Replies

I've seen it more than once, because I enjoy old movies. It's a pretty bad movie. It's a ridiculous plot, revealing a total lack of understanding of the American Constitutional system of government. Here's a short, sweet and to-the-point viewer comment from the Internet Movie Database: "love song for fascism." That about sums it up.

Here's the IMdb's review: "Newly elected president Judson Hammond is shown to be a lackey of his party, willing to follow the party line even if it's not in the best interest of the people. Showing off by driving his own car to a political meeting, he crashes at high speed. Comatose, he is not expected to recover. But on regaining consciousness, he is a changed man. Dismissing his cabinet and defying Congress, he assumes near-dictatorial powers in order to cut through red tape and institute sweeping measures to reduce unemployment. He even goes so far as to gently threaten nations owing the United States money from World War I to find a way to repay their debts by reducing their arms races. Having brokered this important safeguard for the world's peace, Hammond is stricken down, his work done."

For those who want to see a really great 1930's movie about the American political system, see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." James Stewart as the naive young senator is one of the finest performances ever put on film. The central theme of "Mr. Smith" is stil very relevant today -- check out this film if you want to see what a real filibuster was like, versus the corrupt version used by the senate these days.

Yeah, I loved "Mr. Smith." But I loved anything Stewart did.

I thought the "Gabriel" movie was at times trying to be a dark farce, some of it's plot lines were so odd. It was just startling to see something I'd never even heard of, and for it to be so strange. And the background of the issuing of the film was so odd, too.