Forget all that irrelevant nonsense about who edited the film or what input the studio bosses had. What's on the screen is a total snoozefest and that can't be fixed. I'm actually shocked that this was made and released during WW2 when the average movie goer had a lot more to worry about than a bunch of wealthy turn-of-the-century drama queens. It didn't even fill the bill as an entertaining diversion.

Obviously its compromised, but you can see what Welles was trying to do. Best to ignore the studio made happy ending and just focus on the good stuff that precedes it even if those scene are truncated.

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) was written, produced, and directed by Orson Welles and is based on the 1918 Booth Tarkington novel of the same name. The Ambersons are the wealthiest family in Indianapolis at the end of the 19th century. Young Isabel Amberson (Dolores Costello) has been courted for some time by Eugene Morgan (Joseph Cotton), but after he accidently embarrasses her because of a public mishap, Isabel childishly decides that she will marry Wilbur Minafer instead. She doesn't love Wilbur and their marriage is a dull routine, so Isabel channels all her time and devotion into their one child, George. George grows up being given anything he wants and he soon morphs from an annoying child into an extremely spoiled and self-centered young man (Tim Holt). George is universally disliked throughout the town, and most residents look forward to him one day getting his comeuppance. It's now the early 1900's and during a large gala held at the Amberson home, George meets a young lady named Lucy (Anne Baxter) who is visiting from out of town. He becomes smitten with her until he learns that her father was his mother's former beau, Eugene Morgan, who is now a widower. Soon Wilbur Minafer will lose a substantial amount of the family fortune through poor investments and then he dies. Eugene and Isabel find their former romance rekindling, much to the disdain of Wilber's sister Fanny (Agnes Moorehead). Fanny is what that era referred to as a spinster, and she had hoped to woo Eugene for herself. Meanwhile, George continues to try and win over Lucy. In a nutshell, George despises Eugene's affections for his mother, and forces her to decide between them. She chooses her son and abandons her budding second romance. Meanwhile Lucy rejects George completely, considering him a man with no ambition or character. Isabel dies, broken hearted and George and Fanny discover that almost the entire Amberson fortune has been lost. They will soon be homeless and George will be forced to find a job. A short time later, he is injured in an automobile accident. This is ironic, because it was investments into the "horseless carriages" that provided Eugene his own fortune and led to much of the demise of the Amberson's wealth. I was disappointed that this tale wraps up with an unsatisfying conclusion (I won't spoil) that dissipates the satisfaction the viewer wants from watching George's silver spoon existence come to an end. There's no real conflict in the story and it just seems to build upon the same themes over and over. It turns out that the ending of the film was forced by the studio, who reshot it when Orson Welles was out of the country. Welles is said to have hated how his original concept was mangled without his consent or input. The acting is superb, with Agnes Moorehead receiving a Best Supporting Actress nod. The cinematography and sets were grand and the story rife with illustrations of classism at the turn of the century. That said, the "it still all works out" finale just made the Ambersons a little less magnificent.

I'm probably in the minority here, but compared to his other great works, this one is meh. Visually this is good for sure, but RKO's meddling makes the film feel clunky and rushed at the end, and the rewritten ending is no improvement over what was intended. As for Aunt Fanny, I'm not sure how I feel. Apparently the test audiences laughed at her scenes and the studio cut her time way back, but then she won acclaim for the performance. What's in the film seems kind of overwrought to me, but the does have some great moments.

Not Bad at All but Seriously Flawed. The acting at the start feels generic and stale but in the second half the quality really picks up in terms of performance. I was really surprised how much better the acting got. Overall the acting was good. The highlight of this film is easily the incredible cinematography. Every shot is exquisite and a Tour De France of camera work. Long Takes, Shadow Use, Zoom Ins, Deep Focus, and many more. It all gives it a very sophisticated feel and never feels showy. The camerawork does not feel like a 40's film at all it feels super modern which surprised me. There isn't much in way of music to speak of here but it was kind of generic and forgettable when used. The pacing really struggled in the first act for me but picked up very well in the 2nd half. However the biggest flaw here is the Editing. My goodness....I could tell the reason I was having trouble understanding the first act was because it felt we were jumping around all over the place because stuff was missing. The ending also felt very tacked on and didn't fit the dark tone of this film and was very anti climatic. Also George was not a very likeable character and I felt like scenes were missing that would've helped with understanding him better and giving the film much more focus in the first half. I think if Orson Welles had narrated more of the film it would've made a significant difference for me because it was very hard to follow the first half. But even still that wouldn't fix the ending where we don't even get to see George & Mr. Morgan reconcile which baffled me. (I'm 99.99% certain It must have been a reshoot because it certainly felt like it). The second half up until the ending is very strong I will say and got me invested in the internal struggle. Overall this was a very flawed but enjoyable watch. I would not call this a classic but it certainly is above average. I would only recommend this for die hard Orson Welles fans.

I've read all kinds of accounts about who's responsible for "bad editing" or "reshoots" on this, but the bottom line is it's a hopeless Snooze Fest! I give Zero Eff's about any of these characters and their melodramatic "problems."

A grand film...Wonderfully filmed.....The B grade cowboy star Tim Holt turns in an unexpected stirring performance while Cotton is at his best and Welles, well he does what he does, pure genius as usual.....I actually like this film better than Citizen Kane....

There are clearly echoes of the themes and cinematography of Citizen Kane in Welles' sophomore effort, where a gradual slide into subjective poverty is sharpened by a rather distressing addition of fiscal distress to accompany it. Combining a stirring personal engagement to a documentation of the economic shift of the early 20th century, in which the slide of the disengaged, landed elite coincides with the advent of the self-made industrialist, The Magnificent Ambersons feels sharp, intelligent, biting, surprisingly bleak (particularly for a wartime release when studios were all about improving the national mood) and entirely deserving of its reputation (despite feeling somewhat overlooked when portrayed next to Welles' better-known Kane). The spoiled and initially unsympathetic George, despite receiving a well-deserved practical retaliation for his poor conduct and behavior, is still responsible for no joy when his comeuppance is finally delivered, only a resounding pity. While all the performances are good, Collins' Uncle Jack feels particularly sincere, and Moorehead, despite relatively brief appearances, gives a particularly memorable rendition of the exasperated Fanny. (4.5/5)

Had Orson Welles not introduced Citizen Kane to the world a couple of years earlier, it's possible that The Magnificent Ambersons may have been considered his masterpiece. Many of the same stylistic techniques first seen in Citizen Kane are present here, including deep-focus cinematography, low angle shots, complex blocking of scenes, and atmospheric lighting. However, it seems to lack the same compelling narrative drive as its predecessor and the seemingly scattershot style over the first ten minutes is a drawback. Despite this, it's still a film worth checking out.

The cast do a fantastic job.

Pretty average old black and white film. Plot is ordinary, almost non existent. Only good thing was that it didn't go down the route of usual happy ending.

Very tight knit story of a family loosing their place in the world, rife with detestable and lovable characters alike. Very fulfilling tale and a beautiful film whose stories spans the story of a dynasty. Welles was robbed of having his version of the ending, as the theatrical release is the happy ending no one wanted, but the studios insisted upon.

The Magnificent Ambersons pushed me out of my comfort zone to some degree, because it is a film about an unlikable kid who makes the lives of those around him miserable. However, I never felt like George was presented as a protagonist. Instead this film is almost an exploration of karma, and the idea that we reap what we sow. From that point of view, I found it quite interesting how the story unfolds, and the way an entire family legacy can be spoiled by the pride of one person. I suppose this should all be considered spoilers, but considering the setup of the film, you can kind of see that the trajectory of the story only has one direction to take the Amberson family. It’s even foreshadowed in the narrator’s voiceover (which was delivered by Welles himself in that beautiful bass tone.) The cast was all quite good in The Magnificent Ambersons. There are several scenes where people talk about one thing and yet you can sense the secret thoughts at the heart of what they’re saying, which is always impressive to me. There’s some overblown melodrama, particularly with Agnes Moorehead, but that kind of fit her character so I didn’t mind too much. I do think the film is a bit longer than it needs to be. There are many scenes that are drawn out for some additional drama, and perhaps so Welles can indulge in some fancy camerawork. I wasn’t bored, but I can’t say that I was riveted for the full 150 minutes either. The Magnificent Ambersons is the kind of drama that I find satisfying to watch, but it never quite enthralls me. I am happy I saw it, but I can’t imagine myself ever seeking it out again. However, I will say it’s artfully made, and I actually enjoyed it more than Citizen Kane which Welles made the year before.

