Watch Our Town For Free

Just perfect...

Absolutely the worst movie.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This Hollywood feature should have been right down my street, being from the Golden Age, being based on a Thornton Wilder play and starring a very young William Holden, but it just failed to gather me into its town limits, being really just too saccharine to be true. I liked some of the devices used, even as I expect they owe their origins to the original theatrical production, like the use of the narrator, especially his first appearance when he almost casually foretells the deaths of characters we've barely even met and of course Martha Scott's Emily character's near-death experience which sees her communicate with the town's recently departed as she fights for her life. I understand the film's avowed celebration of small-town values and community, but really the film has no tension points at all to get worked up about. William Holden's dutiful teenage son takes an eternity to talk his girlfriend into accepting a proposal of marriage and Scott's later return from the dead is filled with so much golly-gosh incredulity and winsomeness that you almost couldn't care whether she makes it or not. The acting is all very dutiful and rounded with no-one standing out exceptionally, even Holden, almost unrecognisable as the safe and secure boy next door. I didn't get any sense at all that this was a representation of real-life with almost every character being cardboard-thin and their lives being painfully dull and boring. Our town, you wouldn't want to visit there, never mind live there.

I read the play in High School in the early 1960s. Along with "Bridge of San Luis Rey." Both, I thought were excellent. There is something about remembering the past, looking at the past, thinking about those who have died, have left our lifes. "Goodbye Mr. Chips." "Chariots of Fire." To recall two famous works.I have never seen the play on stage. And I don't think this movie adaptation is the best format. I do recall seeing a filmed stage performance that was much better--partly because in the end, Emily dies, and partly because a stage set seems to do so much with minimal props; hence, dialogue becomes emphasized.The stage manager breaking that fourth wall and speaking to the audience would be used by George Burns in his TV program. Some moments of the film seemed to be techniques borrowed from Hitchcock. The Aaron Copeland score didn't overwhelm the drama.Wilder apparently approved of this film ending where Emily lives instead of dying, as in the stage play. That adaptation makes the ending corny. Does it detract from the play? I think it does. The whole point of the play is the mundane becomes profound, creating a connection from one human being to another. We connect when we interact and we interact at mundane moments. Sadly, death is one of those mundane (and profound) moments. And not having Emily die, seems to trivialize the play.There was a line toward the end of the movie. Emily says: we interact but don't seem to connect. In this day and age of Facebook, twitter, email, the world wide web--it struck a modern cord--we interact and yet fail to connect.The play works; this move--because Emily doesn't die--fails. "Goodbye Mr. Chips" works because Mr. Chips and the school boys are all exposed for their frailty. Mr. Chips as a barely competent teacher and the students for being prigs, as all students are. And "Mr. Chips" works because he survived and endured for what 50 years--and that scope of time adds to the gravitas that became Mr. Chips. (Had he died early in his teaching career--it would be absurdest drama.) "Chariots of Fire" works because we are looking back from a perspective of the 1970s to the 1920s and memory is emblazoned as the theme of the movie, memory enshrined in trophies and the moral imperative those trophies symbolize.I recommend the movie because it is film adaptation that Thornton Wilder approved. But any filmed stage presentation is better when it adheres to the original Thornton Wilder stage play.

Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" is considered an American classic and it's a play that is often discussed in schools here in the States. Because of this, I was somewhat familiar with the story and remember disliking it. However, it seems that this was because instead of watching the play being performed or watching this movie (that was adapted by Wilder for the screen), my class in middle school read the play--the worst possible way to understand and appreciate it. Now, 35 years later, I finally got around to seeing it like it should be seen--and I am glad I did.This is an interesting play because of its cast. In addition to a lot of familiar supporting actors such as Guy Kibbee, Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchell and Frank Craven (who assisted Wilder with the screenplay), the film marks the debut of Martha Scott and William Holden. I really appreciate how many of the actors are the same folks who starred in the Broadway play and how the studio let Wilder keep control of his script--this, unfortunately, is pretty rare. Too often, a studio buys a play and then completely changes it--showing utter contempt for the actors and playwright.As far as the story goes, it's quite peculiar in style. The closest film I can think of like this is the film version of Eugene O'Neill's "Strange Interlude"--but the O'Neill play didn't really work well on screen. Both featured characters speaking their thoughts out loud to the audience--an unusual innovation to say the least. Another innovation in "Our Town" is having the character of the Mr. Morgan (Craven) also acting as the narrator. Because of this unusual style and the leisurely pace of the film, it's one that might lose viewers who don't have the patience to stick with this one. Don't give up--especially when the film gets depressing--it's a delight and the payoff is definitely worth the long wait.Impressively written, full of wonderful performances and expertly directed, this one is well worth seeing. And, fortunately, since it's in the public domain, it's downloadable from the link on IMDb. Give it a chance--it's a delightful piece of Americana.

Thornton Wilder's classic play is brought to the screen very well in this mostly faithful adaptation. The story is touching, the production values excellent.It's one of the most performed plays even to this day, relating the story of some ordinary townsfolk in a very ordinary place called Grover's Corners, in the early 20th century. The people depicted, of course, represent pretty much, everyone. Its sentimentality seems to have inspired similar stories; notice the parallels to "It's a Wonderful Life," for example. This story has a slightly darker outlook than Wonderful Life, however. The movie only takes one liberty on reworking Wilder's original drama, perhaps to soften the blow of an intensely tragic scene. The slight tampering does not detract from the powerfully emotional and pivotal speech by the central character, Emily, however, since her speech precedes the event that is altered. The story's simple yet profound moral is effectively communicated.The director and cast clearly had affection for each and every character, and it shows in the level of humanity brought to these characters, so that you can care about them as real people, as well as their feelings, aspirations, and fates. A beautiful tale, brought to life by a wonderful cast and expert direction. This one is definitely a classic worth seeing.