Despite the rather banal and slightly over-cute title for the film, 'Gold is Where You Find It' had more than enough to make me want to watch it. Max Steiner composed some timeless scores and was one of the great film composers at that time. Michael Curtiz directed many good to classic films, two being among my favourite films of all time. And the cast is a fine one, although George Brent was somewhat inconsistent Claude Rains in particular made every film he was in better.
'Gold is Where You Find It' is worth a one-time watch, but it is not one of those watch it over and over sort of films in my view. It is neither awful, with enough good things to raise it above that, or particularly good, with too many significant flaws. While most people come off well here in 'Gold is Where You Find It', it is perhaps safe to say that all have done a lot better in their careers. That's certainly the case with Curtiz, as far as his films go this is a lesser effort of his.
There are good things. On the most part, 'Gold is Where You Find It' is well made visually, the settings are sumptuous and in no way look cheap. Much of the Technicolor has a lavish look, even if this aspect isn't perfectly executed. Steiner's music score is typically lush and sweeping without being too melodramatic. There are charming moments.
Brent gives it his best shot in a colourless role, can understand actually why some found him bland in the film but it is not easy making a character this thin interesting and Brent at least doesn't look bored. The rest of the cast are better though, with the ever great Rains stealing every scene he's in and with Olivia DeHavilland looking beautiful and having a charming presence. The supporting cast are good all round.
Not all the Technicolor is completely attractive on the other hand, some of it can veer on being too garish. The script is on the stilted and routine side, and while the story has moments of charm the pace generally could have done with more urgency, the conflict with more tension and edge and the sentiment not been as strong.
Moreover, the characters while well performed are quite sketchy in development, namely Brent's. Do agree with those that have criticised the narration, far too saccharine, doesn't really move the story along all that much and was not really needed at all.
In conclusion, left me a bit mixed. 5/10
'Gold is Where You Find It' is worth a one-time watch, but it is not one of those watch it over and over sort of films in my view. It is neither awful, with enough good things to raise it above that, or particularly good, with too many significant flaws. While most people come off well here in 'Gold is Where You Find It', it is perhaps safe to say that all have done a lot better in their careers. That's certainly the case with Curtiz, as far as his films go this is a lesser effort of his.
There are good things. On the most part, 'Gold is Where You Find It' is well made visually, the settings are sumptuous and in no way look cheap. Much of the Technicolor has a lavish look, even if this aspect isn't perfectly executed. Steiner's music score is typically lush and sweeping without being too melodramatic. There are charming moments.
Brent gives it his best shot in a colourless role, can understand actually why some found him bland in the film but it is not easy making a character this thin interesting and Brent at least doesn't look bored. The rest of the cast are better though, with the ever great Rains stealing every scene he's in and with Olivia DeHavilland looking beautiful and having a charming presence. The supporting cast are good all round.
Not all the Technicolor is completely attractive on the other hand, some of it can veer on being too garish. The script is on the stilted and routine side, and while the story has moments of charm the pace generally could have done with more urgency, the conflict with more tension and edge and the sentiment not been as strong.
Moreover, the characters while well performed are quite sketchy in development, namely Brent's. Do agree with those that have criticised the narration, far too saccharine, doesn't really move the story along all that much and was not really needed at all.
In conclusion, left me a bit mixed. 5/10