose and my personal intrigue in examining it againagainst the recollection of the period and its historical conveyance.Periodically I return to IMDb hoping for the announcement of itsavailability and where I can purchase it.

5) This is a LOVELY film. The perfect meshing of a good story, actors, anda gorgeous Australian setting. I agree that this is one of BeauBridges’ best roles, as I’ve never seen a character that’s fit him sowell as Adam Beecher. And Jane Merrow is wonderful and beautiful as hisconvict bride. Their scenes together are imbued with real warmth andfeeling.

Also the other actors, such as John Mills and Andrew Keir wererespectively great as the governor and the sergeant who is Adam’s"guardian angel". The movie’s alternate title of "Return of theBoomerang" was most fitting, given what happens with Adam’s character.And the soundtrack/score grew on me, as I found myself humming it fordays afterwards.

Warner Brothers, are you listening? Release this on DVD!!!

6) Beau Bridges is an engaging rogue in this movie about an American whobecomes an Australian convict. Jane Merrow is excellent as his convictwife. I don’t think this movie gets the credit it deserves mainly becauseit is not seen that much. But if you get a chance to see it, do. Youwillbe in for a pleasant couple of hours.

7) This is one of my favorites! In addition to showing the deplorablesituation of a convict in 18th century Australia, the movie shows how thesevery convicts settled the outback, much like American pioneers. So muchforredeeming qualities! This is just a good movie, with good actors. I wishit were available on video!

This movie had the traditional "war between the sexes". Overcomingadversity brought changes in the characters and their relationships. The"bad guys" were not all bad. The protagonist was not all good, giving himmore depth. I found this an interesting love story, of sorts, with plentyof action.

2):
Married lawyers Adam and Amanda Bonner find themselves on opposite sides of the courtroom in this comedy. Adam is prosecuting a high-profile case in which a woman is accused of trying to murder her philandering husband. Amanda acts as her defense attorney, and the sparring begins.

Assistant District Attorney Adam Bonner is assigned to prosecute a woman who tries to shoot her unfaithful husband. The DA and Bonner both expect a quick win. But neither planned on Bonner’s wife and fellow attorney, Amanda Bonner, of defending the woman on the basis of "equal rights under the law," which Ms. Bonner insists would vindicate a man who would try to kill the lover of his unfaithful wife. Ms. Bonner shows throughout the court case that the law and society treat women different from men, and that any person would resort to violence if pushed sufficiently far. Mr. Bonner insists that regardless, no individual can take the law into his or her own hands, or chaos would ensue.

• In her early monologue scene with Katharine Hepburn, Judy Holliday can be seen trembling. This was not acting, but nervousness. The inexperienced Judy Holliday was terrified of performing with Katharine Hepburn.
• The movie’s line “Licorice, mmmm. If there’s anything I’m a sucker for, it’s licorice.” was voted as the #60 of “The 100 Greatest Movie Lines” by Premiere in 2007.
• Ranked #7 on the American Film Institute’s list of the 10 greatest films in the genre “Romantic Comedy” in June 2008.
• In the scene in which Amanda is driving Adam to work, he tells her, “Oh, you’re giving me the Bryn Mawr accent”. Bryn Mawr College was Katharine Hepburn’s alma mater, where she claimed to have gained her distinctive voice.
• Film debut of Madge Blake.
• In the memorable Spencer Tracy-Katharine Hepburn massage scene, a radio plays Frank Sinatra singing Cole Porter’s “Farewell, Amanda,” a gift to Amanda Bonner (played by Hepburn) from her songwriter-neighbor, Kip Lurie (played by David Wayne) who, earlier in the picture, had crooned the ditty, accompanying himself on the Bonners’ piano. While Adam Bonner (played by Tracy) is massaging his wife, he abruptly shuts off the radio. Sinatra’s prerecording of “Farewell, Amanda” is lost. All that remains of his rendition is the partial audio heard behind the Tracy-Hepburn dialogue.
• Inspired by the real-life story of husband-and-wife lawyers William Dwight Whitney and Dorothy Whitney, who represented Raymond Massey and his ex-wife Adrienne Allen in their divorce. After the Massey divorce was over, the Whitneys divorced each other and married the respective Masseys.
• Katharine Hepburn reportedly urged director George Cukor to focus the camera on Judy Holliday during a number of their shared scenes, not only because she was a fan of the new-to-movies Holliday but because it was hoped the studios would see how terrific Holliday was and cast her as the lead in Born Yesterday (1950), the role she’d created on Broadway. It worked.
• When Tom Ewell is walking to his girlfriend’s apartment at the beginning of the film, he is whistling “You Are My Lucky Star”. This song is also featured in Singin' in the Rain (1952) which stars the same actress who plays Tom Ewell’s girlfriend, Jean Hagen.
• To help build up Judy Holliday’s image, particularly in the eyes of Columbia Pictures chief Harry Cohn, Katharine Hepburn deliberately leaked stories to the gossip columns suggesting that her performance in _Adam’s Rib (1949)_ was so good that it had stolen the spotlight from Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. This got Cohn’s attention and Holliday won the part in Born Yesterday (1950).

