Tetrady not as good as all the hype

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

evanston_dad This handsome-looking soaper from Warner Bros. is the 1940s version of "Peyton Place."In the strait-laced world of early 40s Hollywood movies, some of the material in this film had to have ladies reaching for their smelling salts. Mental illness, premarital sex, a murder suicide, and, most satisfyingly lurid of all the plot lines, a doctor who performs unnecessary operations on patients as a way to punish them for their moral transgressions. Robert Cummings is boring as they come, an unfortunate quality given that he's the film's principle character and the one with whom we spend the most time. The standout, surprisingly enough, is Ronald Reagan, never known for being much of an actor, but who injects the film with the much-needed pizazz that Cummings can't muster. The actors I wanted the most of, Claude Rains and Charles Coburn, as two small-town nutjobs, are sadly given little screen time.Warner Bros. clearly spent some money on the film's production values, with production design by William Cameron Menzies, Oscar- nominated cinematography by James Wong Howe, and an oppressively nonstop score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold that set my teeth on edge and left me craving a moment of silence. In addition to its nod for James Wong Howe, the film garnered Oscar nominations for Best Picture of the year and Best Director for Sam Wood, who managed to nab three directing nominations in four years despite having no discernible style.Grade: B

Martha Wilcox Ronald Reagan mentions how lonely he is to Ann Sheridan, which represents a few of the characters who are also lonely. The story itself is not that interesting, but it has the potential to be interesting. I haven't read the novel, but I think there is something lost in the adaptation from the novel to the screen. It's probably trying to do too many things rather than focusing on one thing.I like the ensemble cast of Claude Rains (who dies off pretty quickly), Charles Coburn and Judith Anderson. Reagan plays a more interesting character than Robert Cummings, but you get the sense that you are on a journey with these characters rather than engaging in an absorbing plot.

classicsoncall With the passing of years and the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Ronald Reagan and Bob Cummings might have been better off in each other's roles in "Kings Row". Reagan doesn't strike me as the playboy type, while the impression I have of Cummings is just that from watching all those 'Love That Bob' (The Bob Cummings Show) episodes back in the day.Still, the movie tells an effective story, attempting to handle a number of different subjects. For 1942, many of them seemed to be pushing the envelope of acceptable film topics, issues like psychiatric treatment for insanity and the willful amputation of a patients' legs as a duty to punish wickedness. The entire time I felt Dr. Tower (Claude Rains) was a demon for keeping his wife and daughter under some sort of desperate control, then became shocked to learn that he was shielding them from the harsh reality of a world that would be unable to accept them. Yet it takes the form of a murder/suicide to bring that revelation to the viewer, with an intrigue that leaves one baffled until the story is revealed.Even though it happens time and again, I'm always surprised to hear a character from an old film talking about how life isn't getting any simpler. That happens here in a conversation between Dr. Tower and his student Parris Mitchell (Cummings) as they discuss the new medical field of psychiatry. I imagine future movie watchers will get a kick out of the way we whine about our complicated life today. But seriously, I can't imagine things getting much more complex. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.In hindsight, the question that puzzles me is seeing Ann Sheridan's name at the top of the film's credits. It seems to me she joined the story about half way through, so being the top Warner's star at the time was probably the reason. Sheridan is actually my favorite actress of the Golden Era so I'm not being critical here. It just seems like it's Cummings' picture all the way and he's second billed, on loan from Universal, so again it's political. Most folks consider Reagan a less than gifted actor, so it's good to see him in a role that has some range in which he does a creditable job. Excellent support here as well from Claude Rains, Betty Field and Maria Ouspenskaya, even with their limited screen time.

moonspinner55 Two boyhood pals from the 1890s grow into young adults with tumultuous lives: Robert Cummings is the studious kid who moves away from small town America to study psychiatry in Vienna (!), while Ronald Reagan loses all his money in a bank swindle and has to find work on the opposite side of the tracks. Intelligent, if melodramatic, adaptation of Henry Bellamann's novel isn't particularly well-directed (nor is it sharply edited, as the scenes and transitions could use more verve and snap); however, it does have Reagan at the peak of his acting charms, and his strong performance really carries this a long way. Cummings, whose make-up job causes him to resemble an actor from the silent era, is less interesting, and the supporting performances are variable, but film is still quite absorbing and entertaining. Excellent music score by Erich Korngold, handsome cinematography by James Wong Howe. Though a Best Picture nominee for 1942, the movie was originally set for release the year before, with Warner Bros. getting cold feet and putting it on ice. Once they did release it, the film failed to find much of an audience. **1/2 from ****