The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

Good concept, poorly executed.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I selected this film because of the cast and imdb rating, knowing nothing about it. We watched it on a big (2,5m) home projection system and gave it our undivided attention. We love watching old films from the 30s to the 70s, but this film is one we will not watch again.While the photography was certainly interesting, the story was rather dull. It's a drama with not that much drama in it. It didn't help that the release we watched looked rather greyish, so the clever hazy glow at the beginning of the film got us worried that we were watching a very bad print that was cheaply converted to DVD. Thankfully the picture got better after the beginning. If you want to watch this as timeless entertainment expecting a clever plot, you may get disappointed. Our final verdict is that this was probably entertaining 80 years ago, but unless you watch it for the camera work or to hear Orson Welles' voice, you might want to choose a different classic film.

I wanted to love it as a classic, but for me, 'The Magnificent Ambersons' fell well short of that. There are certainly positive aspects: Director Orson Welles was an artist and there are several beautiful shots, camera angles, and tracking sequences that are nice to see. Joseph Cotten is full of grace as an automobile inventor who loves an Amberson widow, but has to contend with her hothead son (Tim Holt), who is as spoiled as they come. The scene where he calmly and rationally responds to an attack on cars is good. It's ironic that Holt's character loves Cotten's daughter in turn, and Anne Baxter plays that part well, including a scene where she feigns indifference to his leaving town and toys with him, even though it's killing her inside. Lastly, Agnes Moorehead turns in probably the best performance in the film as the boy's frustrated aunt.On the other hand, the main character - the spoiled, entitled son – is so unlikeable that it makes watching often unpleasant. The film feels emotionally sterile, and there is little believability in the connections between characters. There is a dark bleakness that pervades the film, in part because of the story of this family's fall from grace while the world changes around them, but also in part because of Welles' heavy-handed treatment. The plot is arguably not very plausible in several places, and is certainly tedious in the second half of the film. The studio's taking control and editing the final cut – butchering it, it sounds like – is a travesty, that sort of thing always is, but even at 88 minutes, the film seems to drag on too long, and in what seems like a smug, theatrical way. I'm not convinced that if I was subjected to 60 more minutes, Welles' original cut, that I wouldn't have fallen asleep, based on the 88 that I did see. It was OK to see once, but I would never recommend it, or watch it again.

I'm glad that I didn't read any reviews for Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) before I viewed it because they all mention that about an hour of the original film was burned by the studio editors while Welles was away on another project. Not knowing this historical tidbit about the film allowed me to appreciate it on its own merits without second guessing where the "missing" segments of the film were placed. In any case, I must say that the only negative thing about this film in regard to the "chop job" by RKO Studios is that the ending of the film, starting with the death of Isabel, did seem rather rushed and abrupt to me, even before I learned of RKO's "chop job". We go from Isabel's death to scant mentions of the Amberson fortune being lost (without ever knowing what happened to all the money), to George having to take a production job in an explosives factory, to George being hit by a car, and, finally to Mr Morgan visiting George in the hospital at the very end. This is the part, and the only part, of the film where I can say that the "chop job" probably diminished the quality of the film.Given the current state of The Magnificent Ambersons, however, I still feel that it is an excellent film. I've only viewed a few of Welles' films so far, and they all reveal his ability to "spin a good yarn". There is no "hidden meaning", or esoteric "symbolism" in this film. What you see is what you get, very much as was the case with Citizen Kane and The Stranger.But what you do get with this film is a damn good story, a very interesting, engaging and compelling story, with a solid script with no unreal "coincidences" or unexplainable "plot holes". As in the other Welles' films that I've seen, the performances by the whole cast, from the major to the minor characters, is very solid and definitely benefited from the wise directorship of Welles. The cinematography was great with lots of innovative camera positions and angles. The period sets and period costumes were much more than simply good.I would really like to see this film again very much because I enjoyed it so much the first time around. Just a very entertaining film with no gimmicks or gadgets, just delightful dramatic cinema at its best.

The Magnificent Ambersons delivers on so many levels. This is a deep, complicated film about life, the passage of time, the vanity of wealth, and humanity in general. Where Citizen Kane was a carnival, The Magnificent Ambersons is a grand ball. It is one of the most sophisticated things I have ever seen - yet retains enormous raw power despite its delicate nature.The only real problem with The Magnificent Ambersons is its place in history. Hidden under the gargantuan shadow of its predecessor Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons is hardly a drop in the bucket. And buried beneath the weight of its own legendary debauchery myth, it cannot seem to stand on its own legs. However, in my opinion, The Magnificent Ambersons as it stands is every bit as good as Citizen Kane. The real mystery about The Magnificent Ambersons is where it belongs when not evaluated in light of Welle's artistic oeuvre.One could say that The Magnificent Ambersons is a more mature film than Citizen Kane. I believe they would be right. And to think that Orson Welles is merely 26 at the time of its making. Truly remarkable...I end this review with a thought: If Renoirs "Rules of the Game," Welles' "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons," Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," and Hitchcock's "Vertigo" were given a pure reading which one would be considered 'the greatest' on pure artistic merit? I don't know.