After having seen the magnificent The Third Man (1949) I am even more disappointed by the incredibly boring The Magnificent Ambersons. Family dramas that span decades are generally something I adore but here the tensions in the family were not particularly interesting, the acting was wooden and every scene seemed to stretch on for hours. I see no reason for this to be considered â~one of the greatest films of all time' when other films that came out of the same era like The Grapes of Wrath (1940) and Brief Encounter (1945) are far better made and are still able to entertain and provoke thought in audiences today. Maybe one day I will watch this again, although I certainly hope not, and be able to appreciate it the way that respected film critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum and Kevin Thomas do. The film is based on a Pulitzer Prize winner of the same name written by Booth Tarkington and it's very clear because the structure of the film feels very literary. The titular Ambersons include Isabel, Dolores Costello, who rejects the proposal of the comparatively poor Eugene Morgan, Joseph Cotten, and instead marries the reliable Wilbur Minafer, Don Dillaway, and has a spoilt son George Minafer, Tim Holt. Years later, Morgan has returned to town as an automobile millionaire with a beautiful daughter, Lucy, Anne Baxter, in tow. Morgan and Isabel attempt to restart their relationship after Wilbur's death while Lucy and George begin courting but George's possessiveness over his mother prevents them from attaining happiness. A plotline about the atomization of various industries leaving certain people, like George, in the dust as they simply can't adjust to a strange new world. This plot could be interesting but somehow this film squanders the darkly fascinating oedipal undertones and love triangle between Fanny, Isabel and Eugene. I went from being annoyed at characters like Isabel who makes completely illogical decisions to just hoping that the film will end already. The dinner table scenes were those in which there was the most potential as George angrily lobbing insults at Eugene could be entertaining in an American Beauty (1999) sort of way but instead the scenes drag on for too long and none of the insults land with real impact. All of the plot elements that are dealt with so well in early Peter Bogdnovich films are mishandled here as Welles seems to mistake length for pathos. The performances were also just truly awful. Costello is unconvincing as the sort of woman a man would pine over for decades and she isn't convincing as a Daisy Buchanan stand-in because she refuses to appear as shallow or calculating, the two traits that could have made the character interesting. Holt was one-note in his role as the stubborn and misguided George but his high pitched delivery and pinched expressions become tiresome after a while. Cotten brings the same sweet but forgettable persona he brings to The Third Man (1949) but it's not used to the same effect here as there is no Orson Welles to balance out his dullness. Agnes Moorehead impersonates Bessie Love in The Broadway Melody (1929) and doesn't come off well for it. Had Henry Fonda been cast as Eugene, Susan Hayward as Isabel, Gregory Peck as George and Joan Crawford as Fanny, unlikely at the time I know, I believe the film would be a far more engaging affair. Obviously Orson Welles is a great actor because he was absolutely marvelous in Tomorrow Is Forever (1946) and Macbeth (1948) but having not seen the almost unanimous â~greatest film of all time' Citizen Kane (1941) I doubt his abilities as a director. Were John Ford or Paul Mazursky about 35 years later to have adapted this source material a more original, fresh and engrossing film could have been made that doesn't leave you strung out and sleepy from the effort it takes to keep watching. If you ever read that this is a film you must watch don't believe the hype because it's a poor attempt at a genre that has produced many great offerings. Don't let this put you off Welles either he can be fantastic when working in front of the camera, in my limited experience, or as a voice actor.

Outstanding acting and directing. Welles in top form.

Obviously its compromised, but you can see what Welles was trying to do. Best to ignore the studio made happy ending and just focus on the good stuff that precedes it even if those scene are truncated.

Above average if rather dated film. Basically a commentary on changing times and changing mores from the late 1800's thru the beginning of the 20th century. Saved from being your standard melodrama by Welles' masterful directing along with the outstanding verisimilitude of the sets (those stairs!), the costumes and the feel for the progress of time. All the performers do a decent turn, if not quite up to "Citizen Kane" quality, with an outstanding turn by Moorehead as Aunt Fanny and a less than stellar performance by Holt as Georgie. If made today, would wind up as your standard fare onLifetime or Hallmark.

Great classic, with Orson Well's sense of irony.

The best, GREATEST movie ever made!

The ensemble cast is pitch perfect and Welles' assured direction is as good as can be expected, The Magnificent Ambersons fares well in the ranks of Welles' consistently brilliant filmography.