Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Rod Duncan As a fan of Warner Bros.' 'Golden Age of Hollywood' productions, it was a huge disappointment to watch this documentary. One would expect that a historical study of a movie studio with such a rich past would be based on serious research of its archives and presented in a coherent and organized matter.On the contrary – this documentary's editing jumps back and forth in time making it incomprehensible for a first timer on the subject to understand anything (and irritating for anyone with an average knowledge on the subject). The statements presented by the different interviewees are mostly related to the specific film clips shown (nothing we haven't seen before) and its main star than to the studio that produced it and the behind-the-scenes reality. The production process, the writers, costumers, cinematographers and composers behind these films aren't even mentioned - who can imagine Warner Bros. in the late 30's and early 40's without the Epstein brothers, Orry-Kelly, Sol Polito and Max Steiner (composer of the well-known introduction fanfare) just to name a few? Bette Davis, who spent 18 years of her career as a contract player and sometimes referred to as the 'Fifth Warner Brother' (her movies were huge money makers), is superficially mentioned. The studio system, the introduction of Technicolor and the entertainment business in the pre-TV environment aren't even explained.Besides the poor topic coverage, the presentation gets to the point of annoyance: it is almost impossible to read interviewees names/titles or the film clips' titles due the amazing speed which the tiny font size subtitles are flashed on the lower part of the screen (when they are actually shown, since sometimes no identification appears whatsoever). And that's the review of the first half/disk – I slept through the second half….Unfortunately, a work presented in a careless matter with no respect to chronology or in-depth research on such an interesting topic. Don't waste your time and money on the rental.

jlewis77-1 This 3-part documentary covers the history of Warner Bros. in greater depth than the previous HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, WARNER BROS., with dedicated film critic Richard Schickel providing a more highbrow tone. Somewhat light on studio politics and the personal lives of the mogul family, it nonetheless makes good use of classic film clips from the early silent features (My Four Years In Germany) to the Batman series. All of the important high-points are covered: the canine exploits of Rin Tin Tin, the Vitaphone "talkie" revolution, Al Jolson in THE JAZZ SINGER, the gangster roles of Robinson/Cagney/Bogart, the glossy star vehicles of Bette Davis and Errol Flynn, the company's role in World War II, the 1953 arrival of 3-D and CinemaScope, the belated move into television production the following year, the short career of James Dean, the "new cinema" of the sixties as represented by BONNIE AND CLYDE, the rise of independent directors like Scorsese and Kubrick, and the franchises of Superman, THE MATRIX and Harry Potter. The narration by Clint Eastwood fits in nicely, often maintaining a low-key tone amidst eventful and sometimes violent screen clips. Most of the interviews provide great fodder; I particularly liked Carroll Baker's comments on the troubled 1950s period and Molly Haskell's perspective on Doris Day.The selection reflects the director's personal tastes. On the one hand, the inclusion of such off-beat pictures like STORM WARNING and THE BEAST OF 20,000 FATHOMS and interesting flops like NOAH'S ARK and THE SILVER CHALICE are a definite plus. On the other hand, Schickel's preference for monochrome in Part 1 gives the false impression that Warners did not shoot in Technicolor prior to THE ADVENTURES IN ROBIN HOOD, while the studio was, in fact, a major leader in that process starting in 1929. As expected, the emphasis is on features and not short subjects; although a few early Vitaphone shorts of the '20s, Joe McDoakes and Bugs Bunny do get some recognition. Praise must also be given to the restoration quality of the sequences, making one wish Warner Home Video would hurry up and get many of these great films on DVD as soon as possible.The basic "problem", as indicated in previous reviews on this site, is the overemphasis on the studio's crime dramas. The Busby-Berkeley sequences are too short and, apart from the demanded inclusion of YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, there is little fun and music until the arrival of Doris Day in Part 2. Excluding A STAR IS BORN (a serious and depressing musical that would fit quite well with the many social commentaries that DID make the cut), we zip through the late '50s/'60s like lightning (obviously skipping MUSIC MAN) in order to focus more on the then-shocking scenes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, DELIVERANCE and THE EXORCIST. There's little question that the 70s were more productive at Warner's than other studios (i.e. MGM), but the overall tone (as represented in these clips) is quite sadistic. The arrival of DRIVING MISS DAISY couldn't come soon enough.It is wonderful that both the producers and PBS took on this subject. (The companion book is quite good.) Unfortunately, it could use some of the "fun factor" of previous anthologies like Hollywood THE GOLDEN YEARS (RKO), MGM: WHEN THE LION ROARS and 20TH CENTURY FOX: THE FIRST 50 YEARS & THE BLOCKBUSTER YEARS. I remember once thinking Patrick Stewart's coverage of MGM was a bit hammy and over-the-top. This series could certainly use him to lighten the load, as clarified when I re-watched that series on DVD last month.

junefirst26 I was really looking forward to seeing this three part special, however I was really kind of let down. The first part was the best, with most of the old classics represented, then it started to fall apart about half way through the second part, and by the third part I thought I was watching a tribute to Clint Eastwood. I know that Warners was known as the rough and tumble studio that would'nt pull any punches, but my God, does each clip have to push you over the edge? About the time I saw Ginger Rogers getting whipped, I was asking myself, gee didn't they do any comedies or musicals. Lots of down and out people, people getting shot, even the KKK! Then from Dirty Harry on, I thought I was watching a tribute to Clint Eastwood, with some Steven Spielberg thrown in. What happened to A STAR IS BORN -1954, 2001-A SPACE ODYSSEY, and NETWORK ??? It was also very boring, basically just a clip show, with very little inside information. Nothing about how each studio had their own theaters, until Uncle Sam told them to break them up and sell them, very little about the break up of the studio system, and how they took on television. All in all, very little imagination went into this, as I said, besides the tribute to Clint Eastwood feel of it, it was basically just five hours of clips. If you are interested in the history of Hollywood I would suggest these better titles to watch for; GOLDWYN: THE MAN AND HIS MOVIES, 2001; MGM: WHEN THE LION ROARS, 1992; Hollywood THE GOLDEN YEARS: THE RKO STORY, 1987, 6 parts.

Falkeep While I have enjoyed many of Richard Schickel's previous shows, this one is really pretty much a waste of time. The writing is very boring and pedantic. Watching the show is like sitting through a particularly boring lecture in a college class you really want to enjoy. There isn't a coherent thread of storytelling and it seems to bounce between one topic to the next with little or no transition. I can't tell what the purpose of this documentary is supposed to be... is it about the stars and directors? Is it about the style and themes of the films? Is it about the history of the studio in relation to the world it is in? Is it about everything that happened at WB within specific periods of time? I can't tell what Schickel is trying to get me to take away from this documentary. It is like he has an outline and checklist of things he 'has' to cover and is just going along "Rin Tin Tin... check, The Jazz Singer... check". Where is his passion for his subject?Clint Eastwood's narration does not pull me into the story he is telling, but then how excited can he be reading the script he was given? The interviews are mostly uninteresting and seem to be a mix of old stuff from Schickel's Men Who Made The Movies series and dropped in to remind us who he has talked to before (and maybe to save him the trouble of doing new work) and talking to critics and academics who we don't know or care about who seem more interested in impressing Schieckel than us, the audience. The camera work on the interviews could have been done by any junior high kid with a tripod and the work of the interviewer does not bring out great storytelling from the interviewees.Another thing which is bad about this show is the editing... usually very well done in Schickel's documentaries. Some segments show the old magic... like the James Cagney and Busby Berkely segments... which do what the segments should do... make us, the audience, interested enough in the subjects that we want to get the movies we learn about. However, such segments stand out because of how bad he rest of the editing is. I have worked as a projectionist for three decades and know that anyone can cut frames, but editing is more than that. Most of the transitions between shots are very abrupt and look like one shot is dropped down before the end of the previous shot. In addition, the movies we all know are represented by the clichéd clips that we have all seen a thousand times... can he not find anything new to give us about Casablanca and Yankee Doodle Dandy, for example... and not only are all of the clips from those shows the 'usual suspects' he spends way too much time on them rather than spending the time on what we HAVEN"T seen and heard before.I don't know how much Warner Brothers paid for this hack job, but it was too much and if I am expected to want to buy the DVD to watch this show more than once, sorry... once is more than enough. Maybe it is time for Schickel to call it quits and retire because he sure doesn't seem to have anything worth while to give to the public. I'm sure USC would allow him to give really boring lectures to film students and play his 'greatest hits' to them to show them how wonderful he is.If you don't get it from my review... I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this documentary to anyone. Jeez, how does ANYONE make the Warner Brothers story a snoozefest? P.S. -- Even before the show starts, you know to expect something bad... the title card of the first part tells us it covers '1929 - 1941' and yet the shows goes back to the teen's and covers films into the 50s. Does Schickel not even know what his show is about or how to use a calendar?