A Farewell To Arms - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

A Farewell To Arms Reviews

Page 2 of 3
½ March 12, 2009
a good screen vesion of Hemmingway's novel
½ March 2, 2009
good but skip this and see the Gary Cooper version
½ January 1, 2009
Wonderful rendtition. Hudson has the Hemingway look- big and strong and rather suave. The story was as much given the taste of the book as a movie could do. The screen lovers [Rock Hudson & Jennifer Jones] were well casted because the scenes where they had to convey being in love were somewhat tense and sparking. The location & backdrop were used very well, providing for the characters mood and the story's atmosphere where necessary. Emotive and compelling; sharp and sensible; an A++...I beleive there hasn't been a re-make, that's because this film was worth the time & effort. The book is super; this movie did not take away from that.
December 7, 2008
I'm not a big fan of Hemingway; I find him misogynistic and overly American. The misogyny transfers into this film, which is disappointing. The no-holds-barred look at this couple's relationship, and WWI was good though. The one thing I really enjoyed was the actor who played Rinaldi--fantastic!
December 7, 2008
The actor who played Rinaldi really stole the show in this version of Hemingway's novel. I can't say I'm a big Hemingway fan, and his misogynistic attitude really comes out in the way he wrote the main female character. However, the horrible truths of WWI come through in this '50s film.
November 2, 2008
I don't think Hemingway transfers well to film. The acting was poor. In general, it felt dated and overdramatized.
September 23, 2008
Good adaptation of a Hemingway classic!
½ August 27, 2008
I liked the book better; however; the movie is also very good.
August 26, 2008
hemingway as an author, is not an easy read and even more dififcult to get his story on celluloid; yet this movie almost gets there.
Super Reviewer
July 23, 2008
nominated for best picture by NBR
May 19, 2008
"Adeus às Armas", como todo mundo deve estar cansado de saber, é uma adaptação do clássico homônimo do Hemingway. O filme tem toda aquela aura de épico dos anos 50, com seus prós e contras.

Para começar, as qualidades do filme: a fotografia é bem bonita, os cenários idem e a quantidade de figurantes denota como deve ter sido um filme caro e bem cuidado. Outro acerto do filme é a presença do Rock Hudson como o americano Frederick. Além de se adequar muito bem à carcaça de galã perturbado de uma narrativa do Hemingway, o ator está muito bonito, dum jeito clássico e natural que é difícil encontrar hoje em dia. E não é só isso: acerta bem no tom de heroísmo (?) e senso de sobrevivência que a história pede.

Por outro lado, a Jennifer Jones destrói a enfermeira britânica Cat, a outra protagonista. O personagem, que já era submisso no livro, ganha ares insuportáveis. A atriz é cheia de caras e bocas irritantes e parece a Betty Faria de hoje em dia. Com direito a um look botox e maçãs da boca à la Mariah Carey. Sem contar que o diretor - ou a atriz, sabe-se lá - parece não entender um certo cinismo da protagonista do livro, que vira uma típica heroína romântica chata, com direito a espasmos de Pollyanna, arght.

Aliás, falando em diretor, ele parece ser o culpado de tudo de ruim no filme. A forma como são construídos os personagens periféricos é risível e totalmente diferente do que ocorre no livro. Aos italianos é dado um tratamento macarrônico e mais do que caricato. Às enfermeiras é dado um approach "Capricho". Sei lá, fiquei com a nítida impressão de que houve um problema sério de compreensão do universo do livro. Na minha humilde percepção, não havia nada pastelão na história original. As piadinhas e humor eram sutis, com nuances de cinismo e escapismo, apontando para um momento em que a vontade era esquecer do horror de uma guerra. Não havia o humor quase SBT...

Outra impressão que fica é de que o filme é muito barulho para pouco. Longo demais e com destaque para coisas menos importantes, que recebem uma abordagem equivocada. As boas exceções estão no último terço do filme: as cenas fortes da guerra e a fuga para a Suíça.
April 22, 2008
Great wartime movie very romantic!
½ April 17, 2008
[size=3]A farewell to Arms[/size]
[size=3]1957[/size]
[size=3]Directed by Charles Vidor[/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3]?A Farewell to Arms? is not a good movie in my opinion. The bleak spirit of Hemmingway?s novel is lost in the transition to the silver screen. While the film generally sticks to the events of the novel, (with some minor and major changes at various points) and some of the dialogue is intact. The feelings evoked by the novel?s plaintive and single minded writings are gone. And it has been replaced by a sweeping Hollywood-ized version of ?love?. The lengthy narrative descriptions of landscapes are missing in action as well. The first bit of the novel where Lt. Henry describes tired men marching through the mud has been replaced by a simple ?it was nice?? , by Rock Hudson in his wooden way. To sum up the similarities of the novel and the film is as simple as this: They end beyond the context of events and characters. [/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3]History tells us that the events of ?A Farewell to Arms? are accurate by dates, and since nearly none of us were there, none of us can testify how accurate A Farewell to Arms is aside from the dates. To me, ?A Farewell to Arms? Is like some small skirmish is being fought with lots of people.The chaos and furious roar of a war just isn?t present. In fact it?s kind of boring and uneventful. There is one fantastic ?war? scene in the film, when the priest stays behind with the wounded and dying in a bombarded building after a general retreat was announced. That particular scene was well constructed. And the scene where the mountain is being bombed, while the explosions are in place and it is very loud a certain intensity is lost due to the overly tame treatment of violence in the film. The amount of extras is impressive but for the most part all they do is march up and down in straight lines.[/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3]Among the rose colored hues of this film, a shallow, a drawn out feeling lurks. The feeling is there after the film is finished and it decreased what little enjoyment I did derive from the film. The film is overly long, and wastes stretches of time developing two boring people who you really do not feel that terribly passionate about. In my opinion, ?A Farewell to Arms? marks the beginning of the end of classic ?epics? and blockbusters. Spartacus and Ben Hur came after it and exceeded at being old fashioned entertainment. The full realization of modern American cinema in the 60s was a godsend. Finally, complex characterizations allowed films to expand past ham fisted theatrics with levels of subtlety rare in previous big studio films. This adaptation of ?A Farewell to Arms? is in my opinion more a farewell to the things that held a faithful adaptation of ?A Farewell to Arms? back. Sadly, the novel was never fully realized on screen.[/size]
½ March 16, 2008
The movie was too dark, couldn't tell what was happening half the time; the dialogue sucked, voice recording was bad, again, you couldn't tell what was going on. The director completely misportrayed Rinaldi as a jelous and malevolent. By the end of the movie, you were wondering what was happening and were happy that it was finally over
January 23, 2008
Hemingway is an author who will never be done justice on the big screen. That being said, this is probably as good an adaptation as you could hope for.
½ January 19, 2008
A great love affair film with Rock Hudson.
½ January 4, 2008
I think I need to re-read the book. First time around, it was painful. But the movie was better. Catherine wasnt as nutty as she was in the book though, which took away a bit.
December 1, 2007
A good story not well told. Bad acting and the most depressing ending of a movie ever!
August 27, 2007
Great movie. Keep a tissue box with you near the end.
Page 2 of 3