Quite a good film. I didn't have any trouble following the flashback-in-a-flashback scheme. Bogart was Bogart. What can you say? Greenstreet and Lorre were good. Claude Rains was excellent. Apparently, some people are upset at this film because it isn't "Casablanca". I don't really think it tried to be. It was probably just that the actors and director liked working together, and if that sold more tickets, well, no one would complain. Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen frequently cast their films with the same actors, presumably friends (and lovers), and no one thinks twice about it.
69 Reviews
Bogart maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice
Nazi_Fighter_David10 April 2005
Wartime heroics never seemed exploited in quite so complex a fashion as "Passage to Marseille," directed by Michael Curtiz
Bogart, a French journalist framed for murder because of his political views and sent to Devil's Island during World War II, escapes from his penal hell with four other convicts and winds up on a French freighter bound for home Hoping to rejoin the fighting Free French resistance movement, the men, all fiercely loyal patriots, become involved in preventing a takeover of the ship by Fascist sympathizers
This relatively simple plot line is then surrounded by a series of extraneous plots and subplots which were related in a series of single, double, and even triple flashbacks, making any semblance of coherency virtually impossible
Bogart's characterization is equally vague and complicated as he maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice At one moment he is the picture of idealistic moral righteousness fighting against a callous system, and the next he debased his human nature as he brutally machine-guns some defenseless enemies His moral platitudes do not balance his immoral behavior, making for ambiguity and confusion...
The most important saving grace of "Passage to Marseille" is the supporting cast headed by Bogart's "Casablanca" co-stars Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre, who all turned in strong character portrayals
Bogart, a French journalist framed for murder because of his political views and sent to Devil's Island during World War II, escapes from his penal hell with four other convicts and winds up on a French freighter bound for home Hoping to rejoin the fighting Free French resistance movement, the men, all fiercely loyal patriots, become involved in preventing a takeover of the ship by Fascist sympathizers
This relatively simple plot line is then surrounded by a series of extraneous plots and subplots which were related in a series of single, double, and even triple flashbacks, making any semblance of coherency virtually impossible
Bogart's characterization is equally vague and complicated as he maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice At one moment he is the picture of idealistic moral righteousness fighting against a callous system, and the next he debased his human nature as he brutally machine-guns some defenseless enemies His moral platitudes do not balance his immoral behavior, making for ambiguity and confusion...
The most important saving grace of "Passage to Marseille" is the supporting cast headed by Bogart's "Casablanca" co-stars Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre, who all turned in strong character portrayals
An International Smorgasbord
howdymax12 October 2002
Many serious film buffs have made the comparison between this movie and Casablanca. The director and cast are almost identical. They also take issue with the nested flashbacks, claiming that it confuses the story. I disagree. Think for a moment; if Casablanca had never been made, this would certainly be a riveting movie in it's own right. It deserves to stand alone and be recognized - for the propaganda it was.
I won't go into the story itself, but I couldn't help making an observation about the cast. This is supposed to be a story about French convicts who recognize the errors of their ways and come to France's aid when she needs them most. Humphrey Bogart and George Tobias were from New York (the accents prove it), Philip Dorn from the Netherlands, Helmut Dantine from Austria, Peter Lorre from Hungary, Victor Francen from Belgium, Vladimir Sokoloff from Russia, and Claude Rains, John Loder, Sidney Greenstreet from England. Only Michelle Morgan was French and she seemed more like an afterthought.
An honorable mention for my favorite director: Michael Curtiz. Many people have called him a studio hack and criticized him for his dictatorial rather than directorial attitude toward cast and crew alike, but anybody who could construct such diverse masterpieces as "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood", deserves much more credit than he ever got. I urge you to review his screen credits. He was prolific and uncompromising in the quality of his work.
I won't go into the story itself, but I couldn't help making an observation about the cast. This is supposed to be a story about French convicts who recognize the errors of their ways and come to France's aid when she needs them most. Humphrey Bogart and George Tobias were from New York (the accents prove it), Philip Dorn from the Netherlands, Helmut Dantine from Austria, Peter Lorre from Hungary, Victor Francen from Belgium, Vladimir Sokoloff from Russia, and Claude Rains, John Loder, Sidney Greenstreet from England. Only Michelle Morgan was French and she seemed more like an afterthought.
An honorable mention for my favorite director: Michael Curtiz. Many people have called him a studio hack and criticized him for his dictatorial rather than directorial attitude toward cast and crew alike, but anybody who could construct such diverse masterpieces as "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood", deserves much more credit than he ever got. I urge you to review his screen credits. He was prolific and uncompromising in the quality of his work.
Casablanca Redux?
Bucs196019 October 2004
I think this film gets a bad rap as most people see it as a Casablanca wanna-be based on the fact that the same players appear in both (even the singer Corinne Mura shows up here although she was uncredited in Casablanca). Granted, this is a propaganda film but so were hundreds of others made at this time. France gets particular attention as the sole cause of the Munich sell-out and Marshall Petain, old and misguided, gets all the blame......this is not exactly how it was but we have to remember that Vichy was collaborating with the Nazis. (Remember how Claude Rains threw away the bottle of Vichy water in Casablanca?) So we have to view this film in the context of the times.
Bogey plays his character just like Bogey.....no attempt at a French accent which probably would have been disastrous anyway and the cast is a melting pot of nationalities. But how can you go wrong with Bogey, Greenstreet, Rains and Lorre? They could make an educational film about the building and maintenance of an internal combustion engine interesting!
The flashbacks are not hard to follow, and although a rather awkward story telling method in this particular film, don't really take that much away from the screenplay.
Bogey's actions surrounding the survivors of the downed German plane were a bit surprising but hey, it was war. The entire fight on the ship against the Germans was the best part of the film.
Michele Morgan had absolutely nothing to do in this film which is too bad as she was a wonderful actress with a haunting beauty but this is basically a man's movie.
All in all, this isn't a bad film but it has suffered because of its comparison to Casablanca. Be warned that it is pure propaganda but I found it enjoyable and a window on a different time.
Bogey plays his character just like Bogey.....no attempt at a French accent which probably would have been disastrous anyway and the cast is a melting pot of nationalities. But how can you go wrong with Bogey, Greenstreet, Rains and Lorre? They could make an educational film about the building and maintenance of an internal combustion engine interesting!
The flashbacks are not hard to follow, and although a rather awkward story telling method in this particular film, don't really take that much away from the screenplay.
Bogey's actions surrounding the survivors of the downed German plane were a bit surprising but hey, it was war. The entire fight on the ship against the Germans was the best part of the film.
Michele Morgan had absolutely nothing to do in this film which is too bad as she was a wonderful actress with a haunting beauty but this is basically a man's movie.
All in all, this isn't a bad film but it has suffered because of its comparison to Casablanca. Be warned that it is pure propaganda but I found it enjoyable and a window on a different time.
Casablanca 2?
utgard1430 June 2014
Pretty cool WWII story, told mostly through flashbacks, about French convicts led by Humphrey Bogart who escape from Devil's Island to go help their country fight the Nazis. The men are picked up by a freighter bound for home and must deal with slimy Sydney Greenstreet, who isn't particularly opposed to the idea of a Nazi-occupied France.
Reunites Casablanca costars Bogart, Rains, Lorre, and Greenstreet with director Michael Curtiz. In many ways, this could be seen as a possible sequel to Casablanca, though certainly not in that film's league. I could see where you could rework the story to be about Rick, Ilsa, and Louis' post-Casablanca story. Cute use of models in early scene where the war correspondent arrives to speak with Claude Rains. This movie is slammed a lot for its use of the flashback-within-a-flashback-within-a-flashback technique. Normally I'm not a fan of that myself but here I didn't think it was confusing like critics claim. The ending is kind of depressing but realistic. War is hell, after all.
Reunites Casablanca costars Bogart, Rains, Lorre, and Greenstreet with director Michael Curtiz. In many ways, this could be seen as a possible sequel to Casablanca, though certainly not in that film's league. I could see where you could rework the story to be about Rick, Ilsa, and Louis' post-Casablanca story. Cute use of models in early scene where the war correspondent arrives to speak with Claude Rains. This movie is slammed a lot for its use of the flashback-within-a-flashback-within-a-flashback technique. Normally I'm not a fan of that myself but here I didn't think it was confusing like critics claim. The ending is kind of depressing but realistic. War is hell, after all.
The Butterfly Collector...
Xstal26 August 2023
On the horizon a canoe that's a small crew, without sustenance, they're all just about through, the Ville de Nancy brings them in, a war wages from Berlin, through several flashbacks there's a story that comes through. As it transpires that they've escaped from Devil's Island, they are keen to get to France to fight for their land, but a Vichy sympathiser, and his sycophant adviser, try to scupper this bedraggled, ragged band. It's not the greatest film with folks you may admire, Sydney has an odd accent, that's rather dire, but generally it's fine, as they sail across the brine, you can tick it off your list if you require.
Passage to Marseille review
JoeytheBrit25 April 2020
It looks like a sure-fire winner on paper, but nothing about Passage to Marseille really clicks. Bogie's Devil's Island escapee never feels like a fully-rounded character, and Greenstreet, Lorre and Rains - Bogart's fellow stars from the same studio's Casablanca - are wasted in largely inconsequential roles. Another negative: the clumsy flashback structure plays havoc with the pacing of the story. Still watchable, but a definite misfire.
"France Lives.......Vive La France"
bkoganbing28 October 2006
In an effort to capitalize on the film that they produced that won the Best Picture Oscar the previous year, the Brothers Warner united as much of the original cast of Casablanca as they could find to tell the tale of convicts from Devil's Island returning to fight the Nazis.
Passage to Marseille might have been a better film if it been done with a straight forward narrative, or only one flashback, from the Humphrey Bogart character. As it is I counted at one point Claude Rains telling his story to newspaper reporter John Loder with a flashback by Phillip Dorn in Rains's narrative. And then in Dorn's narrative we have Bogart flashing back as well. It's a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, within a flashback. Confusing ain't it?
Our Devil's Island convicts are Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Helmut Dantine, George Tobias, and Phillip Dorn. They're picked up by a tramp freighter heading back to Marseille. World War II has already started and midpoint of the voyage, ship captain Victor Francen hears that France has fallen. He starts shifting his course to Great Britain.
Another passenger Sidney Greenstreet has other ideas. He tries a small scale coup d'etat for the Vichy regime on board and meets up with a whole lot of resistance. Greenstreet has the most interesting role in the film. An arrogant militarist, he definitely finds the Nazi dominated Europe more to his liking.
Michele Morgan is Bogart's wife and the only one in the film who is actually French among the principal players. She was a very big star of the French cinema who was lucky to get out. During the war she made films in the UK and the USA. This and Higher and Higher are probably her two best known American films.
Claude Rains is a kinder, gentler version of Captain Renaud from Casablanca. As Captain Freycinet also of the French army like Greenstreet, his politics are a whole lot different. He's an opportunist also in the best sense of the word. He sees an opportunity to deny the Nazis the ship's cargo of nickel ore and takes it. It's from his perspective that the action of the film is viewed and it is he who supplies the coda for the film which is the title for this review.
Passage to Marseille is not a bad film, but not up there with Casablanca.
Passage to Marseille might have been a better film if it been done with a straight forward narrative, or only one flashback, from the Humphrey Bogart character. As it is I counted at one point Claude Rains telling his story to newspaper reporter John Loder with a flashback by Phillip Dorn in Rains's narrative. And then in Dorn's narrative we have Bogart flashing back as well. It's a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, within a flashback. Confusing ain't it?
Our Devil's Island convicts are Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Helmut Dantine, George Tobias, and Phillip Dorn. They're picked up by a tramp freighter heading back to Marseille. World War II has already started and midpoint of the voyage, ship captain Victor Francen hears that France has fallen. He starts shifting his course to Great Britain.
Another passenger Sidney Greenstreet has other ideas. He tries a small scale coup d'etat for the Vichy regime on board and meets up with a whole lot of resistance. Greenstreet has the most interesting role in the film. An arrogant militarist, he definitely finds the Nazi dominated Europe more to his liking.
Michele Morgan is Bogart's wife and the only one in the film who is actually French among the principal players. She was a very big star of the French cinema who was lucky to get out. During the war she made films in the UK and the USA. This and Higher and Higher are probably her two best known American films.
Claude Rains is a kinder, gentler version of Captain Renaud from Casablanca. As Captain Freycinet also of the French army like Greenstreet, his politics are a whole lot different. He's an opportunist also in the best sense of the word. He sees an opportunity to deny the Nazis the ship's cargo of nickel ore and takes it. It's from his perspective that the action of the film is viewed and it is he who supplies the coda for the film which is the title for this review.
Passage to Marseille is not a bad film, but not up there with Casablanca.
Good but not great war film
jaybee-323 January 2001
It must be a problem for first-time viewers to watch this flashback within a flashback within a flashback film. There is also the urge to compare this with "Casablanca". It cannot hold a candle to that masterpiece. On its own, it has some good qualities. The production is first-rate. The cast do excellent work considering the limits of the cliche-ridden script. The Devil's Island sequence is particularly well executed. So we have a film that may disappoint considering the talent but is hard to dismiss.
