TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

JohnHowardReid An attractively photographed, stylishly produced costume drama with director Forde taking full advantage of his magnificent sets and period trappings. The playing is most agreeable, and though the film was obviously produced to reinforce a wartime message of Anglo-American co- operation, the propaganda is not overly intrusive. Unfortunately, the U.S. version, namely "Sons of the Sea", is 16 minutes shorter than the U.K. release. In this cut-down offering, Griffith Jones simply disappears from the movie, whereas in the U.K. version he dies in the fog to save his ship. In the original version, there was also more of the race climax. In the American version, the sailing ship is simply left behind at the home port and is not seen from again. It's a shame all this action was eliminated (presumably to give the movie an undiluted happy ending) whereas the original action-filled climax is not only what the movie needs but what it has been relentlessly leading up to, namely the final confrontation between sail and steam.

robert-temple-1 This is one of the 55 films directed by Walter Forde, who also directed ALIAS BULLDOG DRUMMOND (1935, see my review) and SALLOON BAR (1940, see my review). Jack Clayton was an uncredited second assistant director on this film. It was the last film he worked on until the end of the War, when he directed (uncredited) a 15 minute documentary about fighting in Italy for the Ministry of Information, resuming his British film career only in 1947, when at last he got a screen credit as assistant director on Anthony Asquith's film of a Terence Rattigan play, WHILE THE SUN SHINES (which is unavailable today and unreviewed on IMDb). This film (also known as SONS OF THE SEA) is rather unsatisfactory. There was a great deal of trouble with the story and script, as three screenwriters including Emeric Pressburger were unable to come up with something that worked. The episodes of the film are stitched together by several lengthy cards of text telling us what happened between times, which is hardly a successful dramatic device. Since two men named MacIver are credited with the story, which concerns the attempts by the MacIver family to establish an Atlantic steamship trade in partnership with the Canadian Sam Cunard, I presume they were descendants of the 19th century men seen in the film, and that the story was a true one which they were able to tell. The film is interesting despite being cinematically inferior. Valerie Hobson plays the female lead, but she has little to do except look pretty in a somewhat artificial way and make two fiery speeches which are only partially convincing. This film was certainly not one of Miss Hobson's high points. Michael Redgrave is the male lead, but Redgrave has never struck me as being at all convincing on screen when he pretends to have an interest in women, as it is well known that he was gay. He is just about as frigid a lover as any woman could imagine. Redgrave could in those circumstances be so remote in spirit from the camera that his closeups effectively become long shots. At times he seems to convey a hatred for the female sex which he can barely restrain or conceal, and ice forms on his brow rather than sweat when proximity to a woman threatens him. The story of this film certainly has a great deal of historical importance, being a genuine saga of the high seas. And the section of the film early on in which ruthless men are taking the money of desperate people to be shipped across the Atlantic as emigrants in horrible conditions, so that many of them die on the way, is all too relevant to today, what with the evil doings of the people smugglers which we read about in the press every day now. This film certainly is no cinematic triumph, but if you are interested in how steamships got going on the Atlantic against all the odds, you will want to see it. Some of the thumping speeches about British-American friendship which recur in this film are clearly motivated by wartime propaganda concerns, and that detracts from the film's dramatic force, of which there is little, for it is the roaring sea which has all the force here.

xerses13 SONS OF THE SEA aka Atlantic FERRY (1941) is another of those hands across the seas pictures meant too solidify the relationship of Great Britain and the U.S.A. Though a Warner Brothers (WB) release this is a British production and the cast reflects this as well as the rather 'cheesy' production values. If you can ignore its technical short-comings the cast does a fine job. Lead by Michael Redgrave, who is a little too much 'stiff upper lip' and the luminous Valerie Hobson, who never disappoints.If the plot of the development of trans-Atlantic Steam-Ship travel seems familiar, it is. Two (2) years earlier Paramount released RULERS OF THE SEA (1939) featuring Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Margaret Lockwood as the romantic leads. Which we also rate IMDb******Six (6). Its main advantage was having Gordon Jennings head of the SFX department at Paramount and that Mr. Fairbanks Jr. is a FAR more engaging lover then Mr. Redgrave. If his lack of 'sex-appeal' had been typical of Englishmen the Country would be depopulated!Both films are a enjoyable matinée watch and if you can view them 'back to back' you will see the contrast in production styles. The WB did not invest as much into their production as did Paramount. Neither are 'classics', but worth watching every few years.

bkoganbing Atlantic Ferry, made by Warner Brothers in Great Britain celebrates the conglomerate that formed the Cunard line which inaugurated steam powered travel across the ocean. Of course this film was made at a time when Great Britain was trying ever so hard to get the United States involved in the second World War on their side and Warner Brothers was the studio most involved in that. The year before in America they had done The Sea Hawk and before that Confessions Of A Nazi Spy.The emphasis here is on shipping magnates Charles and David MacIver who joined with Samuel Cunard to provide regular passenger and cargo service across the Atlantic. The brothers are played by Michael Redgrave and Griffith Jones with style and conviction. These two don't always see eye to eye and there's a rivalry going between them for Valerie Hobson.Naturally the folks who are heavily invested in sail not thrilled with what the brothers propose. That scene where one self styled 'expert' says that the real problem is storage of fuel and there's no place to refuel in the middle of the ocean. Americans felt even stronger about that put their faith in sail for years longer than the British. It's also way we and the British acquired such odd places as the Falkland Islands for them and Midway for us to serve as coaling, later diesel refueling stations for our cargo, passenger, and most important, our military naval fleets. That 'expert' is voicing real concerns.American Hartley Power is playing Sam Cunard who was Canadian from Halifax and was already operating successfully in steam before doing the Transatlantic run. He acts as a steadying influence between the sometimes contentious brothers MacIver.Atlantic Ferry is a good historical and biographical film about a singular development in transportation. The sailing scenes are handled well by the special effects department and as a hands across the sea propaganda film, Atlantic Ferry holds up well today.