Watch All My Sons For Free

Brilliant and touching

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Without a doubt, the late Arthur Miller is best known for his play, Death of a Salesman. Yet, he did write some other notable plays and screen plays, and All My Sons is a little gem, very well presented as a movie here. I have seen this movie twice on TCM in the last month and the more I see it the more I love it.This drama is about a self-made man, Joe Keller (Edward G. Robinson), who owns a machine plant that produces airplane parts during World War II. He and his partner, Herbert Deever (Frank Conroy), had profited heavily from military contracts during the war. But, when it was discovered that they had sent out defective parts to keep their army contract--and that these defective parts had cost several army airmen their lives--it had put the plant under a cloud. When the scandal hit the plant, Joe was able to sidestep the scandal while his partner, Deever, was sent to jail.As the drama opens, Joe is trying to convince his son, Chris (Brut Lancaser) to join him in the business. Chris is dating Deever's daughter, Ann (Louisa Horton), who had previously been in love with Chris' older brother before he was killed in the war. Although the relationship between the Kellers and the Deevers had been strained by the plant scandal, the two Deever children, Ann and her brother Geroge (Howard Duff), remained fairly close to the Kellers. The Deever children had known Joe as their father's partner, since childhood. And, Chris, Ann, and George were practically raised together as brothers and sisters.Joe is able to put the scandal behind him and remain a proud pillar of the community. He is well liked by his neighbors, mainly for the way he had cleverly survived the scandal. In fact, he seems so untouched by the scandal that even his son, Chris, is unaware of any role that his father may have had in it. The truth about Joe's involvement in the scandal is uncovered in a sudden turn of events--events that would change everyone forever. This movie may seem dated to some. Yet, to me, it seems as topical today as it was then. All one need do is to think about the many screw-ups in Bush's War to realize that we haven't come that far in the last 60 years.I can't imagine a better performance of this play than the one presented here. This was Burt Lancaster's fifth screen appearance, and his role is more sensitive than moviegoers had seen until this point. Still, he seems up to the challenge and I'm sure this role helped to prove his versatility. Most of the women in the movie were—and are-- fairly unknown. Yet, Mady Christians was notable as Joe's wife, Kate.However, the movie is just dominated by Edward G. Robinson in his role as Joe. Joe is as important to this play as Willy Loman is to Death of a Salesman. Though I am used to seeing great performances out of Robinson, I think this is one of his very best. In fact, I think it was worthy of an Oscar in the 1949. But, alas, Robinson wasn't even nominated.

Irving Reis's "All My Sons" is based on one of Arthur Miller's lesser known plays, but I would call it just as important as "Death of a Salesman" or "The Crucible". Edward G. Robinson's businessman is the embodiment of evil. It's easy to see this as a one-time story, but it has repeatedly happened. From insufficiently armored Humvees in Iraq to peanut butter tainted with listeria (when the CEO knew that it was), these stories are a rebuttal to all who rail against regulations. Regulations exist to keep society safe: building codes, speed limits, etc. The idea that the market will solve everything results in the sale of dangerous products and the refusal to maintain infrastructure, leading to bridges collapsing. Does the relative of a celebrity have to get killed in a collapsing bridge before we fix our infrastructure?Anyway, this is a good movie. Everyone should see it. No surprise that many of the performers faced HUAC.

Arthur Miller has always been my favourite playwright and All My Sons my favourite of all of his plays. The film version really impressed me as they were able to make the film come alive in an interesting, new and exciting way. The shots were meaningful, but not pretentious. The acting work of Edward G. Robinson as the tragic Joe Keller, was a poor casting choice, although his acting was inspired. The subtle ways his character would speak volumes without saying a word. Unfortunately because Robinson is not sympathetic it affects the impact of the end of the film. His acting choices were not the issue. The film needed (as another reviewer mentioned) a Spencer Tracy type. Someone the audience wanted to root for. Mady Christians (Kate Keller) had few lines but we rarely wondered what was going on in her head. She was spot on in her subtleties. All the performances were well done...but...There were two things that bothered me about the film.The first was noticeable, however forgivable. I found that the delivery by Burt Lancaster (who played Chris) sounded like he was trying to act on stage. He spoke the lines with pronounced enunciation and flair. He did not overact in any way, but the way he delivered his lines felt forced, felt like I was watching the performance rather than watching life unfold.The next was a disappointment for me. However, if you have not read the play you wouldn't notice it at all. The end of the play is quite emotional and whenever I read it (about once a year) I find that I weep uncontrollably. The film did not have the same emotional impact, likely in part due to casting, and although it was still tragic it somehow came across with less impact than the words on the page.I am a filmmaker myself and it has always been my dream to remake All My Sons once I have garnered enough experience to do it right. I hope one day to do it justice.