Despite a weak structure (a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, etc.), an exceptional wartime film
planktonrules24 September 2006
This is one of the better American propaganda films made during WWII--as it not only did an excellent job of entertaining and encouraging the folks at home, but it was also well made--with some wonderful performances. I am not just saying that because I am a huge Humphrey Bogart fan--after all, despite his having top billing, it is really an ensemble film. No, Warner Brothers did a bang-up job of getting excellent character actors, combining them with excellent direction as well as an excellent story. About the only serious negative about the film was the structure of the film itself (not the plot). The film begins with two men talking and the movie is told through flashbacks. This is a common theme in older films and I don't mind it at all,...within limits. But, when the flashback begins to have a flashback and this other flashback diverges into yet another flashback, it just looks like sloppy writing--and this is a real shame as the dialog and plot are very good. So my advice is to still watch the film and try to look past this odd style. If you do, you will be rewarded with an excellent film filled with excellent acting, dialog and a rousing and not too unbelievable series of adventures.
By the way, for historians and airplane lovers out there, the film is really a mixed bag. In the beginning of the film, Bogart's bomber changes from what appears to be a B-17 A, B, C or D to a B-17 E or F in mid-flight. While in some planes the differences between versions of a model are usually pretty insignificant, in the B-17 it was such a radical redesign, it really does look like two totally different planes. So in this case, they did a lousy job of paying attention to details. However, late in the film when the ship is attacked by a German patrol plane, the attacking plane really does look like a real FW-200--the standard German plane for such anti-shipping details. This type of plane is rarely, if ever, shown in movies and I liked how someone at Warner Brothers really cared to try to get it right.
By the way, for historians and airplane lovers out there, the film is really a mixed bag. In the beginning of the film, Bogart's bomber changes from what appears to be a B-17 A, B, C or D to a B-17 E or F in mid-flight. While in some planes the differences between versions of a model are usually pretty insignificant, in the B-17 it was such a radical redesign, it really does look like two totally different planes. So in this case, they did a lousy job of paying attention to details. However, late in the film when the ship is attacked by a German patrol plane, the attacking plane really does look like a real FW-200--the standard German plane for such anti-shipping details. This type of plane is rarely, if ever, shown in movies and I liked how someone at Warner Brothers really cared to try to get it right.
Papillon in flashbacks
jotix10017 October 2004
The best reason for watching this movie was the work of director, Michael Curtiz, a fine man who always delivered. Unfortunately, he relied on a screen play that doesn't do anything to make us care more about the people it tries to portray. As a propaganda film, it glorifies that myth that France always was for the American public.
It's hard to believe the escapees from Cayenne be given a chance to fight for the same country that had exiled them to hard labor, where chances of survival was almost non existing. Reality would only tells us these men would be put in prison as they arrived in France.
The film compensates with the different plots by including heavy action at sea, and then during the bombing of Germany by the French squadron now in England. The story of how Jean Matrac lands in the penal colony of Guyana, after being accused of killing someone is seen in flashbacks. This episode shows his falling in love for the lovely Paula, who becomes the love of his life.
The problem with the film is the potpourri of actors and backgrounds that make the movie a small leaning Tower of Babel. Our hero, Matrac, speaks NewYorkese! Bogey, is not as effective in this movie as in others. What made the film interesting was the strong supporting cast that was put together. Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, George Tobias, Helmut Dantine, John Loden, Philip Dorn, among others, do excellent work under Mr. Curtiz's direction. Michelle Morgan, one of the most radiant women in films, has nothing to do in it. The film also boasts an appearance by Corinna Mura, who also appeared in "Casablanca".
The film, by no means, a bad one, could have used a better screen play, or at least one that would have made it more fun to watch.
It's hard to believe the escapees from Cayenne be given a chance to fight for the same country that had exiled them to hard labor, where chances of survival was almost non existing. Reality would only tells us these men would be put in prison as they arrived in France.
The film compensates with the different plots by including heavy action at sea, and then during the bombing of Germany by the French squadron now in England. The story of how Jean Matrac lands in the penal colony of Guyana, after being accused of killing someone is seen in flashbacks. This episode shows his falling in love for the lovely Paula, who becomes the love of his life.
The problem with the film is the potpourri of actors and backgrounds that make the movie a small leaning Tower of Babel. Our hero, Matrac, speaks NewYorkese! Bogey, is not as effective in this movie as in others. What made the film interesting was the strong supporting cast that was put together. Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, George Tobias, Helmut Dantine, John Loden, Philip Dorn, among others, do excellent work under Mr. Curtiz's direction. Michelle Morgan, one of the most radiant women in films, has nothing to do in it. The film also boasts an appearance by Corinna Mura, who also appeared in "Casablanca".
The film, by no means, a bad one, could have used a better screen play, or at least one that would have made it more fun to watch.
Compelling despite a weak structure
jeffchan21 November 1999
Passage to Marseille's flashback within a flashback format is of course structurally weak, but its characters and storytelling are compelling. Most interesting is the cynical disillusionment Bogart's character experiences after his opposition newspaper confronts the French government's Nazi appeasement. His newspaper is destroyed by pro-government mobs while fascist-leaning police look on. For his trouble Bogart is falsely convicted of murder and sent to a hell-on-earth prison colony in French Guyana. Formerly the staunchest of patriots, Bogart comes to feel that the France living in his heart has finally died.
Bogart and cohorts escape with the aid of a freed prisoner who selects and compels them with a promise to return to France and fight for its freedom. The third flashback finds them adrift in the Caribbean in their river canoe where they are rescued by a French freighter bound for Marseille. Things get complicated when some passengers and crew members led by a utilitarian French Army officer played by Sydney Greenstreet attempt to seize control of the ship. The ship's captain and Claude Rains' character had plotted a course to England in defiance of their now Nazi-controlled government's orders.
As the free French loyalists retake control of the ship, a traitorous radio operator broadcasts their position which is picked up by a patrolling Nazi bomber. The prisoners' true convictions (no pun intended) are demonstrated both in retaking the ship and in fighting off the plane's attack. In leading the ship's defense, Bogart's true feelings are realized and his choice is made to once again fight for his country, this time with bombs and bullets instead of ink and paper.
Bogart and cohorts escape with the aid of a freed prisoner who selects and compels them with a promise to return to France and fight for its freedom. The third flashback finds them adrift in the Caribbean in their river canoe where they are rescued by a French freighter bound for Marseille. Things get complicated when some passengers and crew members led by a utilitarian French Army officer played by Sydney Greenstreet attempt to seize control of the ship. The ship's captain and Claude Rains' character had plotted a course to England in defiance of their now Nazi-controlled government's orders.
As the free French loyalists retake control of the ship, a traitorous radio operator broadcasts their position which is picked up by a patrolling Nazi bomber. The prisoners' true convictions (no pun intended) are demonstrated both in retaking the ship and in fighting off the plane's attack. In leading the ship's defense, Bogart's true feelings are realized and his choice is made to once again fight for his country, this time with bombs and bullets instead of ink and paper.
wartime flick
SnoopyStyle4 November 2021
France has fallen to the Nazis but the Free French are still fighting. Manning is a reporter sent into rural England to write about them. Their commander Captain Freycinet (Claude Rains) recounts their story when France fell. Freycinet was captaining a ship in the Caribeans when they pick up five survivors in a small boat. Jean Matrac (Humphrey Bogart), Marius (Peter Lorre), and the others reveal themselves to be escaped prisoners. Despite that, they are eager to join the war against the Germans.
This is a bit of wartime propaganda. It's saying that even the French prisoners are eager to fight. The love of country and freedom extents to even prisoners. Bogie is still playing the dashing type. This has some familiar faces. This movie has many of the same themes as other wartime films but it's not done quite as well. The structure is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback. It's not my favorite construction.
This is a bit of wartime propaganda. It's saying that even the French prisoners are eager to fight. The love of country and freedom extents to even prisoners. Bogie is still playing the dashing type. This has some familiar faces. This movie has many of the same themes as other wartime films but it's not done quite as well. The structure is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback. It's not my favorite construction.
I know it seems incredible when you look at the credits, but this is a weak movie
richard-17878 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine a movie made at Warner Brothers in the early 1940s, when they were at their peak. A movie directed by Michael Curtiz, when he was at his peak. Starring Humphrey Bogart, when he was at his peak. Co-starring Claude Raines, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, etc., etc. You'd say that would be a formula not just for a good movie, but for a GREAT movie. After all, it had produced Casablanca. How could it fail?
In part the problem is the script. It tells its story very poorly, with no pacing. (Even though Curtiz directed it? Yes, even though Curtiz directed it.) The characters are flat and uninteresting, even though played by great actors. Bogart's character, Matrac, for example, has every reason to hate what he calls the French fascists after they arrest him and sentence him to Devil's Island. Yet in the final scene, the big action scene, he vents his uncontrolled rage on German soldiers. It would have made more sense if he had directed it at Sidney Greenstreet's character, for example.
In general, the dialogue is often wooden and/or preachy.
There's no point in comparing Michele Morgan to Ingrid Bergman. Morgan has few scenes and no good dialogue.
The only scene that held me was the final attack on the ship by a German bomber. It wasn't great, but you do, of course, cheer at the end when the French hit the bomber and it goes down. I was surprised, though, that Bogart guns the survivors down, despite the ship captain's protest. Why was that included? To show that he was overcome with hatred? Why? The Germans had never done anything to him.
The point of this movie was clearly to show Americans in early 1944, as we were getting ready to land at Normandy, that, despite the 1940 armistice, most Frenchmen were courageous, patriotic, anti-Nazi, and therefore worth liberating. (Reunion in France is a better example of that.) The problem is that none of the men are played by French actors. Humphrey Bogart, Claude Raines, Peter Lorre, etc., never for a moment convince you that they're French, or even try to do so, so their courage never makes you admire the French.
And, at the end, when Claude Raines reads the letter written by the now deceased Bogart and it goes ON and ON and ON in a style that his five year old child could never have understood, you wonder HOW Curtiz could possibly have allowed that. After all, we're talking about the director of some of the most exciting movies of all time, like the Adventures of Robin Hood and the Sea Hawk, not to mention Casablanca. The letter is so preachy.
But it's also very pacifist in a certain way, which makes it hard to understand why Daladier's support of the Munich Agreement is so vehemently condemned early in the movie. (See below.)
-------------------
I just watched this movie again, four years after writing the above review. I confess I didn't like the movie any better the second time.
One thing I found strange this time was Matrac's politics and the movie's support to them.
Matrac starts off as a leftist, anti-Fascist French newspaper reporter, not unlike Rick in Casablanca. In 1938 he writes an article condemning Daladier (the French prime minister) for signing the Munich Agreement along with England's Neville Chamberlain. This agreement ceded the Sudatenland, part of what was then Checkoslovakia, to Germany, in an attempt to avoid all-out war. The movie depicts Daladier - who was long out of power by 1944, when this movie was made - as a Fascist for signing the agreement. Matrac's paper is subsequently ransacked by thugs, who are also described as Fascists, while the police, who are also described as Fascists, look on indifferently.
I found this very strange. Daladier was anything but a Fascist. He was responsible for major rearmament against Germany in the last months leading up to the war, and as a result was imprisoned by the Pétainist government after they came to power in 1940. Why would Jack Warner have wanted to present Daladier as a collaborator with Germany?
In the same respect, early in the movie some of the characters wonder how much Pétain was siding with Hitler, and dismiss him as an old man, blaming the collaboration of France on the prime minister, Pierre Laval. Why would Jack Warner want to have shifted blame from Pétain, who was certainly aware of what he was doing, but inculpate Daladier? I found this strange.
The chronology is also strange. Matrac - "matrac" is a billy club in French - gets in trouble after writing his condemnation of the Munich Agreement, which was signed 30 September, 1938. Pétain signed the armistice, to which reference is made while Matrac and the other convicts are on the Ville de Nice, on 23 June, 1940. Since the convicts had been at sea 20 days before being rescued by the Ville de Nice, that leaves only 20 months between Matrac's being falsely accused of murder and his escape from Devil's Island, considerably less actually, since he gets married after his paper is ransacked and spends some time with his wife before he is arrested. Say 19 months. There must have been a trial, etc., before he was sent out to Cayenne, so he was probably not on Devil's Island much more than a year. Though I'm sure a year seemed like an eternity to prisoners there, the movie gives the impression he was there a lot longer than that.
In part the problem is the script. It tells its story very poorly, with no pacing. (Even though Curtiz directed it? Yes, even though Curtiz directed it.) The characters are flat and uninteresting, even though played by great actors. Bogart's character, Matrac, for example, has every reason to hate what he calls the French fascists after they arrest him and sentence him to Devil's Island. Yet in the final scene, the big action scene, he vents his uncontrolled rage on German soldiers. It would have made more sense if he had directed it at Sidney Greenstreet's character, for example.
In general, the dialogue is often wooden and/or preachy.
There's no point in comparing Michele Morgan to Ingrid Bergman. Morgan has few scenes and no good dialogue.
The only scene that held me was the final attack on the ship by a German bomber. It wasn't great, but you do, of course, cheer at the end when the French hit the bomber and it goes down. I was surprised, though, that Bogart guns the survivors down, despite the ship captain's protest. Why was that included? To show that he was overcome with hatred? Why? The Germans had never done anything to him.
The point of this movie was clearly to show Americans in early 1944, as we were getting ready to land at Normandy, that, despite the 1940 armistice, most Frenchmen were courageous, patriotic, anti-Nazi, and therefore worth liberating. (Reunion in France is a better example of that.) The problem is that none of the men are played by French actors. Humphrey Bogart, Claude Raines, Peter Lorre, etc., never for a moment convince you that they're French, or even try to do so, so their courage never makes you admire the French.
And, at the end, when Claude Raines reads the letter written by the now deceased Bogart and it goes ON and ON and ON in a style that his five year old child could never have understood, you wonder HOW Curtiz could possibly have allowed that. After all, we're talking about the director of some of the most exciting movies of all time, like the Adventures of Robin Hood and the Sea Hawk, not to mention Casablanca. The letter is so preachy.
But it's also very pacifist in a certain way, which makes it hard to understand why Daladier's support of the Munich Agreement is so vehemently condemned early in the movie. (See below.)
-------------------
I just watched this movie again, four years after writing the above review. I confess I didn't like the movie any better the second time.
One thing I found strange this time was Matrac's politics and the movie's support to them.
Matrac starts off as a leftist, anti-Fascist French newspaper reporter, not unlike Rick in Casablanca. In 1938 he writes an article condemning Daladier (the French prime minister) for signing the Munich Agreement along with England's Neville Chamberlain. This agreement ceded the Sudatenland, part of what was then Checkoslovakia, to Germany, in an attempt to avoid all-out war. The movie depicts Daladier - who was long out of power by 1944, when this movie was made - as a Fascist for signing the agreement. Matrac's paper is subsequently ransacked by thugs, who are also described as Fascists, while the police, who are also described as Fascists, look on indifferently.
I found this very strange. Daladier was anything but a Fascist. He was responsible for major rearmament against Germany in the last months leading up to the war, and as a result was imprisoned by the Pétainist government after they came to power in 1940. Why would Jack Warner have wanted to present Daladier as a collaborator with Germany?
In the same respect, early in the movie some of the characters wonder how much Pétain was siding with Hitler, and dismiss him as an old man, blaming the collaboration of France on the prime minister, Pierre Laval. Why would Jack Warner want to have shifted blame from Pétain, who was certainly aware of what he was doing, but inculpate Daladier? I found this strange.
The chronology is also strange. Matrac - "matrac" is a billy club in French - gets in trouble after writing his condemnation of the Munich Agreement, which was signed 30 September, 1938. Pétain signed the armistice, to which reference is made while Matrac and the other convicts are on the Ville de Nice, on 23 June, 1940. Since the convicts had been at sea 20 days before being rescued by the Ville de Nice, that leaves only 20 months between Matrac's being falsely accused of murder and his escape from Devil's Island, considerably less actually, since he gets married after his paper is ransacked and spends some time with his wife before he is arrested. Say 19 months. There must have been a trial, etc., before he was sent out to Cayenne, so he was probably not on Devil's Island much more than a year. Though I'm sure a year seemed like an eternity to prisoners there, the movie gives the impression he was there a lot longer than that.
Bogart's character not always saintly
george-10226 August 2002
I think some people have been unduly unfair on this film.
There is quite a complex sequence of flashbacks. But as a matter of fact, I didn't find them at all difficult to follow. My brain only hurts when I try to work it out afterwards. Maybe it's another of those things which work better in a cinema than on TV.
There is a scene where Bogart's character commits a war crime. I think we have to remember that Bogart did not always play saintly characters. He was not exactly saintly in the "Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". He was even less saintly in "The Caine Mutiny". I am sure that the audience in 1944 would have been shocked by the war crime just as we are
now; even Nazi propaganda sometimes emphasised the importance of being gentlemanly to prisoners. The easy and boring option would have been for
Bogart to play the all-American (or all-French) hero throughout; I find it
more interesting that in this case he isn't. I think the circumstances to some extent explain what Bogart's character does. The fact is war crimes happen in war. They happened then, and they happen now, and the perpetrators are not as through-and-through evil (or different from us) as we would like to think.
I agree with those who say this film is not as good as "Casablanca" or the "Maltese Falcon". The plot is a lot more lumpy and uneven than those films. But I've seen those two films several times already, and I can't watch them every night. "Passage to Marseille" is worth at least one viewing. In fact I would like to see it again, if I get a chance.
There is quite a complex sequence of flashbacks. But as a matter of fact, I didn't find them at all difficult to follow. My brain only hurts when I try to work it out afterwards. Maybe it's another of those things which work better in a cinema than on TV.
There is a scene where Bogart's character commits a war crime. I think we have to remember that Bogart did not always play saintly characters. He was not exactly saintly in the "Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". He was even less saintly in "The Caine Mutiny". I am sure that the audience in 1944 would have been shocked by the war crime just as we are
now; even Nazi propaganda sometimes emphasised the importance of being gentlemanly to prisoners. The easy and boring option would have been for
Bogart to play the all-American (or all-French) hero throughout; I find it
more interesting that in this case he isn't. I think the circumstances to some extent explain what Bogart's character does. The fact is war crimes happen in war. They happened then, and they happen now, and the perpetrators are not as through-and-through evil (or different from us) as we would like to think.
I agree with those who say this film is not as good as "Casablanca" or the "Maltese Falcon". The plot is a lot more lumpy and uneven than those films. But I've seen those two films several times already, and I can't watch them every night. "Passage to Marseille" is worth at least one viewing. In fact I would like to see it again, if I get a chance.
2.5 out of 5 action rating
scheelj23 July 2012
See it – This is more of an adventure movie, but it takes place during WWII, so we'll call it a war movie. The story is told in a flashback, and flashbacks within the flashback. Humphrey Bogart stars as a patriotic French convict who escapes from his island prison and journeys thousands of miles to help his country fight in the war. Adventures take place over land, air, and sea. The scene where Bogart is furiously firing his machine gun from the ship deck railing at attacking German aircraft is one the most iconic moments in early Hollywood history. I love watching WWII movies that were made while the actual war was still going on. This inspirational classic is heroic and tragic, yet full of hope. 2.5 action rating.
Entertaining
Casablanca378411 November 2010
I suppose Warner Brothers was trying to make hay out of "Casablanca" which, in 1944 when "Passage" was filmed was still very far from becoming one of, if not the greatest American film;I say it was. Yes, as I viewed it thanks to Mr. Turner, I did feel a bit "Casablankish" but it was merely spotty, illusory but not serious. In no way can "Passage" compare to "Blanca" yet I found it, although a bit corny at times, quite entertaining. Bogart's cynicism, the linchpin of "Blanca" is quite obvious because his main duty was to get back to France to see Michèle Morgan rather than to fight Nazism while the rest of his fellow escapees from Devil's Island were true blue patriots. Vive la France and so on and so forth. Bogart, on the other hand, was framed by his "beloved" France which resulted in his sweating out the brutality of French Guyana in all its splendor. Although missing the incredible Ingrid Bergman, this film does offer some of the "Blanca Boys" such as Peter Lorre and Claude Rains. By the way, even though Lorre was an odd looking little guy, in real life he was one of Bogie's best friends thanks to his boozing and then losing money in card games.Some of the battle action at sea is interesting but as phony as phony can be--it's quite obvious those scenes were shot in a gigantic bath tub on the Warner lot.Incidentally if a reader hasn't visited Hollywood and taken a tour or two through the studios,allow me to tell you this as my wife and I were aboard a tram touring Universal Studios. Those wartime battle scenes at sea were actually shot using miniature ships and planes sailing in and hovering over large barrels of water.All in all, "Passage" could never be rated, at least by me, as BAD just by virtue of Humphrey Bogart's starring role. The guy didn't become an icon for doing nothing.
Slightly above average World War II propaganda film focusing on the Free French resistance
Turfseer6 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Two years after the release of Casablanca, Director Michael Curtiz conscripted some of the stars from that picture including Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet, Claude Rains and Peter Lorre to act in this World War II propaganda movie focusing on the French resistance to the Nazi run Vichy government primarily set on a small merchant ship, the Ville de Nanacy, headed for the port of Marseille.
Before we arrive at the crux of the story, the Act I exposition goes on for much too long. That takes place somewhere in England-a war correspondent visits a secret Free French Air Base headed by Captain Freycinet (Claude Rains) who recounts in a flashback the tale of five men, ex-convicts, whom are now under his command at the air base.
The flashback reveals how the five men (almost all dead from exposure) are picked up by the aforementioned boat and nursed back to health upon orders of the ship's Captain Malo (Victor Francen). The ex-convicts are all French and were imprisoned at the Cayenne penal colony (aka Devil's Island) in French Guyana enduring hellish conditions until making their escape.
"Passsage" has the unusual distinction of featuring a flashback within a flashback-as Freycinet recounts the overall story to the reporter, he describes how he interviewed the five men who then related their tales in flashbacks.
The five men are revealed to be Petit (George Tobias) , convicted of murdering a policeman while defending his family farm; Garou (Helmut Dantine), who killed his girlfriend in a domestic dispute; Renault (Philip Dorn) , an Army deserter and Marius (Peter Lorre), a safecracker. The leader of the group is Matrac (Humphrey Bogart), an anti-Nazi newspaper editor who was imprisoned by the Vichy government after being falsely accused of murder.
Notably the theme of collaboration among Vichy supporters is emphasized. There is a good scene where a mob of Vichy supporters almost kills Matrac and the viciousness of the guards at the penal colony is also highlighted. And then there's Major Duval (Sydney Greenstreet), the Vichy collaborator whom subsequently leads a short-lived mutiny aboard the Ville de Nancy.
The scenes detailing how the men escape from Devil's Island is interesting, with the ex-convict Grandpère (Vladimir Sokoloff)--still not allowed to leave the Island-finances and arranges the mens' successful exodus. In an act of sacrifice, Grandpère chooses not to take a seat in the canoe that the men use to escape.
The theme of sacrifice is reinforced during the best part of the film, the unsuccessful mutiny on the Ville de Nancy and the failed aerial attack by a German bomber. A young kid onboard is killed when he's hit by machine gun fire from the bomber. This is probably why Matrac (in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention) kills the three German airmen who survived the crash of their plane after Matrac downed it using a machine gun aboard the boat. The unusual scene of pure revenge apparently was permitted to be shown as the hatred of the Nazis was at a highpoint when the film was made.
Undoubtedly Bogart as Matrac got high marks from his audience after downing the German bomber and killing the soldiers. The initial flashback ends after Freycinet finishes his tale (Major Duval is detained along with the other collaborationists and brought to England).
The film's climax takes us back to the airfield in England where a delay in the arrival of the plane containing Matrac (now an airman for the Free French) is a portent shortly thereafter, of ominous things to come. Indeed Matrac was killed during the bombing run so again the theme of necessary sacrifice during war is proferred.
Michele Morgan has little to do as Matrac's wife Paula, stuck back in France with their young son, running outside their rural home to retrieve messages contained in a capsules dropped by Matrac during the bombing runs.
Lorre doesn't have much of a part here as the ex-safecracker but Greenstreet is particularly effective as the villainous Major. An honorable mention for Victor Francen as the stalwart Captain Malo along with the intense patriot Grandpère (Vladimir Sokoloff).
Claude Rains does well as the solid Captain Freycinet. As for Bogart, he gets to play the hero as Matrac but it's really a one-dimensional portrait for obvious propaganda purposes.
Except for Act I, Passage to Marseille manages to be a slightly above average World War II propaganda film.
Before we arrive at the crux of the story, the Act I exposition goes on for much too long. That takes place somewhere in England-a war correspondent visits a secret Free French Air Base headed by Captain Freycinet (Claude Rains) who recounts in a flashback the tale of five men, ex-convicts, whom are now under his command at the air base.
The flashback reveals how the five men (almost all dead from exposure) are picked up by the aforementioned boat and nursed back to health upon orders of the ship's Captain Malo (Victor Francen). The ex-convicts are all French and were imprisoned at the Cayenne penal colony (aka Devil's Island) in French Guyana enduring hellish conditions until making their escape.
"Passsage" has the unusual distinction of featuring a flashback within a flashback-as Freycinet recounts the overall story to the reporter, he describes how he interviewed the five men who then related their tales in flashbacks.
The five men are revealed to be Petit (George Tobias) , convicted of murdering a policeman while defending his family farm; Garou (Helmut Dantine), who killed his girlfriend in a domestic dispute; Renault (Philip Dorn) , an Army deserter and Marius (Peter Lorre), a safecracker. The leader of the group is Matrac (Humphrey Bogart), an anti-Nazi newspaper editor who was imprisoned by the Vichy government after being falsely accused of murder.
Notably the theme of collaboration among Vichy supporters is emphasized. There is a good scene where a mob of Vichy supporters almost kills Matrac and the viciousness of the guards at the penal colony is also highlighted. And then there's Major Duval (Sydney Greenstreet), the Vichy collaborator whom subsequently leads a short-lived mutiny aboard the Ville de Nancy.
The scenes detailing how the men escape from Devil's Island is interesting, with the ex-convict Grandpère (Vladimir Sokoloff)--still not allowed to leave the Island-finances and arranges the mens' successful exodus. In an act of sacrifice, Grandpère chooses not to take a seat in the canoe that the men use to escape.
The theme of sacrifice is reinforced during the best part of the film, the unsuccessful mutiny on the Ville de Nancy and the failed aerial attack by a German bomber. A young kid onboard is killed when he's hit by machine gun fire from the bomber. This is probably why Matrac (in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention) kills the three German airmen who survived the crash of their plane after Matrac downed it using a machine gun aboard the boat. The unusual scene of pure revenge apparently was permitted to be shown as the hatred of the Nazis was at a highpoint when the film was made.
Undoubtedly Bogart as Matrac got high marks from his audience after downing the German bomber and killing the soldiers. The initial flashback ends after Freycinet finishes his tale (Major Duval is detained along with the other collaborationists and brought to England).
The film's climax takes us back to the airfield in England where a delay in the arrival of the plane containing Matrac (now an airman for the Free French) is a portent shortly thereafter, of ominous things to come. Indeed Matrac was killed during the bombing run so again the theme of necessary sacrifice during war is proferred.
Michele Morgan has little to do as Matrac's wife Paula, stuck back in France with their young son, running outside their rural home to retrieve messages contained in a capsules dropped by Matrac during the bombing runs.
Lorre doesn't have much of a part here as the ex-safecracker but Greenstreet is particularly effective as the villainous Major. An honorable mention for Victor Francen as the stalwart Captain Malo along with the intense patriot Grandpère (Vladimir Sokoloff).
Claude Rains does well as the solid Captain Freycinet. As for Bogart, he gets to play the hero as Matrac but it's really a one-dimensional portrait for obvious propaganda purposes.
Except for Act I, Passage to Marseille manages to be a slightly above average World War II propaganda film.
Morts pour le pays.
rmax30482325 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
An above average, if inexpensive, Warner Brothers war-time movie about the Free French in England. Five French convicts manage to escape from Devil's Island with the help of Grandpere, a patriotic ex-convict who has managed to save enough money to buy the escapees a canoe. He makes them promise that when they escape they will fight the Germans who have occupied France. All but Bogart take the oath.
What a bunch of Frenchmen they are too. Grandpere is a Russian. The rest of the group include a New York Episcopalian, one Slovakian Jew, one Jew from New York, a Dutchman, and an Austrian anti-Nazi. That's Warners for you. As long as they had an accent they could be anything. George Tobias does decently by his French accent. Bogart isn't required to try.
It's a decent movie -- full of propaganda of course, but well acted and thoroughly dramatic, written by Nordoff and Hall ("Mutiny on the Bounty") and directed by craftsman Michael Curtiz. The picture is deadly serious. When a German aircraft attacks the freighter the convicts are on, Bogart not only helps shoot it down but then machine guns the helpless German crew as they climb onto the wings of the wrecked plane. It's a brutal scene today, and probably was at the time.
The structure is a little complicated. There is a flashback within a flashback, for instance. (I think one of the narrators is named Marlow. Is this an echo of Conrad?) But we never get lost. There is an action scene near the beginning, in which Free French flying fortresses bomb occupied France and fight off German planes, but most of the film is taken up with the journey made by the convicts from Cayenne to the French airfield in the English countryside.
The film is studio bound and the maritime scenes are tank bound, but art direction is up to Warners' standards and sometimes looks better than the real thing. Makeup did a fine job too.
A bitter and efficient movie. Worth catching.
What a bunch of Frenchmen they are too. Grandpere is a Russian. The rest of the group include a New York Episcopalian, one Slovakian Jew, one Jew from New York, a Dutchman, and an Austrian anti-Nazi. That's Warners for you. As long as they had an accent they could be anything. George Tobias does decently by his French accent. Bogart isn't required to try.
It's a decent movie -- full of propaganda of course, but well acted and thoroughly dramatic, written by Nordoff and Hall ("Mutiny on the Bounty") and directed by craftsman Michael Curtiz. The picture is deadly serious. When a German aircraft attacks the freighter the convicts are on, Bogart not only helps shoot it down but then machine guns the helpless German crew as they climb onto the wings of the wrecked plane. It's a brutal scene today, and probably was at the time.
The structure is a little complicated. There is a flashback within a flashback, for instance. (I think one of the narrators is named Marlow. Is this an echo of Conrad?) But we never get lost. There is an action scene near the beginning, in which Free French flying fortresses bomb occupied France and fight off German planes, but most of the film is taken up with the journey made by the convicts from Cayenne to the French airfield in the English countryside.
The film is studio bound and the maritime scenes are tank bound, but art direction is up to Warners' standards and sometimes looks better than the real thing. Makeup did a fine job too.
A bitter and efficient movie. Worth catching.
Mediocre movie with amazing cinematography
cherold19 April 2018
This isn't a very good movie, but James Wong Howe's brilliant cinematography makes it look like one. This is the sort of movie worth watching just to see how spectacular Howe was.
Outside of that, it's a little dull. The flashback within a flashback within an etc. doesn't work that well, mainly because the movie fails to make any of its threads or characters all that interesting.
Designed as war propaganda, the movie is often ostentatiously obvious, most notably in the rah-rah score and in things like the little French boy screaming Viva le France! Much of this was probably very stirring at the time, but it doesn't age well.
The film also has a lot of typical Hollywood nonsense, like the way a movie in which everyone is French has major characters speak English while minor characters speak French and accents are whatever the actors walked in with. It's not that unusual for the time but I found it distracting. It might have been better if everyone spoke French, since the dialogue is often wretched (although, as with the characters, it is stylistically inconsistent, shifting from straightforward conversation to ornate, flower speeches).
I do like this movie better than the first time I saw it when I was in college (in the 1980s), though I still don't like it much. But my god, what cinematography!
Outside of that, it's a little dull. The flashback within a flashback within an etc. doesn't work that well, mainly because the movie fails to make any of its threads or characters all that interesting.
Designed as war propaganda, the movie is often ostentatiously obvious, most notably in the rah-rah score and in things like the little French boy screaming Viva le France! Much of this was probably very stirring at the time, but it doesn't age well.
The film also has a lot of typical Hollywood nonsense, like the way a movie in which everyone is French has major characters speak English while minor characters speak French and accents are whatever the actors walked in with. It's not that unusual for the time but I found it distracting. It might have been better if everyone spoke French, since the dialogue is often wretched (although, as with the characters, it is stylistically inconsistent, shifting from straightforward conversation to ornate, flower speeches).
I do like this movie better than the first time I saw it when I was in college (in the 1980s), though I still don't like it much. But my god, what cinematography!
Some call it art. Others call it a convoluted mess.
mark.waltz16 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
For me, as a teenager, it was definitely an education that some film structures are not simple, and sometimes, complexity can add an interesting narrative. Having discovered Bogart through war dramas such as "All Through the Night", "Across the Pacific" and of course "Casablanca", I was intrigued by this film which reunited many of the actors featured in those three films. They all have one thing in common, the allies of World War II fighting the enemy in one way or another. This drama does indeed feature several flashbacks within the main and sub narratives, but at least, once you are used to that structure (or have seen it multiple times), it becomes easier to follow.
Bogart is seen in the opening sequences but his character does not really get a story until the fourth flashback within the third flashback. Moving along like this was Merlin's life in reverse, it does take some getting used to. The narrative is provided in a story told by Claude Rains who proves that he does know if the meaning of a beautiful friendship. Bogart is a French war hero who, according to Rains, suffered much indignity at the hands of law keepers in a South American version of Hell's Island. Old Warner pals like Peter Lorre and George Tobias are among his escapees, aided when rescued by Rains but endangered with being turned over to the police by fellow officer Sydney Greenstreet. The plot line deals with the efforts of these pretty unsavory characters to return to France to fight against the Nazis. Even if somewhat amoral, they are all patriotic. That was the purpose of these war propaganda films, some better than others, but some of the best coming out of Warner Brothers.
