NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

richard-1787 The cinematography in this movie, by Tony Gaudio, is stunning. The scenes shot in the desert, with the play of shadows on the sands and the wind blowing those sands, are magnificent. I'd love to see them on a really large screen.The play of light and shadow through the levered blinds in some of the indoor shots is good as well.The last scene, when we see Flynn and Frances in profile against a strangely lit sky, is also very good - though they are posed in a way so noble as to stretch credulity.Some really remarkable and very beautiful cinematography, in other words.The plot is another matter. It is a standard love triangle - two men love the same woman, who loves only one of them - but there isn't much erotic tension. The two men are so noble that you know they will do the right thing. Which, frankly, deprives the movie of suspense - contrast it with *Casablanca*, say - and makes it rather boring.Flynn is good in this picture, very natural, very relaxed.Kay Francis, on the other hand, over-dramatizes everything, which does not work against Flynn's detached and humorous manner. Olivia de Havilland would have been better in this role. Francis gets top billing - she was a BIG star then - but I honestly do not understand her appeal.This is an uneven movie, in sum. The cinematography is great, Flynn is OK, but Francis is way over the top, and the plot, such as it is, not particularly involving.

MartinHafer This is not the sort of movie you'd think it would be, as the film is set abroad and is about a British outpost. Considering this AND that the film stars Errol Flynn, you would expect that it would be an adventure film like LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER or CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE--and if so, you'd be wrong. The film is purely a romantic melodrama about a woman (Kay Francis) who marries a man he likes and respects (Ian Hunter) but eventually falls in love with suave and romantic Errol Flynn (and, in 1937, who WOULDN'T have fallen for Errol?!). The problem is exacerbated because Francis genuinely loves Hunter as a friend and Errol is loyal to Hunter because he's his commanding officer, but their glands won't be satisfied until they break the awful news to nice-guy Hunter. This is, overall, a very sappy and sticky movie. Some will no doubt like it, but the ardent and more "wussified" Flynn isn't as satisfying a character as he played in most of his other films. And, the plot itself seems very old fashioned and...well...silly. Not a bad film, but certainly a lesser film and one that is mostly of interest to those who want to see every film Flynn made--even the weaker ones.

classicsoncall I had the greatest trouble with two quotes from the film, the first one in my summary line above, and the other - "The hopes we have for tomorrow die today". I can't make any sense out of the first, and the second is one of the most pessimistic and depressing statements I've ever heard. The latter was actually stated twice in the story, the second time when Julia Ashton summarized her feelings on what would have been an ill fated affair with Captain Roark (Errol Flynn). Instead, the ill fate befalls Julia's husband John Wister (Ian Hunter) in a self imposed suicide mission into a desert region of the Sahara. For his part, Colonel Wister comes across as a model of nobility in stepping aside for his second officer, but it's a safe bet you won't run across somebody like him in real life any time soon.Back to that first quote - I'm still thinking about it, but nothing's coming to me. I'm sure it was a way of making a connection with the title of the movie, but it comes across as awkward at best. Maybe I heard it incorrectly, so any help would be appreciated.You know, I had a thought about this film I never considered before for a black and white move - I think I would have preferred to see it in color for it's exotic locations, military dress and Miss Francis' fashionable gowns by Orry-Kelly. That might have done a better job of distracting me from the troublesome dialog.

blanche-2 Well, I didn't have as violent a response as the first post I read, but "Another Dawn" is from another era and didn't survive it, trust me. It's all pip-pip, jolly good, and honor is all in this dated film starring the handsome Errol Flynn and the lovely Kay Francis. She's a widow who marries Flynn's commander, though she still mourns her late husband. When she meets Flynn, guess what, she finds she can love again. Yeah, like who couldn't. They're both too honorable to do much about it, though.Most of the film takes place post-World War I in a Sahara outpost so there is lots of sand and some battles. Flynn is subdued in this, and Francis is radiant. Some of the dialogue is actually quite poetic - probably because they're quoting poems - and if it were in, say, The Rains Came, it would have worked very well - but it only adds to the melodrama in this film.Films such as "Another Dawn" are interesting as artifacts of a lost time when, I suppose, people had stronger values and lived for the greater good. When it's a stronger script and production, of course, these marvelous qualities are worth revisiting, admiring, and feeling guilty about. Alas, however, nobility is not well served by "Another Dawn."