Arthur Miller is one of our best authors. His play however reeks of a bias, that makes him seem ignorant of his own times. Without Industry, and the profit system, the US would not have won WWII. Rubber was one of those items needed to fight a modern war. And it was the "war profiters" who provided our nation with synthetic rubber. If your too young to remember, ask your grandfather or Dad about the rubber shortage. If a writer wants to focus on immorality, why don't they start at the top, and blame those politicians and propagandists who get us into wars. Watch nearly every movie made from 1939 until 1945, and you will see what Playboy magazine called "Hollywood Go to War."People of German, Italian and Japanesse decent were racially and ethnically played in the worst possible way, and any artist worth his salt would agree that even a movie as great as Casablanca had its share of propaganda.Miller and Chester Erskine, who adapted Miller's play seemed an illogical indictment of anyone who made a profit during the war.Aircraft pistons are one part of an Aircraft. They are less likely to fail than compression rings, rods, bearings, electrical and hydraulic parts. Losing one piston, does not usually cause crashes.Writers may be clever about how they write, but they can sound awfully stupid writing dialog that has Joe Keller stating that he "beat an old stove up for scrap." Scrap is sold by the pound, not by condition.More importantly, both writers seem to be totally ignorant of the government and manufacturer's inspection systems. Manufactures would not accept "junk" material from a subcontractor. As aircraft are put together, each manufacturer assumes liability for the pieces they build. More than the Federal inspectors, they would not risk their contracts by routinely and criminally accepting faulty pistons. Miller and Erskine conveniently overlook that logic and fact, and concentrate on one character who probably would have been caught before the piston ever found its way into an aircraft.Before the aircraft was accepted by the military, it would be flown to its maximum performance standards. The military would also fly the aircraft in a test flight before sending it into combat. The failure of one piston, in an engine would not usually bring an aircraft down. This is particularly true of multi-engine aircraft. And perfectly good pistons have been known to break down occasionally. Producing perfectly good pistons that break is not a crime or immoral. Proving that a faulty piston caused 29 accidents, and was a crime, is legal fantasy.There may have been a million pistons produced in WWII. The sheer number makes it likely that some perfectly good pistons failed.Miller's and Erskine's play and film script becomes a tall tale to weave its "moral" failings of one man, or the industries that produced "The Arsenal" of Democracy.From the lowest person who pushed a broom, to the very capable men who made millions, Miller's seemed to go out of its way to indict the industry that provided the arms for the the millions in uniform. I would be foolish to defend the rotten apples, cowards, stupid mistakes, and expediencies which cost lives. It just makes me wonder why Miller picked on one piston manufacturer to make his clumsy points. I recall a line in the film dialog, where Joe Keller stated that he had been arrested and spent some time in jail, and the jury declared him innocent. Did Miller or Erskine ever attend a real criminal trial? Does he know what it takes to convict anyone in this country? Convincing a jury that a batch of bad pistons among millions caused 29 crashes goes beyond any real concept of the trail system.Why did Miller pick a fight with the men who made profits during the war? His play shows his contempt for such men, the film version softened his personal views.The film ignores some basic facts. A public trial opens up an opportunity for all sorts facts and evidence to surface. More importantly, since Joe Keller was acquitted, he could not be charged again. As the film opens, his reputation is already an open question with some in his circle of friends, and should have been fixed during the time the film opens. Neither Miller nor Erskine inject any new information into Keller's guilt or innocence. Whether Keller was sick or not on the day the "faulty" pistons were shipped, in any ordinary trial would have been investigated and regurgitated by Keller's defense team. Keller's statement at the dinner table, that" he had never been sick a day in his life" has as much resonance as the comments all men make at times, such as "I would have killed him".Miller doesn't know anything about American combat pilots. They were not inclined to go on suicide missions due to defects in family or friends.Miller should have written what it was like to have survived as a combat crew-member during the war. Or the moral anguish that officers had over sending men to their death. especially when mistakes were made. Did they have a moral struggle to admit they cost innocent lives?Miller's play is a fiction that goes beyond "literary license" and to this film lover, seems to be an effort at politics, rather than a morality play.I still do not understand the purpose for creating a character like Kate Keller. Anyone who continued to think her son was still alive three years after the war does not seem to be a stable person and more likely to commit suicide than the character of Joe Keller.