Tycoon (1947)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

hyped garbage

Good movie but grossly overrated

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Copyright 13 December 1947 by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Palace: 25 December 1947. U.S. release: 27 December 1947. U.K. release: 25 April 1949. Australian release: 22 July 1948. 11,844 feet. 131½ minutes.SYNOPSIS: American engineer in the Andes falls for the boss' daughter.NOTES: Shooting from early February to early May 1947. Negative cost: $3,209,000. Net loss after worldwide distribution: $1,035,000.COMMENT: Hard to believe in that budget - the largest ever expended by RKO to that time! There's precious little to show for it up there on the screen. The only worthwhile bit of action occurs right at the climax - and that is obviously contrived with miniatures! A couple of earlier explosions were cheated the same way. Location expenses were not heavy, as most of the picture was very obviously lensed in the studio. We can only surmise that the actors, the writers and the director were grossly overpaid.Wayne has the sort of tough, superficial, turnabout role he usually plays with a breezily unassuming credibility. Here his performance is so strained, so artificial his characterization is simply unbelievable. However, Duke is not alone - the same goes for the rest of the cast. Hardwicke can do nothing with the empty posturings the script hands him. Though it's always a pleasure to listen to his sonorous voice and it's a joy to find him in so large a role, what a pity the writers couldn't find him anything exciting to say or dramatic to do. All they have done is to obscure and haze his motivations so that his actions seem utterly incredible. If her part were larger, Judith Anderson would be in the same fix. Laraine Day comes out of the film best. She is certainly the player the photographers have lavished all their attentions upon. Radiantly lit, exquisitely gowned and made up, she projects an alluring luminosity that stays in the mind's eye long after the rest of this silly film is forgotten.It says much for the quality of the support cast to mention that Paul Fix and Harry Woods stand favorably in the forefront. Gleason is bombastically irritating (fortunately he is removed to hospital for a large part of his innings) and Quinn's role is so piffling as to seem almost non-existent.Of course - aside from the writers - the man to blame for the whole debacle is Richard Wallace. Never has direction been so painstakingly dull, so studiously lethargic, so blatantly disinterested.Tycoon provides a lavish feast of colorful hues for the eyes, nothing for the brain, and tintinnabulation for the ears!OTHER VIEWS: Aside from its lustrous Technicolor photography - Laraine Day never looked lovelier - Tycoon is an astonishingly dull, undistinguished effort which wastes a large amount of talent and money on the part of all concerned in its making. As for the time and patience of those forced to view this pleasantly picturesque but ploddingly banal photoplay . . .

What is there about John Wayne? To me, he remains a sort of an enigma. There are quite a few of his films I admire and enjoy a great deal. Yet, his acting is about as shallow as a river in Death Valley. And, his acting in this film is pretty shallow in the love scenes....and this is essentially a love story. But worse than his love scenes is the scene where he is talking in his sleep. Although, the film around John Wayne here has some depth to it.Better than Wayne here is one actress who often doesn't get a lot of credit -- Laraine Day. This is one of her better roles, although for a B actress I was always just a bit partial to her.Sir Cedric Hardwicke is also excellent here, if unlikable. It's actually a role that fit him well. Equally good is Judith Anderson, not quite as austere here as she could be on screen.There are also a few fine character actors here: James Gleason and Paul Fix, for example. A very handsome Anthony Quinn is here, not yet having attained stardom. And, Quinn is very good here.Although it's only the sub plot, the building of a railroad tunnel here is quite interesting, and done quite well.The real plot here, however, is a controlling father, a woman who is interested in a man, and a man who is interested in that woman. Except for Wayne's shallow acting in the love scenes, this part of the story is well done, as well.If there's one thing to complain about -- aside from Wayne's awkwardness in love scenes -- it's the very fake exterior scenes that are matte paintings. The color is so fake.Personally, aside from a few films like "Rio Bravo" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", I think this is better than many of John Wayne's films, but it is seriously underrated. I give it a strong 7 for the story line.

One has to be careful not to judge a 1940s film by 21st century standards of faithfulness to social realities whether involving industrial (read uncaring capitalistic) disregard for safety - even moral - issues, but that doesn't mean that there weren't standards, and somehow the film ran roughshod over them.John Wayne strolled about rather like the (1947 real world only 2 years earlier at the end of WWII) GI's in Europe captivating the local girls and repatriating them 'back home' to enjoy the unheard of luxuries of being American. But hang on, if Cedric Hardwicke and his daughter are high born Hispanic respecters of honour, tradition etc. (the 'shotgun wedding' is proof?) what's she doing ignoring generations of decorum/upbringing and wandering off with this dusty, hired worker - he's 'engineer' but that does not confer as much status on Wayne as he does himself, albeit an American in S. America (at one point he corrects a questioner about his height "..you're 6ft 3" I believe".. "...No, 6ft 4ins!" (Who put that in the script? A self-important Wayne?)Other items in the film stretch our patience in terms of authenticity, but, on the above, I rest my case, M'lud!

This is a perfect example of the kind of film Howard Hughes allowed to be made while destroying RKO Studios. Every studio made pictures sort of like this one (two guys fight over a girl while trying to do a dangerous job)but they didn't overspend like it was Gone With the Wind. This movie lost a million dollars (a lot in 1947). Hughes OK'd many mediocrities like this one, (See Son of Sindbad or the Conqueror) and had no concept of how to handle a studio budget. When he did hire good people (Sturges, Von Sternberg) he interfered, fired them and scuttled the projects, always losing money. We should stop praising or emulating boors like this (Donald Trump) before its too late. Why doesn't anyone emulate the Walter Wangers or Harry Joe Browns of this world instead of idiots with too much money?