YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Charles Herold (cherold) This isn't a very good movie, but James Wong Howe's brilliant cinematography makes it look like one. This is the sort of movie worth watching just to see how spectacular Howe was.Outside of that, it's a little dull. The flashback within a flashback within an etc. doesn't work that well, mainly because the movie fails to make any of its threads or characters all that interesting. Designed as war propaganda, the movie is often ostentatiously obvious, most notably in the rah-rah score and in things like the little French boy screaming Viva le France! Much of this was probably very stirring at the time, but it doesn't age well.The film also has a lot of typical Hollywood nonsense, like the way a movie in which everyone is French has major characters speak English while minor characters speak French and accents are whatever the actors walked in with. It's not that unusual for the time but I found it distracting. It might have been better if everyone spoke French, since the dialogue is often wretched (although, as with the characters, it is stylistically inconsistent, shifting from straightforward conversation to ornate, flower speeches).I do like this movie better than the first time I saw it when I was in college (in the 1980s), though I still don't like it much. But my god, what cinematography!

JPA.CA This is a fascinating story with intriguing progression and characters. The flashbacks and twists throughout keep you absorbed. The dialogue is snappy; the music fits perfectly. Bogart is central of course but the full supporting cast is terrific and provides greater depth. Most importantly - whether yesterday or today - there's always something to be learned from those who fight for freedom. What sacrifices do we make or measures do we take to protect our freedom today, and what do we learn from how that parallels this story? Times change, but the principles remain the same. This movie is a simple but great reminder of that for me.I thoroughly enjoyed this and rate it among my favorites along with other Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, and Randolph Scott films.

bkoganbing In an effort to capitalize on the film that they produced that won the Best Picture Oscar the previous year, the Brothers Warner united as much of the original cast of Casablanca as they could find to tell the tale of convicts from Devil's Island returning to fight the Nazis.Passage to Marseille might have been a better film if it been done with a straight forward narrative, or only one flashback, from the Humphrey Bogart character. As it is I counted at one point Claude Rains telling his story to newspaper reporter John Loder with a flashback by Phillip Dorn in Rains's narrative. And then in Dorn's narrative we have Bogart flashing back as well. It's a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, within a flashback. Confusing ain't it?Our Devil's Island convicts are Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Helmut Dantine, George Tobias, and Phillip Dorn. They're picked up by a tramp freighter heading back to Marseille. World War II has already started and midpoint of the voyage, ship captain Victor Francen hears that France has fallen. He starts shifting his course to Great Britain.Another passenger Sidney Greenstreet has other ideas. He tries a small scale coup d'etat for the Vichy regime on board and meets up with a whole lot of resistance. Greenstreet has the most interesting role in the film. An arrogant militarist, he definitely finds the Nazi dominated Europe more to his liking.Michele Morgan is Bogart's wife and the only one in the film who is actually French among the principal players. She was a very big star of the French cinema who was lucky to get out. During the war she made films in the UK and the USA. This and Higher and Higher are probably her two best known American films.Claude Rains is a kinder, gentler version of Captain Renaud from Casablanca. As Captain Freycinet also of the French army like Greenstreet, his politics are a whole lot different. He's an opportunist also in the best sense of the word. He sees an opportunity to deny the Nazis the ship's cargo of nickel ore and takes it. It's from his perspective that the action of the film is viewed and it is he who supplies the coda for the film which is the title for this review.Passage to Marseille is not a bad film, but not up there with Casablanca.

MartinHafer This is one of the better American propaganda films made during WWII--as it not only did an excellent job of entertaining and encouraging the folks at home, but it was also well made--with some wonderful performances. I am not just saying that because I am a huge Humphrey Bogart fan--after all, despite his having top billing, it is really an ensemble film. No, Warner Brothers did a bang-up job of getting excellent character actors, combining them with excellent direction as well as an excellent story. About the only serious negative about the film was the structure of the film itself (not the plot). The film begins with two men talking and the movie is told through flashbacks. This is a common theme in older films and I don't mind it at all,...within limits. But, when the flashback begins to have a flashback and this other flashback diverges into yet another flashback, it just looks like sloppy writing--and this is a real shame as the dialog and plot are very good. So my advice is to still watch the film and try to look past this odd style. If you do, you will be rewarded with an excellent film filled with excellent acting, dialog and a rousing and not too unbelievable series of adventures.By the way, for historians and airplane lovers out there, the film is really a mixed bag. In the beginning of the film, Bogart's bomber changes from what appears to be a B-17 A, B, C or D to a B-17 E or F in mid-flight. While in some planes the differences between versions of a model are usually pretty insignificant, in the B-17 it was such a radical redesign, it really does look like two totally different planes. So in this case, they did a lousy job of paying attention to details. However, late in the film when the ship is attacked by a German patrol plane, the attacking plane really does look like a real FW-200--the standard German plane for such anti-shipping details. This type of plane is rarely, if ever, shown in movies and I liked how someone at Warner Brothers really cared to try to get it right.