A Farewell to Arms


Action / Drama / Romance / War

Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 37%
IMDb Rating 5.9 10 2331


Uploaded By: OTTO
September 25, 2014 at 09:08 PM



Jennifer Jones as Catherine Barkley
Rock Hudson as Lt. Frederick Henry
Elaine Stritch as Helen Ferguson
Bud Spencer as Carabiniere
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
703.00 MB
English 2.0
24.000 fps
2 hr 32 min
P/S 1 / 4
1.24 GB
English 2.0
24.000 fps
2 hr 32 min
P/S 3 / 5

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by dglink 7 / 10

Disappointing Remake of Hemingway's WWI Romance

Familiar music plays while a white wooden sign appears that heralds "A David O. Selznick Production;" the orchestral score swells, and the film title in huge letters sweeps from right to left as though too big to be contained by a mere movie screen; a written prologue introduces background to the era; a turbulent romance unfolds against a terrible war; thousands of soldiers march and fight; civilians flee a burning city under attack; an overworked doctor struggles in a make-shift hospital that overflows with wounded soldiers; a woman struggles through a difficult childbirth. "Gone with the Wind?" No, but viewers could be confused by the similarities. Selznick's 1957 remake of "A Farewell to Arms" was the producer's vain attempt to match or surpass his 1939 masterwork. Unfortunately, the big budget production of Ernest Hemingway's love story during World War I falls short.

Directed by Charles Vidor from a script by Ben Hecht, the film has some fine elements that include a lush score by Mario Nascimbene and scenic locations in the Italian Alps lensed by Oswald Morris and Piero Portolupi. However, despite the anti-war sentiments expressed, the slight story does not warrant the grandiose production values lavished on an overlong film with much pictorial filler, and unflattering comparisons to Frank Borzage's 1932 production are inevitable. The outlines of the two films are similar; American falls for English nurse; they are separated; he is wounded; she is transferred to the hospital where he is convalescing; their romance deepens; melodramatic consequences ensue.

Rock Hudson and Jennifer Jones are an uncomfortable fit as the stars and lack the chemistry of Helen Hayes and Gary Cooper in the earlier version. While Rock Hudson as Lt. Frederick Henry, an American soldier in the Italian army, is at the peak of his hunky good looks, Jennifer Jones, six years Hudson's senior, seems too mature as Catherine Barkley, an English nurse with no English accent. The two stars have different acting styles as well; Hudson is only passable, and he lacks the depth and passion of a man deeply in love. While Jones is credible in a 1940's romantic movie manner, she overplays at times, and her character often seems on an emotional edge. Vittorio De Sica as Major Alessandro Rinaldi, a military doctor, received the film's only Oscar nomination as Supporting Actor. Elaine Stritch as a sympathetic nurse, Mercedes McCambridge as a strict head nurse, and Oskar Homolka as a Swiss doctor also appear. Unfortunately, sequences intended as comic depict bumbling incompetent Italians and are dated and embarrassing.

"A Farewell to Arms" has too much going for it to be called a misfire. However, the film misses the target as a companion piece to "Gone with the Wind," which remains secure as David O. Selznick's crowning achievement. Perhaps a stronger male star and tighter editing could have improved this Hemingway adaptation. While the movie is passable entertainment, the project had unrealized potential, but Selznick's "A Farewell to Arms" eventually falls flat as an unconvincing overlong romance.

Reviewed by SnoopyStyle 3 / 10

very long and romance lacks heat

Frederick Henry (Rock Hudson) is an American in an Italian ambulance unit in WWI. He falls for nurse Catherine Barkley (Jennifer Jones). Later he's injured at the front. He's treated by his doctor friend Major Alessandro Rinaldi. He has an affair with Catherine and she gets pregnant.

The romantic acting is old fashion and lacks real heat. It's very fake. The war lacks tension. It looks like David O. Selznick had paid for a cast of thousands but it doesn't look intense. Even the epic retreat should be better. It tries to be funny without succeeding. It's too slow and too long. I couldn't wait for it to finish not long after it started. It's boring.

Reviewed by ConsultingHobbitExtractors 4 / 10

Keeps close to the story, though with a very different tone.

This movie could have gone in a number of different directions because of Hemingway's writing style. I read the book about a week before watching the movie (niether by choice) so I had a pretty good idea of where and how each was different. If you've read the novel, you can understand how the director and actors would have had a hard time getting the characters across since Hemingway provides practically no emotion or description to his dialogue. He wanted to keep the meaning behind his characters words ambiguous to make it interesting. However, that leaves a few too many options when you're an actor and have to choose one emotion to convey. I didn't like how it came off, but I'll talk about that more later. The story doesn't transition from the book to the movie well. It's not a bad subject matter, but the story is famous for its symbolism rather more than anything else, and symbolism expressed with words is extremely hard to translate into images.

Our two characters are a little hard to grasp since they were written in a way that reflected to aimlessness of the 1920's. Catherine in particular has a very romanticized perception of the war and her relationship with Frederic Henry. Frederic has an inverse view of things in which he carries a constant air of what is almost construable as apathy. Rock Hudson's sappier portrayal of him makes him seem like less of an unfeeling Bond-type and more of a star-crossed lover. There are very few other characters of significance. Rinaldi is probably the most prominent minor character, followed by the Milan nurses (Fergusson, and Van Campen), and the army priest. These parts feature the better acting performances of the movie. The scene where the priest remains in the burning hospital (which by the way was not in the book) was, in my opinion, the best scene of the movie. I don't know that Vittorio de Sica's portrayal of Rinaldi was Oscar worthy, but it was the most worthy of a nomination out of all the aspects of the film.

The story ends up being driven by a number of things. Among them are Frederic and Catherine's relationship, Frederic recovering from his injury, the general tide of the war, the impending birth of Frederic and Catherine's child, and Frederic's desire to seek solace from the war after deserting. The story as a whole just sort of exists. It doesn't feel terribly alive, but it's functional and doesn't have any logic issues or inconsistencies.

The acting from the lead roles felt pretty weak. They must be forgiven to an extent by Hemingway's ambiguous dialogue, but they certainly didn't give the best possible portrayals. When I was reading Catherine's rambling sentences in the book, I thought there might be some kind of coherence to it that would make it sound natural and hoped that an actress saying those same lines would provide that. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Jennifer Jones portrayal didn't have any more coherence than the static text and felt almost pathetically unrealistic. This even extended to her expressions like in the scene where Catherine is looking for Frederic among the advancing Italian force and she wears over exaggerated smiles and frowns. Rock Hudson's performance didn't really work for me because he seemed like he was trying to be too emotional while playing a character that has a hardened personality. Besides that, his emotions seemed kind of inconsistent and I didn't really buy that the character would have felt the way Hudson portrayed him to be. The supporting roles were all acted pretty well, though I don't think the talent was "wasted" on those parts since the supporting actors wouldn't have fit the lead roles.

The overall feel of the movie felt a bit too romantic and not quite dark enough. Now, since that statement is coming from an action fan, it will sound biased. However, Earnest Hemingway felt much the same way upon the film's release, and was disappointed that it didn't portray the horrors that he saw as an ambulance driver in WWI. I wouldn't be surprised if major he wrote the story was a means to warn people to avoid war at all costs since it was so awful for him.

If you've read and enjoyed the book, I guess it isn't a bad idea to watch this, but be warned that the tone changes drastically from book to movie. This is a much better pick as a romance movie than a war movie, though I doubt this will be at the top of your watchlist since it's kind of old. It stays pretty close to the book, which I know a lot of people can very particular about. To all prospective viewers, I'll say that it will likely come off as cheesy even if you love old movies or Earnest Hemingway's books. Overall Rating: 3.8/10.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment