Own the rights?
20 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Bogart maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice…, 10 April 2005 Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
Wartime heroics never seemed exploited in quite so complex a fashion as "Passage to Marseille," directed by Michael Curtiz… Bogart, a French journalist framed for murder because of his political views and sent to Devil's Island during World War II, escapes from his penal hell with four other convicts and winds up on a French freighter bound for home… Hoping to rejoin the fighting Free French resistance movement, the men, all fiercely loyal patriots, become involved in preventing a takeover of the ship by Fascist sympathizers… This relatively simple plot line is then surrounded by a series of extraneous plots and subplots which were related in a series of single, double, and even triple flashbacks, making any semblance of coherency virtually impossible… Bogart's characterization is equally vague and complicated as he maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice… At one moment he is the picture of idealistic moral righteousness fighting against a callous system, and the next he debased his human nature as he brutally machine-guns some defenseless enemies… His moral platitudes do not balance his immoral behavior, making for ambiguity and confusion...The most important saving grace of "Passage to Marseille" is the supporting cast headed by Bogart's "Casablanca" co-stars Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre, who all turned in strong character portrayals…
12 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Casablanca Redux?, 19 October 2004 Author: Bucs1960 from West Virginia
I think this film gets a bad rap as most people see it as a Casablanca wanna-be based on the fact that the same players appear in both (even the singer Corinne Mura shows up here although she was uncredited in Casablanca). Granted, this is a propaganda film but so were hundreds of others made at this time. France gets particular attention as the sole cause of the Munich sell-out and Marshall Petain, old and misguided, gets all the blame......this is not exactly how it was but we have to remember that Vichy was collaborating with the Nazis. (Remember how Claude Rains threw away the bottle of Vichy water in Casablanca?) So we have to view this film in the context of the times.Bogey plays his character just like Bogey.....no attempt at a French accent which probably would have been disastrous anyway and the cast is a melting pot of nationalities. But how can you go wrong with Bogey, Greenstreet, Rains and Lorre? They could make an educational film about the building and maintenance of an internal combustion engine interesting!The flashbacks are not hard to follow, and although a rather awkward story telling method in this particular film, don't really take that much away from the screenplay.Bogey's actions surrounding the survivors of the downed German plane were a bit surprising but hey, it was war. The entire fight on the ship against the Germans was the best part of the film.Michele Morgan had absolutely nothing to do in this film which is too bad as she was a wonderful actress with a haunting beauty but this is basically a man's movie. All in all, this isn't a bad film but it has suffered because of its comparison to Casablanca. Be warned that it is pure propaganda but I found it enjoyable and a window on a different time.
15 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Papillon in flashbacks, 17 October 2004 Author: jotix100 from New York
The best reason for watching this movie was the work of director, Michael Curtiz, a fine man who always delivered. Unfortunately, he relied on a screen play that doesn't do anything to make us care more about the people it tries to portray. As a propaganda film, it glorifies that myth that France always was for the American public. It's hard to believe the escapees from Cayenne be given a chance to fight for the same country that had exiled them to hard labor, where chances of survival was almost non existing. Reality would only tells us these men would be put in prison as they arrived in France. The film compensates with the different plots by including heavy action at sea, and then during the bombing of Germany by the French squadron now in England. The story of how Jean Matrac lands in the penal colony of Guyana, after being accused of killing someone is seen in flashbacks. This episode shows his falling in love for the lovely Paula, who becomes the love of his life.The problem with the film is the potpourri of actors and backgrounds that make the movie a small leaning Tower of Babel. Our hero, Matrac, speaks NewYorkese! Bogey, is not as effective in this movie as in others. What made the film interesting was the strong supporting cast that was put together. Claude Rains, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, George Tobias, Helmut Dantine, John Loden, Philip Dorn, among others, do excellent work under Mr. Curtiz's direction. Michelle Morgan, one of the most radiant women in films, has nothing to do in it. The film also boasts an appearance by Corinna Mura, who also appeared in "Casablanca".The film, by no means, a bad one, could have used a better screen play, or at least one that would have made it more fun to watch.
