Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

James Stewart.

I watched this today. It's about a guy who gets appointed to be senator and without any political experience and tries to get a bill passed. Other senators get in the way and Mr. Smith tries to take them down. A more detailed description can be found, so I won't go any farther.

Overall it was pretty good. There were a few scenes that I felt weren't necessary and sort of slowed down the movie. The ending is really dramatic, but I felt it was a little chopped off. I would've liked it to go on a little farther. Some things are left hanging and I think that ruins it.

I give this an 80/100.

Damn! You beat me to it. This is my movie for tonight. Review will be up later...like 9 hours or so from now.

catbox_9 wrote:

Damn! You beat me to it. This is my movie for tonight. Review will be up later...like 9 hours or so from now.

HAHA! That's a coincidence.

I can't wait for this review.

cdurbfan22 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Damn!darn You beat me to it. This is my movie for tonight. Review will be up later...like 9 hours or so from now.

HAHA! That's a coincidence.

I can't wait for this review.

Well we were discussing this in the chat yesterday. I knew he was going to watch it today. I thought he might be slow with the review...nope!

I'll write a longer review than him I guess.

EDIT: I really need to watch my language! I'm a rebel I tell you - a rebel without a cause. Like that guy in that movie.

catbox_9 wrote:

cdurbfan22 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Damn!darn You beat me to it. This is my movie for tonight. Review will be up later...like 9 hours or so from now.

HAHA! That's a coincidence.

I can't wait for this review.

Well we were discussing this in the chat yesterday. I knew he was going to watch it today. I thought he might be slow with the review...nope!

I'll write a longer review than him I guess.

EDIT: I really need to watch my language! I'm a rebel I tell you - a rebel without a cause. Like that guy in that movie.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?! If I had a problem with it, don't you think I would tell you.

LOL. I just wanted to say that rebel thing which of course is a line ripped off from (where else?) The Simpsons.

"He's a rebel I tell ya! A rebel without a cause ...just like the boy in that popular movie we saw"

That line is rather similar to his line "It's like something out of that twilighty show about that zone"

Okay, here comes the review!

As is probably pretty obvious, this film is about a guy, Mr. Jefferson Smith, who goes to Washington, D.C. He is appointed Senator and his job is to follow along and do what he's told. That's not what happens and the rest goes into more detail than is necessary so that's enough of that.

As for the plot, it starts a little slow. The way Smith was chosen to be appointed was almost comical, but that's okay - you knew he was going to be picked so it didn't really matter how they did it. Smith's arrival in Washington is a little dull to watch, but it shows his ideals which are important throughout the film so these scenes are, in retrospect, necessary. Once everything was finally established the plot got pretty good. Without giving away too much plot information, I thought the ending felt a little rushed. It pretty much told the viewer what they needed to know, so I guess it was okay but I'd have liked to see the movie be another ten minutes long or so. Also, while Stewart's filibuster scene was probably the most memorable one in the film there is a slight problem - in 1917 Woodrow Wilson adopted a way to end a filibuster. The senate could invoke cloture and if a super majority (60% of the Senators) was in agreement they could have forced Mr. Smith to stop talking. Then again, it could be argued that most of the Senators didn't really care about any of this and would have no reason to stop him - only a few of them were corrupt.

This film stars Jean Arthur and James Stewart. Once again, James Stewart does a terrific job. While I tend to like his performance in Vertigo better than this, it was still pretty good - especially during his filibuster in the United States Senate. Arthur also does a pretty good job. She's known mostly for her roles in screwball comedies and that shows a little here. Here character is at times reasonably comical which doesn't appear to be a complete necessity. Despite that, she is still pretty good and these comedic moments don't really distract from the film in any significant ways.

In addition to its entertainment value, this film has an important message - one man can make a difference. Whether or not the viewer believes this may have some sort of effect on their view of the film, but probably not to all that great of an extent - this man did make a difference. Also, this film is at least somewhat useful in teaching the viewer how government works. While it's debatable as to whether government is corrupt like in this film, the basic principles on what a filibuster is, how a bill is passed, etc. are applicable. Because of this, just about every high school political science class will watch at least part of this film when learning about how the Senate works.

Overall, this film is pretty good. It has a few faults as noted earlier, but it is able to more than make up for those. This is one of the most well-received films of all-time and I think it lives up to its billing.

85/100
B

UP NEXT: Why not something that'll almost certainly be terrible - The Sunshine Boys.

Loved this one -- 90/100

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Loved this one -- 90/100

That's been logged.

And I thought I was a high scorer...

Wow an 85/100...I'm

I think I would give this about an 92/100.

bobrob2004 wrote:

And I thought I was a high scorer...

IMDb.com gives it an 8.3/10 (which correlates to 83/100). My score (85) is reasonably close to that although I must say I don't look at those scores until after I assign a score myself.

As my review stated, this has a few problems, but it's just too good of a performance by Stewart to be ignored.

What's funny is I've seen Stewart in a lot of movies and he was excellent in all of them but one - The Philadelphia Story which happens to be the only movie he won Best Actor for.

cdurbfan22 wrote:

Wow an 85/100...I'm

I think I would give this about an 92/100.

Your score has also been logged.

