User reviews

An epic movie from Old Hollywood about Chinese farmer Wang (Paul Muni), his wife O-Lan (Luise Rainer), and their struggles with famine, locusts, and greed. Muni is terrific. He's a divisive actor for many. I think he's one of the best actors of his era. Others think he's hammy and over-the-top. Luise Rainer won an Oscar for her sensitive, quiet performance as O-Lan. Charley Grapewin brings his grizzled old-timer persona he used in many films to this one. He's great fun to watch whether he's in China or Oklahoma. Also winning an Oscar was the great cinematographer Karl Freund, possibly best known today for his Universal horror films. It's a beautiful-looking film. Obviously, the elephant in the room is the casting of white actors as some of the Chinese characters. That's going to be a deal-breaker for politically correct types. If you're one of them, just spare yourself the faux outrage and watch something else. For everybody else, check this out and enjoy a classic film with a lot to offer.

This is a bit long (2 hours, 20 minutes) but it had a a lot of the famous Pearl Buck novel in it. In other words, a lot of ground to cover.

It was soap-operish at times but had some visually dramatic moments, too, capped off by a locust attack at the end of the film. That was astounding to view. Considering this film is about 70 years old, the special-effects crew on this film did a spectacular job.

Paul Muni and Luise Rainer were award-winning actors in their day and they don't disappoint here, both giving powerful performances. The only problem is credibility as all the Asians are played by Caucasions and some of them, like Walter Connolly, just don't look real. I'd like to see a re-make of this movie with all-Asian actors, not for PC reasons but to simply make the story look and sound more credible.

From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called " The Good Earth." It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. ****

In the 30s and 40s, MGM had a penchant for (then) contemporary Chinese-oriented stories ('The Son-Daughter', 'Dragon Seed', 'Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo', etc.), and whether this was a preference, or whether there were just a lot of Chinese-design sets to keep occupied at the studio, the results were strangely moving. 'The Good Earth' is of course the finest of its genre, for any number of reasons.

From the very beginning of the picture, right after the lion's roar, we see the poignant tribute to Irving Thalberg, and we know that we are embarking on an important viewing experience. The scope of the story is very wide, and the filmmakers are up for the task. I was always struck by the abruptness of the final scene, but its power and beauty form an excellent example of the art achieved within the often cynical Hollywood film factory. And Lotus - the strangeness of her, and her dance, contrasted with the goodness of O-lan!

Aside from the oft-mentioned attributes of acting, photography and special effects, a major element in 'The Good Earth' is the score. Herbert Stothart may not be in the ranks of Hollywood's 'mighty handful' (Alfred Newman, Steiner, Tiomkin, Waxman, Herrmann), but his 'MGM-sound' scores regularly deliver the goods. True, Stothart had no hesitation in applying the syrup at first opportunity (one can imagine Louis B. Mayer positively ordering it), but in this picture, syrup gives way to sympathy. One of the pleasures of Hollywood's Golden Age films is that all the elements of a given film support each other, and great scores support not only the characters, but the entire film. Stothart's score is so sympathetic and so sincere, from the Main Title all the way through, and it enhances the story and the performances so naturally and at times transparently, that it must be considered a classic score. No great 'tunes' specifically, but plenty of effective mood, atmosphere and unabashed emotion. Many of today's audiences may find little to enjoy in such a combination, or they may be embarrassed by it, but I revel in it, as cinema such as this, which is delivered with such heart and good will is, especially in these times, nothing short of a gift.

The issue of non-Chinese playing Chinese characters has already been discussed on these pages, but I can only add: please, viewers, consider the film within the era that it was produced. The same kind of incongruity still happens today, perhaps not so much racially, but certainly culturally: Brad Pitt in 'Seven Years in Tibet', Keanu Reeves in 'Little Buddha', and other Americans getting plum roles in British-originated stories that become Hollywoodized, etc. When making 'Bhowani Junction', George Cukor considered using Indian actors, but vetoed any candidates in favor of familiar Hollywood faces. Never mind that in the 50s, as today, India had a huge film industry. It's just that those actors didn't fit into the Hollywood scheme of things. That speaks of box office more than political incorrectness. There is no doubt that fine actors like Philip Ahn should have gotten lead roles in pictures like 'The Good Earth', but at least we can enjoy them in supporting roles which carry a lot of weight in their own right. As time goes on, the context of past eras fades, while the films themselves, the really good ones, live on. There's plenty of opportunity for revisionist theses about issues like racial inequality in 1930s Hollywood, but for 138 minutes, it is compelling and moving to absorb onesself in the story and the atmosphere of 'The Good Earth'.

Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.

This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.

Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the "senior" Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.

Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.

Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want!

This is where the term "classic film" comes from. This is a wonderful story of a woman's bravery, courage and extreme loyalty. Poor Olan got sold to her uncaring husband, who through the years learned to appreciate her. (Yeah right, A PEARL!!)

Luise Rainer was the beautiful star who had won the Best Actress Oscar the year before for her small role (and what a waste of an oscar) in "The Great Zigfield". It really didn't show what, if any, talent she had other than her exotic beauty. But in "Good Earth" she shows that she can really act! Her beauty was erased and she had no great costumes either. People say that she didn't show any real emotions in this film. Like hell. Her character Olan is a shy and timid woman, with inner strength. She is quiet during parts of the film with only her eyes and body to convey her emotions. Example: those scenes during the fall of the city and when looters were being shot. If you people are saying that she doesn't act well in this film, you are NOT looking!

Paul Muni shows that he can act as well. His character is not a likeable one to me. He never sees her for what she is, until the very end of the story. A sweet loving and dedicated wife and mother, with her own special beauty. The greatest one of all, the beauty from within, like a pearl.

If you get a chance to see this film, watch it. You will see one of the best films that the golden age of Hollywood created.

The Good Earth is an engrossing tale of the hardships endured by a family of Chinese farmers and their surrounding community. When one hears the word "epic", one knows to expect a story with various ups and downs over an extended period of time. But these events are staged well by the director and interestingly shot by famous cinematographer Karl Freund. The film achieves a certain amount of realism by using a large number of extras and by incorporating an effective scene of swarming locusts in the film's climax. I also noticed several sequences of rapid montage scattered throughout that made me think of Eisenstein. But the best part of the film is Louise Rainer's portrayal of O-Lan. Although she doesn't cover an extended range of emotions, her performance is quite moving, perhaps because of its simplicity. She has wonderfully expressive and soulful eyes that elicit the viewer's sympathy; something about them or her appearance is slightly reminiscent of Falconetti's Joan of Arc. Of course, the performance and the film are not of that caliber, but if you enjoy Hollywood epic filmmaking, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

What Irving Thalberg did in making this film today would never be attempted again. Making a Chinese story with occidental players even if they are of the caliber of Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, Charley Grapewin, and Walter Connolly among others.

Perhaps it's partly because the story was written by a westerner, Pearl Buck who got a Pulitzer Prize for her novel in 1932. Ms. Buck, daughter of Chinese missionaries, probably brought China closer to the consciousness of America than any other person. Not the political struggles of China, but the lives and toil of the every day people we find in The Good Earth. Unfortunately later on, Pearl Buck became an apologist for the Kuomintang China of Chiang Kai-Shek in all its virtues and excesses. The rest of her literary output never matched The Good Earth.

In The Sundowners there is a great description of comparing China to Australia by Peter Ustinov. When asked the difference, Ustinov said China was very big and very full and Australia was very big and very empty. That's what you see in The Good Earth, China very big and very full of people, more than she can deal with at times.

The Good Earth tells the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) as a young man who purchases a wife from a large house where she was a slave. The woman O-Lan (Luise Rainer) bears him two sons and sees him through all the good times and bad they have, drought, famine, revolution, and a climatic locust plague.

Luise Rainer won the second of two consecutive Oscars for portraying O-Lan. She may have set some kind of record in that it has to be the leading player Oscar performance with the least amount of dialog. Everything she does practically is done with facial expressions, her performance could have been on a silent film with very minimal subtitles. I think only John Mills in Ryan's Daughter had fewer words and he was playing a mentally retarded man.

Muni is not always appreciative of how supportive she is in that male dominated culture. Rainer helps in the field, bears and raises the kids, does the housework. When Muni becomes a man of property he takes a Chinese second trophy wife who causes him a lot of grief. Still Rainer stoically bears it all. Still Muni is not a bad man and it's a tribute to the film and his acting and Buck's writing that you don't hate him and the culture gap is bridged.

We've got a group of oriental players now who do more than just Kung Fu movies. I'm surprised The Good Earth of all films has not been remade at this point. I'll bet the Chinese government would even let some American company do it on an actual location.

Till then we've got this great classic to appreciate and enjoy.

Although there are faults, THE GOOD EARTH manages to hold the viewer's interest in a lengthy film because of George Sidney's smoothly competent direction and the performances of PAUL MUNI, as the naive farmer Wang Lung, and to a lesser extent, LUISE RAINER as O-Lan, his peasant wife. Helpful too is the fact that the film's atmosphere is artfully crafted with sets and costumes that look lived in.

I've never been much of an admirer of Miss Rainer's acting style, but at least she seems credible in the role. However, her character is so passive that there are times when she appears to be sleep-walking through the part in an attempt to portray the completely submissive and meek nature of her lowly character. It gets tiresome after awhile and too one-note to stir much sympathy. She uses those big eyes and downcast expression to convey emotion but has very little to say about anything, which leaves Muni with a lot to do.

By contrast, PAUL MUNI is almost a little too animated as the young Chinese farmer who takes a wife because in a male dominated culture she'll help him harvest his crop and bear his children. But he has much more acting to do than Rainer (and ten times the amount of dialog) and does it well. He too was deserving of an award but instead he was nominated that year for another film.

CHARLEY GRAPEWIN and WALTER CONNOLLY are not exactly examples of good casting for the most prominent supporting roles as Asians. Both of them are hardly recognizable beneath their make-up, especially Connolly as the greedy, non-working uncle. I didn't know it was him until I read the credits. KEY Luke is fine as the eldest son and TILLY LOSCH makes an interesting, exotic creature as Lotus, the dancer.

But the story itself is a bit depressing, since it deals more with the hardships and bitter struggle against nature that all farmers have to endure than it does with any reward they have for their efforts.

The big crowd scene at a palace where Rainer almost gets shot as a looter is handled very effectively and, of course, the plague of locusts swarming across the fields is something spectacular to watch. These scenes have the sweep of an epic, but the story is more intimate and is really an examination of man's fortitude against nature.

For all of its trials and tribulations and its simple story of a man and woman who depend on the earth for a living, this can be highly depressing rather than inspirational in that there are many more grim scenes of failure than brief moments of success. The story is structured in such a way that you can almost see the downbeat threat looming over every scene. In other words, the gloom and doom elements of the story are going to alienate some viewers.

But serious movie-goers who love the classics of the '30s will probably be able to sit through this without too much trouble, although some cutting would have helped during the first hour where the pace is much too slow.

I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.

I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the "epics" of today.

...of course, the problem IS everyone has become a movie-critic...

For those people who thought "The Good Earth" was dull and not entertaining, I have nothing to say. They are entitled to their opinion, but they missed one of life's most important lesson's: Humility and loyalty.

I was fortunate to see this film when it was FIRST released - in 1939. It's wonderful story (Pearl S. Buck) written for film (Talbot Jennings) has stayed with me all through my long life. I saw it in a theater then; I found it in the "garbage bin" in Wal-Mart this year (2011) and bought it immediately....I had it in a huge collection I gave to a library in Los Angeles when I moved to Florida. The copy I have now was made from the original cut - there are black screens between big scenes. I don't remember that after all these years, but accept it was the way the early release looked. It doesn't bother me - it gives me more time to think of what I have just viewed and anxious to see what's next. To me, the story is so engrossing the length of the film doesn't even occur to me - I would have liked the ending to be longer, because "Olan, you are the earth" told the entire reason for the story of true love and devotion, to the extreme.....

I'm not even bothered by the question so many people asked of why Paul Muni ("Wang Lung") and Luise Rainer ("Olan") were cast instead-of Asians - I had never seen Ms. Rainer in any film, and have no idea why her Hollywood career faded. She was considered to be a great beauty. Paul Muni I've seen in other films, but he wasn't one of my favorites. Yes, I have always wondered how "Gone with the Wind" - beat it out of an award: actually, I thought "The Good Earth" was filmed in color. Now, I'm not even concerned about that - the STORY, the ultimate entirety of the film's huge scenes and huge cast dismisses any negative comment I could think of, or read.

Walter Connolly ("Uncle") and Charlie Grapewin ("Old Father") were perfectly cast and played their roles with great skill. All of the cast were consummate in their roles; director Sidney Franklin held a strong grip of the totality of the film and got it all right. As time progressed into a more modern era, the characters became more modern: except, "Olan" stayed the wonderful woman she was.

However - Ms. Rainer stole the entire movie. A good actress does not always need words to say. I feel the story of a peasant-farmer and his ex-slave wife, all of the troubles they encountered (and defeated), the entire cast presented an accurate portrayal of the story in those days - China. It is hard for me to visualize any re-make could be better, and feel any CGIs would be completely unnecessary. It is also hard for me to realize China's last emperor was alive when I went to Hawai'i in 1969......living a peasant-life, just as did "Wang Lung" and "Olan".

Anyone who views "The Good Earth" and doesn't readily understand that life is bigger than any of us, haven't really lived. It gets a 20 from me - I recommend it to every living soul.

The classic Buck novel gets the epic Hollywood treatment. It features beautiful cinematography and includes an impressive scene of a locust invasion. However, the film is too melodramatic and the acting is hammy. The characters are not well developed and it turns into a soap opera and goes on much too long. Muni, certainly a capable actor when given a role suited to his talents, seems miscast here, looking silly in Chinese makeup. Rainer, looking like Meryl Streep in "Sophie's Choice," plays Muni's wife as pathetic and depressed, almost shell-shocked, a one-note performance that won her a second consecutive Best Actress Oscar before she faded to obscurity.

Pearl Buck's story of the ups and downs of a Chinese peasant family is adapted for the screen in a stately and dignified manner. Extreme respect is paid to the characters, who are given ample screen time to mature and develop. The roles are filled by actors who are able to get inside their characters without ever giving the impression that they are `performing,' and their performances are all the richer for it.

The story begins on the wedding day of Wang Lung (Paul Muni), a kind and gentle farmer. His wife, O-Lan (Luise Rainer), bears his sons and quietly encourages him to pursue his dreams, no matter what sacrifices they entail from her. The family lives through a famine and finally achieves prosperity and success. However, with success comes greed and corruption, and soon Wang is buying large plots of land and the Great Hall at which O-Lan was a servant. Eventually, he takes a second wife and breaks ties with all who were once close to him. It takes a tragedy for him to see the error of his ways.

All the while O-Lan stands behind him, supporting every decision he makes in her own tranquil way. Rainer's Oscar winning portrayal, like O-Lan herself, is the glue that holds the story together. Muni, often prone to hamminess in his work, shows restraint here and contributes a beautiful, multifaceted performance. The cinematography, which also received an Oscar, is excellent, as are the special effects. A sequence which involves locusts, invading the crops by the million, is nothing short of unforgettable. It is storytelling in the grandest sense of the word, with strong characterizations, high production values, and an engrossing story which more than justifies `The Good Earth's status as a classic.

Let's eliminate any discussion about the use of non-Asian actors playing Asian roles. The movie is 67 years old. In 1937 studio chiefs believed that any actor could/should be able to play any role. Actors were under contracts, and did not always have a choice about what role they played. End of story.

This is a truly great epic story of love, individual rights, class strata, and men/women issues. The centerpiece of the film is two brilliant performances by Luise Rainer and Paul Muni.

Muni plays Wang, a Chinese farmer, who is about to take a wife (Rainer). From the start, he treats her with respect, during a time when women were looked on as little more than hired help. Without giving too much of the movie away, they go through the highs and lows of all relationships, and even though the story may take place in late 19th/early 20th century,the story and much of their feelings, seems credible.

Other than the fact that the movie is about 5-10 minutes longer than it needs to be, and the performances of Charley Grapewin and Walter Connolly are typical 1930's cartoon characters, this is a really wonderful movie that, unfortunately, has become a victim of political correctness.

9 out of 10

This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.

A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.

"The Good Earth" is a great movie that you don't hear much about anymore. There are a lot of big disasters and events, but it is also a non-passionate love story. All of this happens in a little over two hours, which is short by today's standards. The special effects and costumes are very good for the time period.

I am surprised that Luise Rainer received an Oscar for such a limiting role. She basically only has three emotions: submissive, hungry, and heart-broken.

The performances by the Asian and Asian-American actors are terrific.

1st watched 8/29/2009 - 7 out of 10 (Dir-Sidney Franklin): Well told account of farmers in China and their rise to prominence and struggles with what Mother nature throws at them. This movie is based on an award winning novel and chronicles a family starting with the son's arranged marriage to a slave girl. The movie does a good job of keeping your interest despite a somewhat hammy performance by the lead played by Paul Muni. It chronicles , Wong Long(the character played by Muni) and how he works the land, buys more land, eventually becomes very rich but then returns to the land where he originally started. The relationship between him and his wife, played by Luise Rainer, is the main thread of the story(besides the land itself) and despite the obvious non-Chinese actors it does a pretty good job of displaying the country and it's people. It's obvious that MGM used it's money to create a really good epic with this one in an era where they could probably afford it. The scene with the locusts is done exceedingly well and the rest of th movie really looks good warranting the Best Cinematography award at the Oscars in that year. The definitive definition of an epic is what this story is and it's pulled off pretty well.

This is one of those movies where you ask the question, "What else can go wrong?" The principle characters, played by Paul Muni and Louise Rainer are wonderful in their roles, even though they are not Asian. This is a story of the struggles of the people of the earth to make do. As farmers everywhere can attest, the harvest is never a done deal, and so many factors can destroy it. Here there is a sense of fortune, which is part of the Chinese culture. Pearl Buck lived in China and knew the ways of the people. Things are cyclical, so when the man prospers, it is fortune and wise living that works. Like so many men, as his wife ages, he begins to seek greener pastures, but, again, he is defying fortune. Soon there is a deconstruction of the fabric of his family, having to do with a sense of betrayal by his son. This is a magnificently filmed production with very fine acting by all involved. It's a benchmark film from a very fine book.

The story of a farmer in China: a story of humility and bravery. His father gives Wang Lung a freed slave as wife. By diligence and frugality the two manage to enlarge their property. But then a famine forces them to leave their land and live in the town. However it turns out to be a blessing in disguise for them...

What drew me to this film was its Oscar recognition, especially for Karl Freund, the greatest cinematographer of all time. It continues to amaze me how little is known about him, even with his Oscar win. Tracking down a record of his remarks at the ceremony, if they exist, seems impossible.

While generally I consider it a bad idea to remake the classics, this might be one worthy of a revisit. For one thing, it could be filmed in color. But more importantly, it would be nice to feature authentic Chinese actors. Paul Muni is great, of course, but he wasn't Chinese. Maybe nobody noticed in the 1930s, but it is painfully obvious now.

In our modern-day PC culture, it seems downright distasteful to see actors like Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, and Charley Grapewin done up in yellow face to play Chinese farmers (Rainer's bald-faced German accent is especially humorous). But don't let that stop you from watching and enjoying this movie. It's remarkable that a film like this would even have been made in isolationist 1937 America, and that studios would have assumed there would be an audience for it. Though it might not pass today's standards of cultural sensitivity, "The Good Earth" makes a solid attempt at a thoughtful and intelligent peek into Chinese culture.

Muni and Rainer play the husband and wife of an arranged marriage who struggle together to eek out an existence in a harsh climate. The film is more sympathetic to the wife's point of view, and the film is even rather feminist in its way. We see a simple woman who has few choices and who largely accepts the patriarchal culture to which she is born, but we also see an emotionally strong and pragmatic woman who all along is making quite conscious and difficult decisions about what is best for her family while staying within the boundaries of acceptable husband/wife relations. Rainer gives a raw, physical performance, speaking very little but still managing to communicate much to the audience about what's in her mind. Muni is good too with a showier role, even if he seems much less authentic as a rural Chinese peasant.

The film also makes some interesting and relevant commentary about what wealth and affluence do to people. While this family remains poor, they certainly struggle plenty and face much hardship, but they retain a strong sense of community and family. As soon as they come into wealth and their material problems go away, they begin to squabble over petty differences. It's a testament to something I've always believed, which is that if you take away a person's problems, he's just going to invent new ones to replace them, no matter how comfortable he is or how much material wealth he has.

Rainer became the first person to win back-to-back acting Oscars when she received the Best Actress Academy Award for her performance in this film. Karl Freund received an Oscar for Best Cinematography, for capturing a locust swarm on film among other impressive set pieces. "The Good Earth" was also nominated in the categories of Best Picture, Best Director (Sidney Franklin), and Best Film Editing (for Basil Wrangell's propulsive montages).

Grade: A

Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again.

Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film.

Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again.

There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say.

One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would.

The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey.