Really Surprised!

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

"...a cold and failed adaptation of a good book by Somerset Maugham." yes, indeed. if Somerset Maugham's novel was as bad, pretentious and hollow like this film, his novels or short stories would not have survived after one printed edition. this film was poorly adapted by a pin head, then directed by an absolutely non-talent director and furthermore, with terrible casting. yes, we got some of the familiar actors played the main characters of this novel, but most of the chosen actors were just looked so awful in acting that obviously was resulted from a bad screenplay with terrible dialog which made all of the players looked rigid, unnaturally pretentious. i hate to see the guy who played Somerset Maugham, an actor who couldn't even open his eyes normally, the guy in the film looked like a walking stiff. at the opening scene, we saw all the characters were stupidly introduced in a banquet, a party dotted with stupid, boring and pretentious conversation. from such poor arrangement to usher in all the leading roles one by one with stupid dialog and pretentious performances almost by everyone, the film was doomed to be a bad one, as bad as a B movie or TV soap opera. I couldn't believe this movie even got an Oscar or some worthless nominations. if Somerset Maugham himself would now that his novel had been adapted into such lousy film, he might have turned in his grave quite a few times. you guys who gave this film high praises with mucho stars got to have you brains checked right away, because this is an awful film so painful to watch.

Being an intellectually engrossing, enormously stylish, deeply emotional picture, The Razor's Edge is both the most captivating and the most satisfying adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's inspiring novel of the same title. Even though in its core subject the film has much to do with spirituality and self-realization, it also ponders such considerable topics as obsession, greed, alcoholism, war-related traumas, etc. Wrapped up in a neat package of astounding visuals and fascinating camera shots, The Razor's Edge proves to be a very successful collaboration between the director Edmund Goulding and the cinematographer Arthur C. Miller. Splendid performances by the stellar cast only confirm that The Razor's Edge is an irrefutable masterpiece of the Golden Era of Hollywood.The literate and dramatic script gives a thorough psychological insight into all the character's minds. Tyrone Power plays Larry Darrell, the main character, who is about to begin a long and demanding search for the true meaning of life. Gene Tierney is his fiancée Isabel Bradley, a girl who tries to trap him into a marriage she wants, but ultimately realizes that she won't be able to. Clifton Webb is Elliott Templeton, a shallow, pompous, and supercilious uncle who – surprisingly so – turns out to be a rather likable and reliable old gentleman.Larry goes to France and then to India, discovering many new facts about life and fulfilling his destiny as the passionate truth-seeker. In the meantime, Isabel marries Gray Maturin (John Payne), a man who's always been in love with her. Along with her uncle and a few relatives they move to a classy palace located in France and stay there until the heavy depression hits them really hard.The turning point of the film comes when a long-time family friend Sophie MacDonald (devastating performance by Anne Baxter) loses her husband and child in a car crash and starts drinking in order to forget about this horrible accident. After a while, all the characters meet up in France at the most unexpected time. Though married, Isabel is still fully in love with Larry. He, on the other hand, decides to help poor Sophie and proposes to her instead. Thing turn ugly, as Isabel tries to cause Sophie's final fall into alcoholism and dejection, just to get Larry only for herself. As the obsessive behavior progresses, she realizes that many people, even those that she truly cared about, desert her.Starting in the period ingeniously named the roaring 20's and following up to the difficult times of the Great Depression, the film exhibits – in an utterly realistic manner – how a social and economic situation in the USA shaped the way people corresponded to one another. Pretentious, shallow and greedy members of the aristocracy cared only about their own, mostly material, needs. However, after the horrible stock market crash in 1929 everything suddenly changed. It's perfectly exemplified in the way Isabel Bradley's closest relatives handled the loss of money, and how it actually lead up to the beginning of the respected family's end.Undoubtedly, Tyrone Power's performance is the greatest force of this picture. Avoiding many clichés, he presents a man who is as confused as he is curious about life in general. Handsome and charismatic, it's not hard to see why Gene Tierney was so obsessed with his persona. Her awe-inspiring portrayal of a woman who can't distinguish between what's good and what's bad is as convincing as it is heartbreaking. Exploring both an ill-fated love affair and a promising spiritual journey, the film is a 144-minute ode to effective and convincing filmmaking. Enhanced by marvelous supporting performances, The Razor's Edge cuts deep and uncovers a deeply sorrowful intrigue, promising neither second chances nor happy endings.

Old Hollywood was always in trouble when dealing with Deep Think. That's because of the medium's commercial nature. When flirting with spiritual or religious beliefs, the studios simply didn't want to risk offending potential ticket buyers. So, when dealing with Deep Think (not their many biblical epics which were unabashedly Christian), the studios compromised to the point of absurdity by either flattening out the message or trivializing it. Here it's trivialized. After all, who's against Goodness. As a result, we wait 145-minutes to find out that, yes, Goodness is in fact a good and noble thing, and with that, Larry (Power) is on his way to enlightenment. And naturally, no one's offended, except maybe those who had expected something more.Of course, the profundity is wrapped in lavishly mounted studio soap opera, with two of Hollywood's most beautiful people surrounded by whirling hosts of well-clothed extras. In fact, that opening ballroom scene is a marvel of orchestrated staging as the characters are introduced by serially playing off one another. At the spectrum's other end, however, is that dreadful monastery scene with its painted mountain backdrop and facile dialog. Flattening the import of that pivotal scene are the repeated references to god as though that's where all paths must inevitably lead. And that's along with the spectacular alpine vistas fairly shouting celestial light from a heavenly above. I'm sure all that window dressing comforted nervous audiences who could then wink at Larry's spiritual quest and not feel the least bit threatened. But it also reduced a profound subject to a superficial level.Another area that gets a Hollywood treatment are values and class, always tricky topics for an industry backed by Wall Street. The movie goes to pains circulating Larry among the gilded elite of Chicago as epitomized by the petulantly snobbish Templeton (Webb) and the selfishly insulated Isabel (Tierney). But, the elite's values are clearly materialistic, a spiritual dead-end in Larry's view as he heads off to learn from suffering with the working class. The screenplay thus sets up an implicit critique of the gilded class and the values that guide them. Well and good. But then the screenwriters can't seem to decide what to do with this point of view; after all, that's another touchy topic among audiences, especially coming so soon after the societal upheaval of the 1930's.As a result, Larry never really criticizes the peer group he's been a part of, never really explains, that is, why he sees his social class as a spiritual dead-end, which of course would delve into a socially touchy subject. Nor, for that matter, does Larry explain why "salvation" lies through sharing a working class experience. We're left, I guess, to suppose the answer has to do with the suffering caused by hard physical labor and poor pay this class must endure. This subtext, however, is never really brought to the surface and remains unresolved at movie's end. Thus, big studio TCF and its head honcho, producer Zanuck, nibble around a second tinderbox topic, tantalizing us but never really delivering.The movie does have a definite upside. For one, it's exquisitely well photographed, compensating somewhat for the 2-hour-plus run time. At the same time, the ballroom scenes are especially well choreographed and lavishly upholstered, creating an impressive air of wealth and breeding that makes Larry's renunciation a genuine material sacrifice. Then too, there's Webb's lively version of an unregenerate snob, a character he could do to waspish perfection. Also, Marshall's quietly observant author provides a needed contemplative note. However, in the film's pivotal role Power fails to provide the needed depth his character requires, or as another reviewer observes, Larry is pretty much the same after his trip to India as he was before. Fortunately, Power would later find that depth in Nightmare Alley (1947).All in all, the movie remains an overlong visual treat that fortunately includes the exquisite Tierney. But as one might expect from old Hollywood, the film fails crucially at coming to grips with its two overriding themes—spirituality and class. As a result, two of life's most important questions are given unchallenging treatment. In short, here as elsewhere, where Deep Think is concerned, commercialism precedes all else.

I am still haunted by the painted backdrop of mountains in that Himalayan monastery. While this movie has so many stunning, expensive scenes, for example, a nightclub full of dozens of authentically looking and dressed extras while the camera catches it all panning the scene, the cheapness of this backdrop is glaring.Another example, The director brilliantly involves us in Larry's existential angst, looking to find out what life is all about There is a great scene with a defrocked priest. Yet, when Larry gets to that phony looking monastery to finally get THE answer, we hear only ambiguous platitudes from the great maven of the upper regions. I know that not much more can be expected, but it does weaken the movie by being included.Still, the Paris scenes are great. Tierney is at her thespian best; her great beauty adds to the ambivalence we feel about her character. Power is right for his part and does a first rate job, as do Webb, Watson, and Marshall. Baxter looked to me like she was being directed by C. B. DeMille. Payne looked like he wasn't directed at all.