Michael Curtiz gets an almost perfect gem with four of his "Casablanca" cast members providing outstanding performances. Philip Dorn is almost a replica of Paul Henreid, while Bogart's arrest in Marsaille is almost identical to his separation with Ingrid Bergman in Paris in regards to wife Michele Morgan. The tension is constant, aided by beautiful photography, sharp editing and an excellent musical score. Of course, Warners really had the best sound department in the movies. Greenstreet makes an intriguing villain (aided by Hans Conreid), and Peter Lorre, while rather underused, gets some of the best lines. This isn't a film to have in the background. It is one that requires focus and at just under two hours, it flies by.
Bogart is seen in the opening sequences but his character does not really get a story until the fourth flashback within the third flashback. Moving along like this was Merlin's life in reverse, it does take some getting used to. The narrative is provided in a story told by Claude Rains who proves that he does know if the meaning of a beautiful friendship. Bogart is a French war hero who, according to Rains, suffered much indignity at the hands of law keepers in a South American version of Hell's Island. Old Warner pals like Peter Lorre and George Tobias are among his escapees, aided when rescued by Rains but endangered with being turned over to the police by fellow officer Sydney Greenstreet. The plot line deals with the efforts of these pretty unsavory characters to return to France to fight against the Nazis. Even if somewhat amoral, they are all patriotic. That was the purpose of these war propaganda films, some better than others, but some of the best coming out of Warner Brothers.
Michael Curtiz gets an almost perfect gem with four of his "Casablanca" cast members providing outstanding performances. Philip Dorn is almost a replica of Paul Henreid, while Bogart's arrest in Marsaille is almost identical to his separation with Ingrid Bergman in Paris in regards to wife Michele Morgan. The tension is constant, aided by beautiful photography, sharp editing and an excellent musical score. Of course, Warners really had the best sound department in the movies. Greenstreet makes an intriguing villain (aided by Hans Conreid), and Peter Lorre, while rather underused, gets some of the best lines. This isn't a film to have in the background. It is one that requires focus and at just under two hours, it flies by.
Why care about France?
Mattias26 October 1999
What is so special about the movie is the complex narrative structure, with a flashback-in-flashback. The viewer has to keep his mind on three plots, the interview with the liaison officer by the English journalist, what happens on the French cruiser and how the men are trying to escape from Guyana. It is also interesting to study how France are portrayed. The men escape to help free France from the German occupation, the same republic with their fascist policeman, pro-German mobs and corrupt legal system that put them their in the first place. Notice that Humphrey Bogart as the French journalist Jean Matrac does not even attempt to speak English with a thick French accent like the others, it's the usual American English he always used. Sidney Greenstreet is impressive as always.
There's always something to be learned from those who fight for freedom.
jpadamsca3 February 2017
This is a fascinating story with intriguing progression and characters. The flashbacks and twists throughout keep you absorbed. The dialogue is snappy; the music fits perfectly. Bogart is central of course but the full supporting cast is terrific and provides greater depth.
Most importantly - whether yesterday or today - there's always something to be learned from those who fight for freedom. What sacrifices do we make or measures do we take to protect our freedom today, and what do we learn from how that parallels this story? Times change, but the principles remain the same. This movie is a simple but great reminder of that for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and rate it among my favorites along with other Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, and Randolph Scott films.
Most importantly - whether yesterday or today - there's always something to be learned from those who fight for freedom. What sacrifices do we make or measures do we take to protect our freedom today, and what do we learn from how that parallels this story? Times change, but the principles remain the same. This movie is a simple but great reminder of that for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and rate it among my favorites along with other Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, and Randolph Scott films.
Good Acting, Decent Story, but Film Bounces All Over.
thespeos15 June 2021
This is a decent war film which I suppose you could call a WWII "French Propaganda" film.
It's well-acted, as to be expected, has a reasonably interesting plot, but it bounces around too much.
STORY: The story is actually quite good and has a fair amount of plausible suspense, credible characters, and fine tension throughout. It's a war film, but it's also about friendship, love, and patriotism during an occupied (but not beaten) France.
ACTING: Given the likes of Rains, Bogart, Lorre, Morgan and Dorn ... it's very well acted. Frankly, this is the highlight of the film, and was about the only thing keeping me in it.
TEMPO: Here is where the film falters. It literally bounces all over the place. The story is "narrated" by Rains, and (somewhat necessarily) tracks between past and present in order to tell it.
But this film really bounces, not only back and forth across time, but also around sub-plots. It cannot hold all this bouncing together, and so it feels fragmented, almost dizzy.
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Aside from the models, it has nice scenery covering a wide range of settings. This was the 2nd highlight of the film.
DIRECTING: This guy has a MASSIVE list of films directed (since 1917). He's done some little known films such as "Casablanca" ; ) , and some others I've enjoyed like "Caption Blood" and "The Adventures of Robinhood," but most of his work is obscure to me. He's obviously very talented, but this was not a great piece.
Overall, this is reasonably entertaining, but doubt I'd watch twice (a marker that it's got legs).
Enjoy on a lazy afternoon.
It's well-acted, as to be expected, has a reasonably interesting plot, but it bounces around too much.
STORY: The story is actually quite good and has a fair amount of plausible suspense, credible characters, and fine tension throughout. It's a war film, but it's also about friendship, love, and patriotism during an occupied (but not beaten) France.
ACTING: Given the likes of Rains, Bogart, Lorre, Morgan and Dorn ... it's very well acted. Frankly, this is the highlight of the film, and was about the only thing keeping me in it.
TEMPO: Here is where the film falters. It literally bounces all over the place. The story is "narrated" by Rains, and (somewhat necessarily) tracks between past and present in order to tell it.
But this film really bounces, not only back and forth across time, but also around sub-plots. It cannot hold all this bouncing together, and so it feels fragmented, almost dizzy.
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Aside from the models, it has nice scenery covering a wide range of settings. This was the 2nd highlight of the film.
DIRECTING: This guy has a MASSIVE list of films directed (since 1917). He's done some little known films such as "Casablanca" ; ) , and some others I've enjoyed like "Caption Blood" and "The Adventures of Robinhood," but most of his work is obscure to me. He's obviously very talented, but this was not a great piece.
Overall, this is reasonably entertaining, but doubt I'd watch twice (a marker that it's got legs).
Enjoy on a lazy afternoon.
Hey!!! Give Bogie his trenchcoat back!!!
CatRufus55911 October 2020
Actor John Loder appears throughout the film in Bogie's trenchcoat. There's a flashback within a flashback. Sydney Greentreet tries his darndest to do a French accent. A few other
'Casablanca' regulars appear but you don't care. Boring, boring, boring. I wonder if any investors were suckered into sinking money into this trite film based on the cast list and promises of 'Casablanca'-like returns. Just like Clark Gable's comeback flm, 'Adventure', this movie promises you the world -but delivers only disappointment and boredom.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
