StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

TheLittleSongbird Louis Pasteur was an important and pioneering figure in his field and ever, and his discoveries were revolutionary. He also had a very interesting life well worth telling, and one that lends itself well to film. Even though a film would not be able to cover everything about his life, it was an eventful personal life and he revolutionised so much. It would fare even better as a mini-series.'The Story of Louis Pasteur' was one of the first biopics that came to be (and also the first of those from Warner Brothers), and it is one of the better early ones. Although not quite one of my favourite biographical films of all time, 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is a fine example of how to do it right. Meaning that of course there would be fictional elements, and it is these elements that ring the least true here, but the subject, their personal life and what made them so important are treated with respect and not rose-tinted, distorted or falsified. Pasteur is still a very interesting man and we do see what made him a pioneering and revolutionary figure. 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is at its weakest in the romantic element of the story, which didn't engage as much as the rest of the film and didn't fit as well either.Also the performances of Anita Louise and Donald Woods who struck me as a little colourless. Wouldn't have said no to 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' being longer, it did feel too brief and one does wish that there was even more to the story than was told. However, the story is thoroughly compelling and while not everything is there it does focus on what were particularly revolutionary and in a way that engages a lot and are very intriguing, found myself learning a fair bit. Found myself relating to Pasteur with his struggles against adversity and his eventual overcoming, having been there myself.One does not notice that 'The Story of Louis Pasteur' is low budget, it is lovingly photographed and handsomely designed. The script is literate without being worthy and very thought-provoking with a surprising amount of complexity and respect for the subject and the ability to entertain and educate. The direction keeps the film moving along briskly with few dull spots. The film is particularly worth seeing for the terrific and deservedly Oscar-winning performance of Paul Muni. The rest of the supporting cast are strong, especially Ftitz Leiber and Akim Tamiroff. Josephine Hutchison does very well with what she has.In summary, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

evanston_dad A tasteful and thoughtful fictionalization of Louis Pasteur's development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies that nevertheless peddles in the kind of hagiography one would expect from films of this time period, when things like subtlety were in short supply."The Story of Louis Pasteur" was a prestige pic from Warner Bros. off-shoot Cosmopolitan, designed to win the studio acclaim and Oscars. It did both, scoring a Best Actor win for Paul Muni, eminently watchable as Pasteur but who deserved to win both three years earlier for his intense performance in the intense "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" and a year later for his performance in another Warner Bros. biopic, "The Life of Emile Zola." Indeed, there is speculation that 1936 saw a lot of vote rigging in the Academy and that Muni's win was the result of some under the table deals among studio execs to ensure that certain actors and certain films would win key awards. But it's the kind of role and performance that could easily have won on its own merits, and indeed biopics have been one of the surest vehicles for actors seeking Oscar noms and wins ever since.The film also won two writing awards, the first of only four films in Oscar history to do so, when rules allowed both the screenplay and the original story on which it was based to be eligible even if written by the same people, which in this case were (Pierre Collings and Sheridan Gibney). Its fourth and final nomination was for Best Picture, in a year that found the other nominees in that category to be "Anthony Adverse," "Dodsworth" (my personal favorite), "Libeled Lady," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Romeo and Juliet," "San Francisco," "A Tale of Two Cities," "Three Smart Girls," and that year's winner, "The Great Ziegfeld." Grade: A-

blanche-2 Paul Muni has the title role in "The Story of Louis Pasteur," a 1935 film also starring Josephine Hutchinson, Anita Louise, Donald Woods, and Fritz Lieber.The biopic focuses on Pasteur's work in sterilization, rabies, and anthrax, and includes his inoculation of the small boy Joseph Meister (Dickie Moore) which is a famous - and risky - moment in Pasteur's life. Strangely, there is nothing about pasteurization, although with a great scientist who was responsible for so many innovations, you can't show everything. And certainly the rabies and anthrax stories are more dramatic.Some of the film, I believe, is fictionalized - his nemesis, Dr. Charbonnet, was probably created to represent some of the criticism Pasteur faced in his lifetime. The love affair between his assistant, Dr. Martel (Donald Woods) and Pasteur's daughter Annette doesn't seem to be true either. Typical Hollywood.Nevertheless, this is a reverent biography with a strong performance by Muni and good work by the rest of the cast. It seems crazy to think that before Pasteur, doctors did not sterilize instruments and wash their hands, but apparently, they didn't.Good movie.

edalweber Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.