When I saw this listed I was excited and thought it would be another "Hitchcock" telling the story of Michael Curtiz while focused on the making of Casablanca. Instead it turned out out to be a dark and depressing look at a pretty miserable guy. Which seems strange since the movie is Hungarian-made and purported to be a tribute to Curtiz, one of their national heroes who made it big in America.
Michael Curtiz has generally, and perhaps unfairly, never been considered one of Hollywood's great directors despite three Best Director nominations and one Oscar win (for Casablanca). He has often been characterized as no more than a highly professional, and extremely prolific, studio hack who somehow managed to make a number of great films including Casablanca, most of the best Errol Flynn films (including the Adventures of Robin Hood, Captain Blood, the Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, and the Sea Hawk), Yankee Doodle Dandy, Mildred Pierce and White Christmas.
The film therefore should have been an interesting look at movie-making in the early 1940s. Casablanca was a troubled film from the start. It had a limited budget, an unfinished script, and a generally unpopular and dictatorial director. The studio did not consider it an important film despite assigning two popular starts, Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, to it. In reality, things were so bad filming Casablanca that both Bogart and Bergman tried to quit. The actors all had to learn lines prepared the only night before. No one knew the ending and, in fact several endings were filmed and preview audience reactions were used to make the final decision. Yet somehow a masterpiece emerged. Should have been a great story.
Instead, in Curtiz we get a wildly inaccurate depiction of the making of the film. We get it characterized as some grandious propaganda mechamism propelled by shadowy US goverment figures driving the direction of the film and Curtiz fighting them. Most of plot revolves around Curtiz's ficticious daughter showing up on the set and the complications that ensue. We get an incredibly rediculous reference to a young Ronald Reagan (who was was orignally considered for the Bogart role) joing the army to "make America great again". The acting in Curtiz was uniformly poor, with the exception of Lengyel as Curtiz. But his character as written is so throughly loathsome you feel no sympathy or admiration for him. The film somehow got a few nominations for cinematography but this viewer got tired of the dark and shadowy look of everything. it just seemed depressing.
Casablanca turned out to be a masterpiece. Not so with Curtiz. I want my two hours back.
Michael Curtiz has generally, and perhaps unfairly, never been considered one of Hollywood's great directors despite three Best Director nominations and one Oscar win (for Casablanca). He has often been characterized as no more than a highly professional, and extremely prolific, studio hack who somehow managed to make a number of great films including Casablanca, most of the best Errol Flynn films (including the Adventures of Robin Hood, Captain Blood, the Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, and the Sea Hawk), Yankee Doodle Dandy, Mildred Pierce and White Christmas.
The film therefore should have been an interesting look at movie-making in the early 1940s. Casablanca was a troubled film from the start. It had a limited budget, an unfinished script, and a generally unpopular and dictatorial director. The studio did not consider it an important film despite assigning two popular starts, Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, to it. In reality, things were so bad filming Casablanca that both Bogart and Bergman tried to quit. The actors all had to learn lines prepared the only night before. No one knew the ending and, in fact several endings were filmed and preview audience reactions were used to make the final decision. Yet somehow a masterpiece emerged. Should have been a great story.
Instead, in Curtiz we get a wildly inaccurate depiction of the making of the film. We get it characterized as some grandious propaganda mechamism propelled by shadowy US goverment figures driving the direction of the film and Curtiz fighting them. Most of plot revolves around Curtiz's ficticious daughter showing up on the set and the complications that ensue. We get an incredibly rediculous reference to a young Ronald Reagan (who was was orignally considered for the Bogart role) joing the army to "make America great again". The acting in Curtiz was uniformly poor, with the exception of Lengyel as Curtiz. But his character as written is so throughly loathsome you feel no sympathy or admiration for him. The film somehow got a few nominations for cinematography but this viewer got tired of the dark and shadowy look of everything. it just seemed depressing.
Casablanca turned out to be a masterpiece. Not so with Curtiz. I want my two hours back.