• Crew or equipment visible: When Adam Bonner is lifted by the woman in court, the wires supporting him are visible.
• Continuity: When Olympia lifts Adam in court, Kip jumps out of his seat and races forward laughing. In subsequent shots he is alternately standing/sitting.
• Continuity: As Doris is waiting for her husband to come out of work, she drops the newspaper she is holding. In front shots she still holds it. In side and rear shots she isn’t.

• Revealing mistakes: Even though Adam and Amanda are reading about Doris Attinger’s arrest in different morning newspapers (he the “New York Globe”, she the “New York Chronicle”), the back pages of both papers are identical.
• Continuity: When Adam and Amanda are at their accountant’s office, the sign on the outside of the building reads Jules Frick. When they are inside the sign in the window has the correct name Jules Frikke.
• Continuity: During the trial, when Adam Bonner is talking to the jury, he makes a few slips of the tongue. You can see Amanda’s hand jump to cover her mouth to keep from laughing in several shots, while in other shots her hand is on the table in front of her.
• Continuity: When Adam confronts Amanda and Kip in his apartment with the licorice gun, the handkerchief in his suit pocket keeps changing lengths between shots.
• Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Kip is playing his song for Amanda in the Bonner’s apartment, his foot is on a foot pedal that raises the dampers, but the sound we hear is quite different.
• Plot holes: Midway through the trial, Kip uses the Bonner’s piano to play an early version of a new song he’s writing that is in such rough shape, it doesn’t have complete lyrics. Yet shortly afterward–and long before the trial is over–the song has already been recorded, played on the radio and is reportedly a big hit.
• Crew or equipment visible: Near the end of the first scene in Adam’s office, the reflections of large rectangular set lights can be seen in the framed diplomas lining the office walls.

When Doris Attinger (Judy Holliday) discovers her husband in the armsof another woman, she opens fire and is charged with attempted murder.Enter Adam and Amanda Bonner (Tracy and Hepburn), married lawyers whoselives are turned upside down when Adam is assigned to the prosecution.An ardent proponent of women’s rights, Amanda decides to representDoris, claiming that if the sex of the parties on trial were switched,the jury would feel differently. This conflict of interests createsfriction in the courtroom as well as the Bonners’ home.

Spencer Tracy, with his confident and relaxed screen presence, paintsAdam as a man quite comfortable with his wife’s force and ambition. ButAdam grows upset with Amanda as the media spotlight finds the case andmagnifies it into a cause for women’s rights. He accuses Amanda withdisregard for the law, reminding her that no one, man or woman, has theright to take the law into their own hands, and that Amanda is usingthe case for her own selfish purposes. The script is careful not topolarize Adam’s interests. He reveres the law and has no specialaffection for Doris’ husband. In opposing him, Katherine Hepburnmanages to retain her signature strength while also portraying Amandaas a loving wife who fears the damage her marriage may sustain becauseof the case and its publicity. Amanda alleges that Doris is doomed toan unfair trial because the general public irrationally feels maleinfidelity is much more permissible than female infidelity.

The courtroom becomes a spectacle when Amanda puts a circusstrong-woman on the stand and asks her to lift Adam. Tracy rises to theoccasion, with an angry outburst that is empowered by his otherwisecalm and restrained performance. Despite their marital bliss before thecase, Adam admits that he likes "two sexes" and doesn’t care for havinga wife who is a "new woman" and a "competitor". This rare outpouringcauses Amanda to realize just how personally Adam is taking the trial,and that it could result in their divorce.

Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin deserve special recognition for creating abalanced on-screen battle in what has always been a controversialdebate – gender equality. Amanda’s plight is shaded by her experiencesas a woman, and Adam is presented as a man who admits to always tryingto hear her side of the story. That their marriage was a happy onebefore the trial is an indication of the equality they had achievedtogether. Amanda is, in fact, equal to Adam in both the career andfinancial worlds. To create a sparring partner for Amanda, Gordon andKanin could easily have presented a misogynist, or even a lovable butcantankerous traditionalist. They were wiser to portray Adam as a manwho simply refused to see the case as one for gender equality, but forvigilantism.