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Bogart's character not always saintly, 26 August 2002 Author: george-102 from Germany
I think some people have been unduly unfair on this film.There is quite a complex sequence of flashbacks. But as a matter of fact, I didn't find them at all difficult to follow. My brain only hurts when I try to work it out afterwards. Maybe it's another of those things which work better in a cinema than on TV.There is a scene where Bogart's character commits a war crime. I think we have to remember that Bogart did not always play saintly characters. He was not exactly saintly in the "Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". He was even less saintly in "The Caine Mutiny". I am sure that the audience in 1944 would have been shocked by the war crime just as we arenow; even Nazi propaganda sometimes emphasised the importance of being gentlemanly to prisoners. The easy and boring option would have been forBogart to play the all-American (or all-French) hero throughout; I find itmore interesting that in this case he isn't. I think the circumstances to some extent explain what Bogart's character does. The fact is war crimes happen in war. They happened then, and they happen now, and the perpetrators are not as through-and-through evil (or different from us) as we would like to think. I agree with those who say this film is not as good as "Casablanca" or the "Maltese Falcon". The plot is a lot more lumpy and uneven than those films. But I've seen those two films several times already, and I can't watch them every night. "Passage to Marseille" is worth at least one viewing. In fact I would like to see it again, if I get a chance.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Compelling despite a weak structure, 21 November 1999 Author: Jeff Chan from United States
Passage to Marseille's flashback within a flashback format is of course structurally weak, but its characters and storytelling are compelling. Most interesting is the cynical disillusionment Bogart's character experiences after his opposition newspaper confronts the French government's Nazi appeasement. His newspaper is destroyed by pro-government mobs while fascist-leaning police look on. For his trouble Bogart is falsely convicted of murder and sent to a hell-on-earth prison colony in French Guyana. Formerly the staunchest of patriots, Bogart comes to feel that the France living in his heart has finally died.Bogart and cohorts escape with the aid of a freed prisoner who selects and compels them with a promise to return to France and fight for its freedom. The third flashback finds them adrift in the Caribbean in their river canoe where they are rescued by a French freighter bound for Marseille. Things get complicated when some passengers and crew members led by a utilitarian French Army officer played by Sydney Greenstreet attempt to seize control of the ship. The ship's captain and Claude Rains' character had plotted a course to England in defiance of their now Nazi-controlled government's orders.As the free French loyalists retake control of the ship, a traitorous radio operator broadcasts their position which is picked up by a patrolling Nazi bomber. The prisoners' true convictions (no pun intended) are demonstrated both in retaking the ship and in fighting off the plane's attack. In leading the ship's defense, Bogart's true feelings are realized and his choice is made to once again fight for his country, this time with bombs and bullets instead of ink and paper.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Bogart in flashbacks - good film, 28 December 2000 Author: smatysia (feldene@comcast.net) from Houston
Quite a good film. I didn't have any trouble following the flashback-in-a-flashback scheme. Bogart was Bogart. What can you say? Greenstreet and Lorre were good. Claude Rains was excellent. Apparently, some people are upset at this film because it isn't "Casablanca". I don't really think it tried to be. It was probably just that the actors and director liked working together, and if that sold more tickets, well, no one would complain. Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen frequently cast their films with the same actors, presumably friends (and lovers), and no one thinks twice about it.
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful: "France Lives.......Vive La France", 28 October 2006 Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
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.
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Flashbacks be dammed! This is a great action movie., 15 August 2004 Author: John Wayne Peel (jwpeel@tiac.net) from Lynn, Massachusetts
While much has been made of the flashback within a flashback utilized in the movie, one shouldn't overlook the great action sequences, particularly towards the end, that have you cheering on the French heroes in the film. Sure, Humphrey Bogart doesn't attempt a French accent, but just look at films where he didn't attempt a foreign accent and how disasters they were (what was that James Cagney Western where Bogie was supposed to speak with a Spanish accent? I still cringe at the thought of it.) But it doesn't affect his acting in the lead role. After all, Clark Gable didn't put on a Southern accent for "God With The Wind" and I didn't hurt his work in that masterpiece. This is no masterpiece and it is difficult to follow sometimes, but just to see Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet and Claude Raines work is worth it. This Again, many people have mentioned in the war crime Bogart commits in the film, but when I saw the supposed offending part, I had no problem with it. And I'm no conservative when it comes to such things normally, but the "crime" is against ruthless that these who had no such reservations about the rules of war. "Casablanca" is an entirely different film and it is unfair to compare this one to that one just because it has the same director and many of the same cast members. This is a rousing piece of war propaganda that gets the audience involved and I liked it very much. There is even an emotional element to it and unlike "Casablanca," it does not feel studio bound with even some believable exterior shots. I give it seven out of ten for the action alone.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: An International Smorgasbord, 12 October 2002 Author: howdymax from Las Cruces, New Mexico
Many serious film buffs have made the comparison between this movie and Casablanca. The director and cast are almost identical. They also take issue with the nested flashbacks, claiming that it confuses the story. I disagree. Think for a moment; if Casablanca had never been made, this would certainly be a riveting movie in it's own right. It deserves to stand alone and be recognized - for the propaganda it was.I won't go into the story itself, but I couldn't help making an observation about the cast. This is supposed to be a story about French convicts who recognize the errors of their ways and come to France's aid when she needs them most. Humphrey Bogart and George Tobias were from New York (the accents prove it), Philip Dorn from the Netherlands, Helmut Dantine from Austria, Peter Lorre from Hungary, Victor Francen from Belgium, Vladimir Sokoloff from Russia, and Claude Rains, John Loder, Sidney Greenstreet from England. Only Michelle Morgan was French and she seemed more like an afterthought.An honorable mention for my favorite director: Michael Curtiz. Many people have called him a studio hack and criticized him for his dictatorial rather than directorial attitude toward cast and crew alike, but anybody who could construct such diverse masterpieces as "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood", deserves much more credit than he ever got. I urge you to review his screen credits. He was prolific and uncompromising in the quality of his work.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Good but not great war film, 23 January 2001 Author: jaybee-3 from New Jersey
It must be a problem for first-time viewers to watch this flashback within a flashback within a flashback film. There is also the urge to compare this with "Casablanca". It cannot hold a candle to that masterpiece. On its own, it has some good qualities. The production is first-rate. The cast do excellent work considering the limits of the cliche-ridden script. The Devil's Island sequence is particularly well executed. So we have a film that may disappoint considering the talent but is hard to dismiss.
Add another review
