Sea-faring saga of two brothers (Robert Taylor, Stewart Granger) and the woman they both love. Set against South Pacific islands, this love triangle pits the good brother against the bad as... See full summary »
Sea-faring saga of two brothers (Robert Taylor, Stewart Granger) and the woman they both love. Set against South Pacific islands, this love triangle pits the good brother against the bad as they squabble over Ann Blyth and a bag of pearls on the floor of a lagoon; the bad boy redeems himself, however, by helping fend off a mutiny. Written by
I had waited for many years to see this film, and when it turned up on TCM my wife and I jumped at the opportunity. It's hard to believe that MGM could have turned out such a poor production.
The basic story is interesting, the shots of ships at sea are grand, (albeit too few) George Folsey's nominated Cinematography pleases the eye ~ but it's all let down by a pedestrian screenplay, (Harry Brown was not up to the task) limp direction by Richard Thorpe, and 'by the numbers' acting. Everyone looked as if they knew they were making a dud.
Taylor had turned in many fine performances, both before and after 'All the Brothers': "The Mortal Storm" - a true 1940's Gem (the film that caused Goebbels to ban screenings of MGM pictures in German territories!) "Devil's Doorway" '50 (while perhaps miscast as an Indian, was still very effective) then after: "Saddle the Wind" etc.
As for 'Brothers', he looks as if he were only doing it to honor a contract. It seemed much the same with Granger, who had moments looking like he wished it was all over...not one of his better performances (ie: "Bhowani Junction")
Ann Blyth was worthy of better material, she had very few good moments and even less good lines, and while Betta St John was very appealing playing a native girl, shes wasted as an actress.
"All the Brothers..." quite clearly shows major film making in decline. MGM only a few years on would be heading for receivership.... Strong, story driven scripts, were giving way to more graphic violence and superficial details. My wife gave up half way through. This is one time Leonard Maltin got his review right.
Following the war years, it seemed much of the creative passion had subsided, and fewer people cared all that much. This all pointed toward Television, bringing with it more low brow artificial trends, leading to todays 'comercially stylized' film making.
The terrible print screened by TCM Australia did not help. The vivid Technicolor had been cheaply transfered and reduced to a dull, lifeless shadow of the original. The image focus was soft and fuzzy, the audio was equally poor.
Congratulations though, are due to TCM in the USA, by showing some respect for it's viewing audience. Their watermark (station ID) is supered over the image for 30seconds only every hour or so. This offers the paying customer better appreciation of good composition, with far less overall distraction.
They also seem to have little, or no 'Automatic Volume Leveling' devices on their sound tracks, so there's less unwanted hiss during the quieter moments. When will TCM Australia get it right and offer its paying customers the quality they deserve? Little wonder so many folk I've spoken to, tell me they've cancelled their subscription.
I'm still with it, but if it doesn't improve, don't know for how much longer. As for 'The Valiant Bros" if you're un-demanding, it may help pass or waste some time.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?