Jack London (D+ or 1.5/4 stars)
The narrative for 'Jack London' (directed by Alfred Santell) is fairly simple ... too simple. The movie follows the adventures (and misadventures) of novelist/adventurer Jack London (Michael O'Shea), who was born in 1876 & woefully died at age 40 in 1916.
In 1890, young Jack quits a cannery job to try oyster piracy. After that, he does the hobo thing for a while, he signs on as a sailor for a sealing {sad face}voyage, searches for gold up in Alaska's Yukon Territory and, tries to advance his education at a university, becomes a war correspondent in Japan; all the while, romancing women left & right. He doesn't make much $$, but due to his experiences ... he gets story ideas. Suddenly, he finds some success ($$) & even finds a beautiful woman to settle down with (Susan Hayward). However, the urge to go out on new adventures won't let him go.
I just didn't care much for this motion picture. When the script isn't loosely focusing on Jack's courageous acts mixed with his more disreputable/illegal activities, it dwells on the Japanese treatment of jack & Russian prisoners prior to WWI. The entire segment was listless & didn't even feel like it was accurate. Speaking of the screenplay, it doesn't even include Jack London's political stands; something that might've been very interesting. The direction by Alfred Santell is lackluster. The production values are not awful, but not glorious, either; the black-&-white photography is standard, too.
Now, as Jack, Michael O'Shea does a decent job (especially in the film's 1st hour ... the best hour). And it's always a pleasure to see Susan Hayward on the screen (here, she plays Charmain Kittredge London, the fiercely loyal wife to temperamental Jack).
But as mentioned above, 'Jack London' just didn't do it for me. I didn't care for the condemnations of Japan (though, at the time that this film was made -1944 - it makes a little more sense). I didn't like the storytelling (Jack London's seemingly adventurous life deserved a much more compelling display). Gahhhh, Michael O'Shea & Susan Hayward deserved a much better movie to act in; a movie that wasn't so flat & unsatisfying.
In 1890, young Jack quits a cannery job to try oyster piracy. After that, he does the hobo thing for a while, he signs on as a sailor for a sealing {sad face}voyage, searches for gold up in Alaska's Yukon Territory and, tries to advance his education at a university, becomes a war correspondent in Japan; all the while, romancing women left & right. He doesn't make much $$, but due to his experiences ... he gets story ideas. Suddenly, he finds some success ($$) & even finds a beautiful woman to settle down with (Susan Hayward). However, the urge to go out on new adventures won't let him go.
I just didn't care much for this motion picture. When the script isn't loosely focusing on Jack's courageous acts mixed with his more disreputable/illegal activities, it dwells on the Japanese treatment of jack & Russian prisoners prior to WWI. The entire segment was listless & didn't even feel like it was accurate. Speaking of the screenplay, it doesn't even include Jack London's political stands; something that might've been very interesting. The direction by Alfred Santell is lackluster. The production values are not awful, but not glorious, either; the black-&-white photography is standard, too.
Now, as Jack, Michael O'Shea does a decent job (especially in the film's 1st hour ... the best hour). And it's always a pleasure to see Susan Hayward on the screen (here, she plays Charmain Kittredge London, the fiercely loyal wife to temperamental Jack).
But as mentioned above, 'Jack London' just didn't do it for me. I didn't care for the condemnations of Japan (though, at the time that this film was made -1944 - it makes a little more sense). I didn't like the storytelling (Jack London's seemingly adventurous life deserved a much more compelling display). Gahhhh, Michael O'Shea & Susan Hayward deserved a much better movie to act in; a movie that wasn't so flat & unsatisfying.