As directed by George Cukor, Adam’s Rib features a great many longtakes that play uninterrupted. Even during moments of action, like thescene in which both Bonners are getting dressed for dinner, Cukorutilizes minimal staging and camera movement. The camera pointsdirectly across the Bonners’ bedroom, with her dressing room off frameleft and his off frame right. They shout at each other, poking theirheads into the frame, occasionally walking through the frame and backagain. And later, when Adam discovers Kip and Amanda together, theensuing fight is framed similarly, with the camera looking down theapartment hallway, characters popping into frame from the left or rightand back again. This isn’t to say Cukor doesn’t move his camera much.There are several decisive camera movements, but Cukor’s sparing use ofthem, and his tendency to rely more on well-composed master anglesgives the film an elegant, traditional Hollywood style. The film alsobenefits from a lively score by Mikos Rozsa and a catchy Cole Portertune, "Farewell Amanda". Jean Hagen, unforgettable for her comic turnin Singin’ in the Rain, again demonstrates her talent for comedy as the"other woman".

Cukor must have realized that with Tracy and Hepburn on screen, all thecamera really had to do was follow them, frame them, and let the sparksfly.

The screenplay and the actors’ off-screen romance are gifts to thefilm. We feel for both of them, and believe in what both are trying toachieve. It is rare that a film about difference and equality plays sofairly to all parties involved, and also rare that such a sensitivesubject can retain its comic appeal. But for all the film says aboutequality, Adam’s Rib ultimately serves to remind us that when it comesto Hepburn and Tracy, there is no equal. – Scott Schirmer

2) ‘Adam’s Rib’ is arguably the greatest Tracy-Hepburn film, and is certainlythe most popular of their teamings. Brightly written (by the husband andwife team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin), it takes the premise of a wife(the sparkling Judy Holliday, in her film debut) on trial for shooting herunfaithful husband (Tom Ewell, establishing himself in the kind of role he’dreprise in The Seven-Year Itch), and turns it into a forum of the sexualvalues and standards of the 1940s, and a showcase for the fabulous Tracy andHepburn, who were were never better than as the battling D.A. and defenseattorney. In the courtroom and out, the love they share, and tweaking ofeach other’s egos is a sheer joy to watch. That the story is also a knowingcommentary about women’s inequality under the law makes the film even moretopical today, and doesn’t reduce the film’s enjoyment value at all. It is aVERY funny film, and can be enjoyed at MANY levels!

In addition to Holliday and Ewell, the supporting cast includes the terrificDavid Wayne as a smarmy songwriter-neighbor who covets Hepburn, and ‘writes’the ditty ‘Goodbye, Amanda’ for her (actually composed by Cole Porter,Hepburn’s character’s name in the film was changed to Amanda, to fit thesong!)

Among the many wonderful scenes of the film are the ‘home movie’, whichaccurately reflected much of Tracy and Hepburn’s own relationship; theinfamous massage scene ("I know a slap…!"); the circus ‘Strong Woman’,demonstrating that women can be as physically powerful as men by lifting thepanicking Tracy over her head easily (in the middle of the courtroom!); theinfamous licorice-gun confrontation as Tracy confronts Hepburn with Wayne;and Tracy’s crying-on-demand revelation.

‘Adam’s Rib’ is a film which never seems to age, but just gets better andbetter!

3) Two New York lawyers, husband Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) and wife AmandaBonner (Katharine Hepburn), work out the marital tension and fight thesexual wars in the courtroom on opposite sides of a wife (Judy Holliday)shoots cheating husband (Tom Ewell) case. Adam’s masculinity is seeminglychallenged and his sense of justice offended by his wife’s insistence onshowing how smart she is while furthering her feminist agenda at the expenseof the law. Will their public confrontation destroy their marriage, or willit ultimately make the bond stronger?

This still plays mainly because of the charisma of Hepburn and Tracy and thefine chemistry they create together. The script by Garson Kanin and RuthGordon is shallow and profound by turns, yet ultimately witty and pleasing. Judy Holliday as the lower middle-class Doris Attinger (on her way to hersignature role in Born Yesterday (1950)) and David Wayne, as thesong-writing neighbor who adores Amanda, shine in supporting roles. GeorgeCukor’s direction is clear, crisp and always focused. In the end we can seethat Adam can be as feminine as Amanda can be masculine. The bit whereTracy cries real tears to win her back and then tells her, "We all have ourtricks" is classic. It’s his clever answer to her outrageous courtroomtheatrics. Memorable as it illuminates their contrasting personalities isthe early scene where the unsophisticated Doris is interviewed by Yale lawschool grad Amanda.

As a political movie, was Adam’s Rib ahead of its time as a vehicle forfeminist expression, or was it just another apology for male chauvinism, orwas it balanced and fair? I’ll give you a hint: the title is ironic. One ofthe things that made the Tracy/Hepburn romance work so well for so long wasthe creative balance they maintained in the battle of the sexes. The scriptby Kanin and Gordon carefully continues that profoundly trueequilibrium.

4) Feminist attorney Katharine Hepburn has a new cause. She freely admitsto doing a bit of ambulance chasing to get the case of Judy Hollidaywho shot her husband Tom Ewell after catching him in a love nest withfloozy Jean Hagen.

Problem is that of all the cases that he could have been assigned,Spencer Tracy, Hepburn’s husband and assistant District Attorney, hegot assigned to prosecute Holiday. I guess Spence felt a little of whatBogey felt when Ingrid Bergman came back into his life in Casablanca.

Men down through the ages have certainly had the right to shoot thelovers of their wives when caught, why not women argues Hepburn. Thecase gets quite a bit of notoriety and of course it puts a strain onthe marriage.

But the plot is sure the right vehicle for a lot of great lines andsituations. This is Spence and Kate at their very best. Of the comediesthey did, this is my favorite, just like State of the Union is myfavorite among the more serious films.

Probably Adam’s Rib’s best known scene is when defense witness HopeEmerson picks up Spencer Tracy in a visual attempt to show feminineprowess and power. Even after seeing it several times you still willlaugh yourself silly.

For Adam’s Rib, George Cukor denuded Broadway of stars to play insupport of Tracy and Hepburn. Making film debuts were David Wayne, TomEwell, Judy Holliday, and Jean Hagen.

Wayne is particularly funny and if Adam’s Rib was made today, he’dcertainly be more explicitly gay. He’s the next door neighbor of Spenceand Kate and some of the cracks Tracy aims in his direction would beconsidered downright homophobic. But let’s face it, Wayne is anobnoxious scamp and that bit of vengeance that Tracy wreaks upon himand Hepburn in the climax involving licorice is a great cinematicmoment.

Adam’s Rib is Tracy and Hepburn at the very top of their game and Ithink folks who are not necessarily fans of their’s would be amused.

5) Sometimes in life, we experience the most embarrassing situations. Butno matter how embarrassing these situations are, they can’t possibly beas whacked-out as what the characters in "Adam’s Rib" experience.

It all begins when Doris Attinger (Judy Holliday) shoots her husbandWarren (Tom Ewell) after she finds him cheating on her. She is promptlyarrested for attempted murder. High-priced lawyer Adam Bonner (SpencerTracy) is assigned to represent Warren in court. However, Adam’s wifeAmanda (Katharine Hepburn) finds it despicable that a woman wasarrested for punishing her unfaithful husband, and decides to representDoris in court.

Well, as you can imagine, with husband and wife on opposite sides ofthe trial, things get a little crazy. It only makes sense that theycan’t help but maintain their spousal attitudes towards each otherwhile in court (especially under the table). But even Amanda starts tofind Adam unpleasant for defending Warren, and she plays a few trickson him in court, namely with a very muscular woman.

One thing that you have to wonder after seeing a movie this good is:how did Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin come up with such a great story?Well, the point is that they did. It focuses not only on sexism, butalso on how the whole trial is affecting their marriage.

Anyway, the point is that in my opinion, "Adam’s Rib" should have wonBest Picture for 1949. Perfect.

6) For a while it seems that "Adam’s Rib" will be hard to take. Moreprecisely: Katharine Hepburn’s Amanda is hard to take. Her feminism – whenput to the test – amounts to little more than anthem singing; and howeversympathetic her client may be, we can see at once that the case for thedefence is almost entirely frivolous. Yet George Cukor is standing in thegallery, apparently cheering her on. It’s infuriating. It’s like watchingan Edwardian comedy about suffragettes.

Well, no. The film is a good deal smarter than we had given it credit forbeing … oh, very well, smarter than *I* had given it credit for being. Gordon, Kanin and Cukor understand our infuriation; the supposedly shrilldispute in the first half is merely a starting point. Maybe audiences thesedays AREN’T too sophisticated for this kind of film. Maybe we’re toostupid. (Oh, very well, maybe I’M too stupid.) -In any event, this isreally a story about Adam and Amanda. Their story becomes deeper as thetrial becomes shallower.

Even while it’s infuriating us (our infuriation will be used to good effectlater, of course) "Adam’s Rib" is never less than pleasant to watch. Onereason is that Hepburn and Tracy are just so brilliant. The script servesthem both well: neither player is denied good lines, and any impression thatHepburn is meant to be just some hothead, or that Tracy is meant to be justsome schmuck, is transitory. This is a wonderful script! My only previousexposure to Hepburn and Tracy had been in "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner",where their partnership was the only thing holding the film together; Iwasn’t at all prepared for the sheer energy they generate when they set towork on stronger material. Moreover they seem perfectly natural as amarried couple.

The music is good, too. There’s a catchy original song (not a gratuitousaddition … although it wouldn’t matter if it was) by Cole Porter; the restof the score was written by Miklós Rózsa, in one of his rare lightermoments.

7) "Adam’s Rib", directed by George Cukor, and with a screenplay by RuthFord and Garson Kanin, was one of the happiest films the two stars didtogether. Mr. Cukor knew how to direct this couple, and it shows. Thereare no false moments in a movie.

The rivalry between Adam Bonner and Amanda, his wife, comes to a headas they both get involved in a criminal case. Adam, as an AssistantD.A. is assigned to it. Amanda, as a successful trial lawyer, decidesto get involved in it because she believes Doris Attinger acted in amoment of madness.

This film was ahead of its time because Amanda questions the right of awoman to be judged the same way as a man, something the penal systemseemed to ignore. Doris Attinger is a woman that has had enough withthe philandering husband that appears to have fallen out of love withher. Warren Attinger doesn’t care who he hurts, until Doris decides totake the matter into her own hands.

Katherine Hepburn shows an impeccable delivery as Amanda Bonner. Shehas an inner beauty that shines and make her glow. Ms. Hepburn was atthe top of her career just about then and it shows. Spencer Tracy isMs. Hepburn’s match as the D.A. prosecuting the case. Mr. Tracy isdelightful to watch in their scenes together. He has such a mischievouspresence that endeared him to us in anything he played.

The revelation in this film was Judy Holliday. As Doris, the accusedwoman, she shows talent beyond imagination. In a way, it is sad torealize this amazing actress didn’t live to make it even bigger in themovies. She was a natural and she is a joy to watch in the film. Luckyare we to be able to see her best work preserved for posterity.

In minor roles David Wayne plays Kip Lurie, a Broadway composer. He isan annoying neighbor who admires Amanda, much to Adam’s chagrin. Kiphas written a song that becomes popular, "Dear Amanda", that is heardthroughout the movie. Also, in the cast Jean Hagen, Eve March, and HopeEmerson who are effective in their roles.

Thanks to George Cukor, Ruth Ford and Garson Kanin for bringing thisenjoyable comedy to the screen. Above all, thanks to Spencer Tracy andKatherine Hepburn for playing the Bonners.

Adam's Rib turned out to be a delightfully cheeky romp with a kickersense of humour, all acted out with ease by Spencer Tracy & KatherineHepburn. I love how the film veers from the courtroom right into theirmarital home and becomes not just about a battle of wills, but a battleof the sexes as well, much fun watching this famous couple go at eachother, both at work and at home. The film benefits greatly from theappearance of the lovely Judy Holliday in her breakthrough role, and itamused me greatly to see David Wayne playing a shifty character as Iremember him fondly from the Twilight Zone episode Escape Clause in1959.

8/10.

9) Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn make fireworks in this cute filmabout a well-to-do married couple who both happen to be lawyers.Hepburn is a die-hard Woman's Rights supporter, so when a ditzy lady ischarged with shooting her husband after catching him being unfaithful,Kate decides to take her case and defend her. The trouble is,old-fashioned husband Tracy is already penciled in as the prosecutingattorney. Let the Battle of the Sexes begin!

The script sets up a great opportunity to have Tracy and Hepburnsparring with one another during every phase of the trial, as well asat home every night after they've spent each day trying to outwit eachother. As a comedy, there aren't any huge belly-laughs, but it's acharming enough little take on the differences between men and womenwhich also manages to make the point that, in many ways, the sexesaren't really all that different when all is said and done.

10) Seven years into their screen partnership, Spencer Tracy and KatharineHepburn made what is arguably their best effort together, the sixth ofnine movies they made together. The zingy repartee and old-shoe comfortin their relationship are in full bloom in this 1949 comedy classicdirected by George Cukor. Written by the legendary husband and wifewriting team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, the plot focuses on aheadline-grabbing court case involving Doris Attinger, a dim-wittedwife who shoots her philandering husband Warren just as he is caughtwith his blowsy mistress Beryl Caighn. Representing the wounded husbandis Assistant DA Adam Bonner who is looking for a quick conviction ofthe wife. However, his proto-feminist attorney wife Amanda sees thealleged crime as an act of justifiable defiance and decides to defendthe wife.

This potentially tense set-up leads to a trial where Amanda sets out toprove that a double standard exists for women and that Doris was merelydefending her family and home. Adam, however, believes that the law isthe law no matter the gender of those involved and that a murder wasindeed attempted. Consequently, the story is not so much about Adam'sinherent sexism as it is about Amanda's single-minded determination toprove her point even as the case degrades into a media sideshow. Overhalf a century later, Amanda's arguments sound rather dated, one-noteand frankly ill-conceived with many of her lines simply polemics. Atthe same time, Hepburn plays such a convincing litigator that her caseactually sounds persuasive at times. Tracy is also in top form as hebrings his unique combination of sympathy and combustible bluster to aman who respects his wife deeply but becomes increasingly disillusionedwith her unlawful stance.

Together, they banter terrifically throughout, but it's in the domesticscenes, for instance, the home movie of their Connecticut farm and thelate night meal preparation, where you feel their natural chemistry themost. As Doris, Judy Holliday delivers in her first significant screenrole, bringing a deeper pathos to the scorned wife than you wouldexpect. Several years away from "The Seven Year Itch", Tom Ewell playsWarren for the smarmy, sexist cheater that he is, while Jean Hagenexpertly plays Beryl as a media-hungry floozy. As the Bonners' nextdoor neighbor Kip, David Wayne acts rather fey for someone whosupposedly wants to run away with Amanda, but I suppose the approachwas intentional to ensure nothing would really threaten the Bonnermarriage except the case. However dated some of the sexual politicsfeel, the film is still one of the most smartly played of romanticcomedies. Unfortunately the 2000 DVD has no extras.

All this leads to my biggest complaint about the film. It didn't seemto take a clear path. If it was real, this needed to be clarified andif it wasn't then it needed more laughs. I realize the film makers areyoung an experienced and it did show promise–I just hope on futureprojects their objective is more defined.

2) The film was wretched but the DVD added value content is great! Myfavoritepart was the snippet about the bulldog and this documentary: ADAM SANDLERGOES TO HELL, by director extraordinaire — JEFFREY SCHWARZ. Everythingthisman does is brilliant. Studios are stupid to hand these projects toanyoneelse. Mr. Schwarz, gets classic interviews from the films stellar cast.Itis amazing the insight he is able to get from the actors with the basictalking heads approach. Is it just me or this guy the next LaurentBouzereau? wink wink…

3) If watching and reviewing the horribly unfunny "Little Nicky" wasn’tenough to drive me to thoughts of suicide, now I have to review theextras on the dish. "Satan’s Top Forty" was only tolerable because itdidn’t have anything to do with the film. This making-of, however, haseverything to do with the movie. And because of that it sucks. Thefunniest part of it was finding out that Dana Carvy broke his leg onthe set while filming his unfunny scenes. Others might laugh at thenumerous out-takes, but no one that I’d want to hang out with.This 18minute short can be found on New Line’s Platinum Series DVD of "LittleNicky"

My Grade: F

And all of a sudden we see on the screen a mountain village in theheart of Dagestan, a small autonomous republic on the Caspian sea (yes,that same area where the Russians are fighting local Islamic guerrillasnow – well, most of you will have to check your knowledge of geography,since it is generally non-existent). Guess what, it's the 60s and thereis virtually no Soviet power to speak of. It was a true statement then,but something that the Soviet regime would never want to acknowledge,particularly on screen. How the heck this movie sneaked past thecensorship – still beats me, there must be an interesting story totell.

Moreover, the villagers live according to Sharia law, the movie,although in a very comical way, portrays the condition of the woman inthe Islamic soviet republic. The whole storyline is based on theobscure Sharia custom of marriage. I was puzzled and surprised watchingthis.

It's a very warm movie in its portrayal of people and village life. Itfeels untypically authentic and void of any hint of propaganda. Eventhe soviet-type ending fits well and is quite believable. In any case,nothing changes much about these people, just a few minor things. Weare in 2009, and this is as true as it was back then.

The language is Russian, none of the main actors is from Dagestan,judging by the cast. Lots of Armenians in the cast, which is kind offunny, since there aren't too many in the area. Wish they release itwith decent subtitles. I think the movie is available on DVD in Russia,obviously without any subtitles (just another sign of culturalisolationism, total disregard to anybody else and simple professionalincompetence of the publishers – nothing new there). It is very worthwatching for anyone interested in the anthropology and culture of theregion, great illustration material for women studies as well. Anyoneelse, without any professional interest will simply enjoy a goodhumanistic story.

• The photo in the opening montage, of Adam Hart (Jesper Hyldegaard) and Victor Janis (Per Diemer) seated on a bench, recreates an illustration in the first edition of the first Adam Hart-novel, “Adam Harts opdagelser”. In that illustration Adam Hart and Victor Janis were portrayed by author Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff and his friend Palle Toft, who both have cameo appearances in this film. Covers and other illustrations from the four original Adam Hart-novels can be glimpsed on the walls of the apartment shared by Adam Hart and Victor Janis, which makes sense as the novels are written as if they were the published diaries of Victor Janis.
• In his opening narration, Victor Janis mentions his lost love, the vampire Alicia. The portrait of Alicia standing by his bedside is really a photo of Barbara Steele. As we see the photo, Søren Hyldgaard’s score quotes the love theme from La maschera del demonio (1960), in which Barbara Steele played a vampire. Although “Adam Hart i Sahara” is not about vampires, it has several other vampire-references: On a board behind Myra can be glimpsed a photo of Bela Lugosi as Dracula, and in Adam Hart’s bedroom hangs the Danish posters from the vampire films House of Dark Shadows (1970), Twins of Evil (1971) and _Satanic Rites of Dracula, The (1974)_.
• Pasted on a board behind Myra, as she asks Adam Hart and Victor Janis for help, is a flier for the video magazine “Tracking”, which was edited by Nicolas Barbano, the producer/director of this film, and featured articles by the film’s screenwriter, Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff.

2) Ingrid Bergman is hired as a governess for the Stoddard’s. Warner Baxterplays the father of this family. The film journey’s through the death ofthe mother, stock market crash and the marriage of one of the sons to afreespirited wife. Susan Hayward is very entertaining as bad girl Hester.Enjoyable face off between Bergman and Hayward.

3) I only watched this film because Ingrid Bergman was in it. And because IKnew that Bergman wasn’t fond of it, and that general opinion was so so, Iexpected it to not be up to much but I ended up being pleasantly surprisedby how good a film it is. The performances are all good especiallyBergman(of Course), Baxter and Heyward and the film cruises along at quick pacewith no scenes dragging. If I have a problem with the film it’s that it’sabit short at an 80 mins but apparently it was originally 108 mins, if thisis true then it’s shocking that over 25 mins were cut out. I’d like toknowif it’s possible to put the footage back in or if it has been destroyed.Ifit isn’t destroyed then in the video age it should be released on video init’s original length. 9/10

4) I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing thatstruck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Rooseveltand his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the fourboys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddardtalked about the same values and family tradition that you would haveheard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterousaspects of TR’s character.

Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this casethough the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed.

But what if a female minx gets into this all male household anddisrupts things? That’s Susan Hayward’s job here. In one of herearliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl whomarries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a playfor the third. It’s an early forerunner of the kind of a part thatlater brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.

I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as TheodoreRoosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tellFather what’s going on. The sons and also their governess IngridBergman. Here’s where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman isintroduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray fortheir kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals inbusiness. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and yearslater comes back to the family when the kids are grown up.

I’m sorry, but I can’t believe the kids need a governess now. Haywardis quite right when she confronts her that it wasn’t the kids whobrought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would havegotten on with her life.

One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of thefilm I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for themany plot holes we have.

It’s too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another filmtogether in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman hadjust made a comeback.

Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I’mwilling to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cuttingroom floor.

5) *** Possible Spoilers*** When Adam needs a new governess for his foursons, he and his wife hire a French governess to take care of them. Thewife soon dies and over the years she becomes the mainstay of the home,in spite of a stock market crash, World War I and the straying wife ofone of the boys. A good effort by all, including a young andmanipulative Susan Hayward. Given the era, some of the content wassurprising and the story was by no means a conventional epic. It hadbeen some time since Warner Baxter was a big star, so this fineperformance by him is a welcome reminder of his previous successes.

6) In this, Ingrid Bergman's second American film, she once again playsthe nubile love interest of a much older man (as she did with LeslieHoward in INTERMEZZO, which was a remake of her Swedish film by thesame name). This is a period film, made in the 1940s, it is set backbefore WWI, so it has that "old world" feel about it, and her accent isused to great advantage, as she plays a nanny from "the old country."In the 1940s many many films had a rosy remembrance of the 1890s andearly 1900s, just as today we have sweetened remembrances of the 70s,like " Almsost Famous" – a film that turns a band-following sleeze intosome mythological dream girl/woman of easy sex and maternal sweetness.(Ah yes, the early 2000s, they will be saying in the future, where onceagain, the only purpose of a girl in a film is to be a willing vesselfor a man.) But I digress… which your mind might do during this film,because it is a pretty bland and predictable story, despite the cattygame playing of a young Susan Hayward. It's also a little ikky bytoday's standards, when we realize that we are supposed to be rootingfor Ingrid to pair up with a man who looks at least 30 years older thanshe is. But we must remember what financial stability meant in a postdepression era world.

Susan Hayward has a very interesting role here. It became a prototypefor her later roles, sexually and personally aggressive, and morallybankrupt. It is also interesting because you can see her acting neverreally changed or progressed. She had everything here in thispowerhouse performance that she had as an older actress. Lots ofstrength and pizazz, not much nuance. (Watch VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, andshe is interchangeable – just older, with a better script.)Consequently, this film gives us a stark contrast between Hayward &Bergman, heightened by this contrast in acting style. Susan Haywardhits you over the head while you're on the doorstep. Ingrid quietlylets you come inside. This makes their scenes like fire and ice, andwisely, the filmmakers let the story build to a confrontation betweenthem. That is the best part of this film – at heart a woman's story.

Being that this is essentially a woman's story, it is oddly overrunwith little boys and men, older men and little boys who need to belooked after and catered to, young men in uniform who parade in likecolorful birds – who need to be looked after and catered to. Ah yes,the war years.

One real irony here is that Susan Hayward's character is introduced inuniform. It is not commented on at all, but instead of this conferringrespect on her, we know immediately that this shorthand means she ishard, aggressive and probably sexually promiscuous. Definitely NOT whatthose boys were fighting for; they may have wanted Susan in the field,but they wanted Ingrid to come home to. Amusing in retrospect, and alsoa frustrating reminder that women who give their lives in service totheir country are still regarded with an odd mixture of intangiblesuspicions.

Somewhere in this mix is Fay Wray (I didn't recognize her)… She playedthe sainted, oddly healthy looking mother of the boys who dies. In thetitles she is identified only by her first name, and the mother isnever called by the first name within the film, it is "mother" or"Mrs.". I can only assume that audiences at this time would have knownher on sight, so they couldn't conceive that one day people would betrying to figure out which one she was. Wray did a lot of work on thestage, and actually kept pace with the times, acting-wise she grew, andher work fits nicely with the more subtle work of Bergman. It is herfeatures and profile that pinpoint her as a beauty of the silents andearly talkies. Very similar build and look to Gloria Swanson.

Solid, studio bound production from this period, with someunexplainable gaps of logic in the story and large gaps of time leftunmentioned. This period of films was a little suffocating even forthose who like it, so you can probably skip it unless you really wantto see the early work of Bergman and Hayward.

7) The best this movie can offer is four women. They are Fay Wray, IngridBergman, Susan Hayward and June Lockhart. The sons are dolts. Dad’s a niceguy.

At first, I wondered whether this movie was the non-musical precursor of’The Sound of Music’. But then, it meandered into strange territory whereIngrid Bergman and Susan Hayward eventually wind up in a hissy fit. (Otherthan that, Bergman is generally restrained in the movie, if not apparentlylost at times.)

The ending is abrupt. Everything is thrown together in the last few minutesto try and tie things up. It reminded me of a nervous speaker who spendstoo much time on the introduction and then suddenly realizes there’s no timeleft for the story and conclusion.

Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with thefilm were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age whenthe children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuityproblems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son lookedlike the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gapwith black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though thescript left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine inthe film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, butwhat is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in thatBergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but thenbrought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of thetime lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash thatresembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All theacting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what wasin the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.

9) By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce amovie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners.That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," aleaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by IngridBergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and WarnerBaxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in whichHollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired asgoverness to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruptioncaused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown menserving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is sogoody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess entersmidway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movieeven though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it'salso the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but thescript remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. Nowonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley ofDecision" four years later.