A Connecticut Yankee (1931)

User Rating:

7.0/10   

Director:

David Butler

Writers:

William M. Conselman (writer)
Owen Davis (writer)

Release Date:

6 April 1931 (USA)

Genre:

Fantasy | Comedy

Plot Keywords:

Cross Cultural Relations | Beautiful Woman | King | Wizard | Fish Out Of Water

Cast

Will Rogers	...	Hank Martin aka Sir Boss
William Farnum	...	King Arthur / Inventor
Frank Albertson	...	Emile le Poulet / Clarence
Maureen O'Sullivan	...	Alisande / Clarence's Sweetheart
Brandon Hurst	...	Merlin / Doctor in Mansion
Myrna Loy	...	Queen Morgan le Fay / Evil Sister in Mansion
Mitchell Harris	...	Sagramor / Butler in Mansion

Also Known As:

The Yankee at King Arthur's Court (UK)

Runtime:

95 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.20 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

USA:Unrated

Company:

Fox Film Corporation

Trivia:

Some sources erroneously reverse the roles played by Mitchell Harris and Brandon Hurst. Harris plays Sagramor and the Butler and Hurst plays Merlin and the Doctor.

Goofs:

Factual errors: When Hank is to be burnt at the stake at "high noon", the shadows on the ground clearly indicate that the hour is between 4pm and 6pm.

Movie Connections:

Version of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1989) (TV)

Not the greatest vehicle for Rogers

First of all, I've heard a lot about Will Rogers over the years and I've always enjoyed his songs. But this movie seems to be a pretty mediocre vehicle for his talents.

First of all, you have Rogers himself, who is uh...... not a Connecticut Yankee by any stretch of the imagination. They should have just called it "An Okie in King Arthur's Court" or something. I mean, he's even doing tricks with the lasso, which I know is a Rogers trademark, but it's pretty loose with the interpretation on Twain's book. Of course since this is a light comedy all the satire of Twain's book is gone, but that's to be expected. But Rogers as the Connecticut Yankee is just not right.

Another thing was the look of the film and the directing, which I found to be very lackluster. I haven't checked but it would not surprise me to find that the director was heavily involved in silent films. It is just a movie that feels like a B movie even though you have Rogers who was a pretty big star at the time. The production values are not up to what you would hope for from MGM, looks more like a Gene Autry movie.

There are a few fun scenes, and it is worth watching for anybody who just wants a look at Rogers' comedy on screen. Basically a kiddie movie though without much to offer adults and would probably bore most modern children.