I wrote the following in my film viewing log after seeing this movie on cable on February 21, 1990 -- almost exactly ten years ago. I have no reason not to stand behind it:
A moving and exciting film, maybe more interesting for the Shakespearian excerpts than for the "modern" (1850s) story, which is "Hollywood history." It's a good story, anyway.
I was, perhaps, in the mood for this picture, but when it ended, I felt strongly that **** [on Maltin's scale, 10 on IMDb] did not do it justice. I'd be hard pressed to defend a TEN BEST rating, but I loved it.
[Back to February, 2000]: "TEN BEST" refers to my personal list which now contains about 35 titles, not more than one or two of which would appear on anybody else's list. I think two are in IMDb's "Top 100," along with one from my TEN WORST list.
A moving and exciting film, maybe more interesting for the Shakespearian excerpts than for the "modern" (1850s) story, which is "Hollywood history." It's a good story, anyway.
I was, perhaps, in the mood for this picture, but when it ended, I felt strongly that **** [on Maltin's scale, 10 on IMDb] did not do it justice. I'd be hard pressed to defend a TEN BEST rating, but I loved it.
[Back to February, 2000]: "TEN BEST" refers to my personal list which now contains about 35 titles, not more than one or two of which would appear on anybody else's list. I think two are in IMDb's "Top 100," along with one from my TEN WORST list.