Cavalcade
1933 Directed by Frank Lloyd
Synopsis
A cavalcade of English life from New Year's Eve 1899 until 1933 seen through the eyes of well-to-do Londoners Jane and Robert Marryot. Amongst events touching their family are the Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic and the Great War.
Popular reviews
More-
An early winner of a Best Picture Oscar, which of course doesn't mean it was the best film around that year, but which doesn't deserve the contempt that it seems to receive in modern reviews. The story of two British families is told from 1899 to 1933 - two British families from opposite ends of the social spectrum. Some of the accents were a bit dodgy (especially the working class accents) and some of the storylines were unsubtle, but this wasn't as bad as I expected.
It was odd to think that in 1933 the Second Boer War (which the film starts with) was as recent as the Winter of Discontent is to us now!
Recent reviews
More-
Although an American film made by Fox Film, 'Cavalcade' (1933) has an almost British feel to it. Based on Noel Coward’s 1931 play of the same name the film tells the story of two British families from 1899 to 1933. One family are the upper crust Marryots' and the other their servants, the Bridges. Through a series of vignettes we are taken through such events as the Boer War, the sinking of the Titanic, The Great War through the twenties and into the thirties.
Throughout the film there are musical numbers, some of which were written by Coward that reflect the period of time we are in.
Coward was paid $100,000 for the rights to both the play and the… -
Much better and enjoyable than I was expecting. I like movies with stories à la Gone with the Wind, only here it's less focused.
-
Along with Cimarron (1931), this movie is considered one of the worst winner of the prestigious Best Picture at the Academy Awards. And I agree that it didn't deserve to win. Cavalcade was a very popular movie that year, but does not hold up well. It's just so dreadfully boring. There is just something about the atmosphere of Fox Film productions at this time that lacks the splendor and visual creativity that the other studios was able to create.
And Cavalcade shares the same format as Cimarron as we follow a family over a long period of time. In Cimarron it's a American pioneer family. Here it's a upper-class British family we follow over 34 years touching at historic moments… -
I have for the longest time heard that this was the worst film ever to get an Oscar. I do believe it is the lowest rated film on IMDb. Well, it is far from being the best film nominated that year. I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang and 42nd Street are so much better films. That being said, this is not the disaster I had heard about. It is never boring and neither is it as dated as most complain about. My problem with the film is that it takes itself way too seriously and tries to present it self as way deeper and philosophical than it really is. I'm especially referring to the end here. Another problem…
-
Two of the more excruciatingly boring hours of my life. And the worst Best Picture winner of all time, for sure. 'nough said. [Edit: I have now seen 'Tom Jones' and is no longer confident that 'Cavalcade' is, indeed, the worst. Stay away from both at all costs!]
-
An early winner of a Best Picture Oscar, which of course doesn't mean it was the best film around that year, but which doesn't deserve the contempt that it seems to receive in modern reviews. The story of two British families is told from 1899 to 1933 - two British families from opposite ends of the social spectrum. Some of the accents were a bit dodgy (especially the working class accents) and some of the storylines were unsubtle, but this wasn't as bad as I expected.
It was odd to think that in 1933 the Second Boer War (which the film starts with) was as recent as the Winter of Discontent is to us now! -
Oh those early Academy Award Winners. Like "The Broadway Melody" or "Cimarron", this is an incredibly boring film who's only quality is, that it's not as bad as the horrible "Cimarron".
-
It's a stately production, even for 1933, and the kind of film the Academy's been watching for ever since. I think the most impressive feat of the film is cramming so much "time" (& history) into so little a running time. We feel like we're there all those years with these three groups of people (even if we do manage to virtually skip the 20's). It's not done perfectly, but adequately enough to where we don't notice those faults. The acting from all is great, but does feel stage-like and burdens the film [emotionally] a little more than it should.
-
The biggest waste of time ever. I think a British period piece may be the death of me. I’m glad movies have improved drastically since this film came out, and I’m not sure how it won a Best Picture Oscar. It was bloody dreadful.