CONGRATULATIONS! This is the first movie in the history of DTF1 to have 4 reviews

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

And I thought I was a high scorer...

IMDb.com gives it an 8.3/10 (which correlates to 83/100). My score (85) is reasonably close to that although I must say I don't look at those scores until after I assign a score myself.

As my review stated, this has a few problems, but it's just too good of a performance by Stewart to be ignored.

What's funny is I've seen Stewart in a lot of movies and he was excellent in all of them but one - The Philadelphia Story which happens to be the only movie he won Best Actor for.

I wasn't really referring to your score, but the other two (90/100 and 92/100). It was good, like you said, but I penalized the flaws more than you.

catbox_9 wrote:

CONGRATULATIONS! This is the first movie in the history of DTF1 to have 4 reviews

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

And I thought I was a high scorer...

IMDb.com gives it an 8.3/10 (which correlates to 83/100). My score (85) is reasonably close to that although I must say I don't look at those scores until after I assign a score myself.

As my review stated, this has a few problems, but it's just too good of a performance by Stewart to be ignored.

What's funny is I've seen Stewart in a lot of movies and he was excellent in all of them but one - The Philadelphia Story which happens to be the only movie he won Best Actor for.

I wasn't really referring to your score, but the other two (90/100 and 92/100). It was good, like you said, but I penalized the flaws more than you.

How I treat flaws really depends on the movie. Some movies, like The Untouchables have flaws that are not overcome by brilliant acting, great moral implications, etc. and are going to be penalized severely. I think I said in my review I took off 15 points specifically for two major flaws and then continued penalizing from there. I'd have to look into it, but this is probably the most flawed film I've reviewed that managed a B or better.

For those of you that are fans of this movie and The Simpsons you should check out the episode "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington" which is an outstanding episode and references this movie quite heavily.

If you're really a fan perhaps check out "Beyond Blunderdome" which guest stars Mel Gibson who stars in a remake of this movie. This episode is pretty bad though so be careful.

catbox_9 wrote:

For those of you that are fans of this movie and The Simpsons you should check out the episode "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington" which is an outstanding episode and references this movie quite heavily.

If you're really a fan perhaps check out "Beyond Blunderdome" which guest stars Mel Gibson who stars in a remake of this movie. This episode is pretty bad though so be careful.

Only you ...

10/100 for this movie

Paul McCartney Fan 1987 wrote:

10/100 for this movie

Really? Any reason?

just didnt enjoy it as much
watched it along time ago

cdurbfan22 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

For those of you that are fans of this movie and The Simpsons you should check out the episode "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington" which is an outstanding episode and references this movie quite heavily.

If you're really a fan perhaps check out "Beyond Blunderdome" which guest stars Mel Gibson who stars in a remake of this movie. This episode is pretty bad though so be careful.

Only you ...

I just rewatched both of those episodes (well, hours ago but I'll say "just" anyways).

"Mr. Lisa Goes To Washington" is better as I said. It actually doesn't copy the plot as closely as I thought it did. I mean, sure, it has allusions to this movie but not as many as I thought. Great episode though.

"Beyond Blunderdome" wasn't quite as bad as I remembered although it is still not that great and most Simpsons scholars (I just said that ) would call this episode amongst the worst in the history of the series. It does contain plenty of allusions to the movie though. It depicts the now famous filibuster scene twice - the first with Mel Gibson portraying it similar to the way Stewart did. Homer complained that it was boring and "At least the Jimmy Stewart version had the giant rabbit who ran the savings and loan!" This of course is actually a reference to It's a Wonderful Life and Harvey.

The second depiction of the filibuster scene is a more action-packed remake where Gibson kills everyone. This was kind of funny. If a movie actually remade this film with that scene instead of the filibuster scene I would probably give it 0/100 for destroying this movie. Homer's explanation for this change is reasonably funny as well - the country was doing great when the film came out so people wanted a "boring" scene. Of course 1939 was in the middle of the Depression so I'm not sure you can say the country was doing that great :haha:

That concludes today's lessons on The Simpsons.

That last post got me to thinking. I haven't explicitly said this is any of my reviews but this should be said in every film that gets a good review (especially if it was made prior to 1960).

For the love of God DO NOT remake this film. There are people on IMDb.com suggesting this film should be remade and offering their casting opinions. Remaking a film can never accomplish anything meaningful unless it was a terrible film to begin with. I mean why not repaint the Mona Lisa but larger? Any remade classic will lose 25 points during the opening credits and be further penalized from there.

The following two films are supposedly going to be remade in the next year or two:
The Birds
East of Eden
Who in their right mind would think that is a good idea? Nobody, and I mean nobody, is Alfred Hitchcock. While I wasn't particularly fond of The Birds there is absolutely no reason to remake it. At least in Hitchcock's version all those birds were real, live birds. A new one will be noting but CGI crap.

Then there's East of Eden. I haven't seen that yet but how can you remake that? Who are you going to get to play James Dean's character? Dean isn't the greatest actor ever but you can't get anyone like him. It has often been said that dying was a great career move for Dean. Whoever plays him would need to die tragically in their early- to mid-twenties as well and good luck finding someone to volunteer for that.

EDIT: Well, that's two very long posts that have nothing to do with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington