Camille (1936)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Fresh and Exciting

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

If you ever want to watch a truly IMMENSE actress portray a gut wrenching scene, just dive deep into the 1936 film Camille. The spectacle of which I speak is easily one of Garbo's finest. It comes quite far into the movie when Marguerite must gather the courage to rip Armand's heart to shreds. As she sits at her dressing table, pleading with her maid to help give her the strength to carry out this brutal act, you'll find Garbo achingly exposed and at her passionate best, emoting a raw unpasteurized portrayal of abject suffering. It is almost torture to bear witness to this pageant of despair. I can't say enough about a woman who would give so much of her inner soul for her craft. There are many fine reviews outlining the plot of this beloved movie, so I think I'll end right here and admonish you to see Camille for the sheer spectacle of enchanting intensity and endless fascination, .. that is, ..and forever remains, ..Garbo!

Greta Garbo (I'm not objective in the slightest here, because she's my favourite actress ever) is astonishing as The Lady of the Camellias in this, the most well-known cinematic rendition of Alexandre Dumas' tragic story. In comparison to the 1921 silent version, Cukor's a much better director, though Rudolph Valentino's better as Armand Duval. Both versions are intriguingly different, and Henry Daniell's just great as the villainous Baron. Essential viewing, especially for fans of Garbo and classic tearjerker films.See it with someone you love. A good cry is always soothing for the soul, especially in these troubled times of ours.

Quite dull.Based on the Alexandre Dumas fils novel and play, and set in France in the mid-1800s, a story of romance and social machinations. And that's all it is really. Just one long examination of mid-1800s upper class types and social intrigues and manipulation. Complete with the inevitable duel.It all feels so stuffy, irrational and overwrought, especially by today's standards. Who knew relationships were so complicated in the 1800s...?Really only for people who like 1800s romances and period pieces.

I must confess to approaching Camille with some trepidation. The story had been done so many times in opera, theatre and cinema that my question was simple.What would MGM bring to the party that others hadn't, especially in those years between the Depression, the growth of fascism in Europe and the outbreak of World War II? The answer is, of course, a wonderful cast, great direction and sumptuous sets and costumes. My fears that this would be given an overly-sentimental Hollywood treacle treatment were wholly unfounded. It was interesting to see how the film gets the message across that Marguerite is a courtesan ("hooker" just sounds too down and dirty for Garbo!). No overt mention of her trade is made in the dialogue although in the titles we are informed that these women are "girls of discretion". But the way Garbo moves, reacts to events and speaks leaves us in no little doubt as to her profession.Robert Taylor plays a touching Armand, Henry Daniell is outstanding as the Baron and Lionel Barrymore skilfully manages a blend of severity and compassion in the comparatively short, but crucial, scene in which he appears with Garbo.Any downsides? Well,maybe a scene or two could have been shorter, or even excluded but this is a minor issue. Not quite a masterpiece but essential viewing for anyone interested in the history of film.