Arch of Triumph (1984 TV Movie)
7/10
It defines Hopkins' persona and art
12 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen this movie some 21 yrs. ago, on a Russian channel, so of course in Russian, and it made an extremely powerful impression on me at that time; I would rather speak of the impression it produced back—then. I was a child, I knew none of the actors—I had a taste for such melodramas, I guess. I kept the image of a handsome, dependable, reliable man in the leading role; only in '94, I guess, I found out that the physician had been performed by Hopkins. When, at the age of 11 or 12, I have drawn a list of the movies I liked best, this one had its place.

As idea, it's a distinguished melodrama.

Today I have seen it for a second time; I like it, though it made a much poorer impression this time, it looked like slapdash, with both the lead roles very badly written, and also less romantic than I remembered; unglamorous and bad in a very TV way (the clumsiness of the camera, the lack of style, the primitivism ). Yet, I understand why I liked Hopkins so much in this role; and there is no other role of his that I like better than this one. His performance is very good, restrained but energetic and manly. And I liked the movie again. I may acknowledge its defects, and still recommend it.

Even if only very concisely ,the Hopkins movie gives a high impression of the medical profession.

The cast is sensational—Hopkins , his beautiful lover, and Pleasance –whom I was to remark several yrs. later, in a Dudikoff adventure flick, again as a Nazi character.

I would like to see sometimes the other, first adaptation.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed