Gentleman Jim (1942)
6/10
Neither great nor horrible. Watch if you like Flynn, boxing, or both.
31 August 2022
A loose boxer bio that's OK, but eventually becomes redundant.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: I'm not a huge fan of bio-based film, and this represents why (perhaps).

The story appears cobbled together and doesn't introduce or resolve things as it should have.

It has some endearing qualities, but that may just be the period and geography portrayed here.

Not a bad film, just dry when it's trying hard not to be.

ACTING: The acting here is fine, but the more of Flynn I watch, the more I lean toward him being a tool and icon for others. In other words, while Flynn was a solid actor, his roles invariably seem to fade into one persona, e.g. Cary Grant was an American equivalent (sans the athletic skill).

I strongly prefer actors capable of stretching outside, and even breaking out of a role.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate value

TEMPO: OK, but it bounces around a lot

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK, but the sets looked cheap

MUSIC / SOUND: Fine

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Walsh was a machine with 140 films directed. Phew! As is often the case in life, quality and volume don't wed well. His work is professional, just rather mechanical.

Writers: Lawrence and McCoy were quite prolific writers, but I recognize only a little of their work, and none I'd recommend.

Is it a good film? It's OK, but just that

Should you watch this once? If you like old school and boxing

Rating: 6.0.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed