alfvillanueva

Though I haven't checked the historical accuracy of TUDOR ROSE, I greatly recommend it. Although on paper the cast looked impressive, one can never be sure until after watching the film if it was worthy. In this case, my expectations were more than rewarded: Jut listing the cast is an enormous pleasure: Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Martita Hunt ( always outstanding whatever small the part is), John Mills, Felix Aylmer and many others.

Nova Pilbeam, so delightful as a Hitchcock ingénue , does not disappoint in the title role. Although the characters in most cases are not fully developed, the cast is so talented that they bring out so many nuances that most of the time the situations play as real as life itself. The production values are adequate, though no super production it is far better than many more pretentious biopics or historical pictures of that or any year. I found it outstanding not only for the talent involved but for the overall quality, if we take into account the British production in general at the time of its release (1936) . I strongly recommend it.

There is a lot of talent involved in this movie. They all perform as expected. the problem lies with the script, which was corny, dull and repetitive for the forties, and would have been also in the 30s, even in the 20s!! When released,it flopped, and no wonder.Ann Sheridan always said the reason was the lack of chemistry between her and Gary Cooper, but the real reason for me, a great fan of both of them is the script. It is monotonous and seems to go on forever.... The production values are all first rate: cast, sets and direction are first class A pity those responsible did not see what the result would be, in time. A pity for all concerned, including us, the audience .