Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (1940) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
47 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Remarkable movie about a remarkable discovery.
michaelRokeefe25 May 2002
Edward G. Robinson will always be remembered for LITTLE CAESAR(1930), but this movie features probably the best acting of his career. This is based on the true story of Dr. Paul Ehrlich, a Polish born German bacteriologist that discovered the cure for syphilis. Stubborn dedication paid off on the 606th test that provided Dr. Ehrlich's 'magic bullets' to fight a silent killer of society. Not only was Robinson in top form, but other cast members provided strong support: Otto Kruger, Ruth Gordon and Donald Crisp. Highly recommended.

Note: It was a daring risk that this movie made it to the screen. In a time when a man and a woman could not share the same bed...here is a movie about finding a cure for venereal disease.
34 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"To argue with them is like discussing colors with the color-blind."
utgard142 February 2014
Grand biopic as only Old Hollywood could do so well. An excellent performance from Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who works to create a cure for syphilis while battling tuberculosis and his peers' small-mindedness. With direction by the great William Dieterle and a script co-written by John Huston, this is an exceptional film. It's not easy to make a great movie out of what is essentially a medical research story, but they pull it off. Terrific supporting cast including Ruth Gordon, Donald Crisp, Otto Kruger, Donald Meek, Henry O'Neill, Maria Ouspenskaya, Albert Bassermann, Louis Calhern...so many more. Just a great lineup. Pretty daring to make a movie about syphilis at a time when the Production Code was in full effect. Wonderful biopic you should definitely check out.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A great film and great performance by Robinson
AlsExGal17 July 2010
If you've only seen Edward G. Robinson in gangster films, give this one a chance and see his range as an actor. Here he portrays German physician and researcher Paul Ehrlich, a pioneer at the turn of the 20th century in the treatment of infectious diseases and the man who found a cure for syphilis. Ehrlich starts out as a general practitioner employed by a hospital in order to provide a stable living for his family but whose real love is for research. His inquiring mind and nonconformist views ultimately makes him a leader in his field, but not before his pioneering ideas get him in trouble with the medical establishment in his country. Robinson has excellent support here with Ruth Gordon playing Ehrlich's adoring wife. Otto Kruger ably portrays Emil Adolf Von Behring, Ehrlich's friend and colleague who find himself at odds with his good friend's professional ideas at one point in their careers.

The film was controversial at the time for mentioning the disease "syphilis" by name, and I'm sure a little bit of sensationalism is why Jack Warner thought that Dr. Ehrlich's biography would be good material for a film, but there's something more subtle going on here. Made in 1940, after the Nazi menace had been recognized by many but before America had been attacked, there are many not so subtle digs at Germany to be found here. Early in the film several of Ehrlich's colleagues are ratting him out to the head of the hospital for not following hospital rules. Specifically, Ehrlich realizes that the sweat baths prescribed as the treatment of syphilis at the time - 1890 - are of no value whatsoever. When a patient of Ehrlich's says that the baths sap his strength and may cost him his job, Ehrlich says that he can skip the baths. This humane act of deviating from a useless treatment is the "rule" Ehrlich has broken, and what gets him called on the carpet by the head of the hospital. The whole incident is one of several that make the Germans look rigid and inhumane. The issue of Ehrlich's colleagues doubting his abilities because of his religion - he was Jewish - also comes up a few times. Finally, when the state budget committee that is financing Ehrlich's lab comes by for an inspection they chastise Ehrlich for hiring a "non-German" doctor. It's very effective but subtle criticism of the Germans that Warner Brothers did so well in the years leading up to the war.

One bone that Warner Brothers did have to throw to the censors because of the open discussion and showing of syphilis patients in various stages of the disease is that they could not show any female patients. They were only allowed to show male sufferers. I guess these guys all got this from "an inanimate object" as Dr. Ehrlich says is possible at one point in the film to downplay the sexual transmission angle of this disease. Wasn't the Breen era of the production code a scream?
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet works magic on the viewer
krorie1 October 2005
Of all the great biographical flicks Hollywood pumped out in the late 30's and early 40's, such as "Juarez," "The Story of Louis Pasteur," "Abe Lincoln in Illinois," and "The Life of Emile Zola," "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" is the best. And that's saying a lot since the ones mentioned above are screen classics from the Golden Age. In "Magic Bullet" everything seems to gel, from the brilliant acting of all involved, including once-in-a-lifetime performances by Edward G. Robingson, Otto Kruger, Ruth Gordon, and Maria Ouspenskaya, to the outstanding direction of William Dieterle. Also this biography is far more factual and less sensational than the others from the period. Even the subject involved in the biography was somewhat taboo in 1940, syphilis. Many in the movie audiences of 1940 may have reacted the same way the guests at Franziska Speyer's dinner party reacted upon hearing the word. Though not at all shocking today, it must have been somewhat shocking then. I'm sure that's why it was handled with kid gloves by William Dieterle. On the other hand the problems Dr. Ehrlich faced in getting support for his magic bullet is comparable with problems faced by today's scientists in getting funding to do needed research to find a cure for AIDS.

The writers, who included John Huston, did the research needed for an intelligent and well-written script. The viewer may hesitate to watch at first when he/she discovers that the movie is about a German scientist who discovered an effective treatment for syphilis, but just pay attention for a few seconds and there is no turning back. Seeing the entire film becomes necessary. So enjoy a masterpiece from the past.
27 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Biographical Melodrama Well Done
thundrmi15 July 2005
How I long for the era when Hollywood was capable of producing films based upon the lives of great scientists and physicians. Current moguls may consider the material too trite, but that just proves how they misjudge quality cinema.

Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet is a great old biographical melodrama that probably does overstate certain emotional moments, nonetheless it helps recall the bigger-than-life accomplishments of scientists who otherwise would be forgotten.

Edward G. Robinson, though apparently too mature for the role, knew a good script when he read it, and ended up with the finest performance of his long career. Credit goes to the Warner Studio, too, for making a film about the cure for syphilis when even the mention of the disease was prohibited in motion pictures. Those who enjoy films like Edison, The Man will find this more involved with science and less with personal matters than the MGM/Spencer Tracy epic.

This is grand Warner's entertainment with a lesson or two for all of us.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Old Science Vs. New Science.
mark.waltz3 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Hollywood biographies of famous people have to be taken with a grain of salt, some admittedly much better than others. Warner Brothers filmed dozens of these historical based combinations of highly researched fact and Hollywood instilled fiction. The lives of these subjects were not often interesting enough to stretch out a two hour movie so elements of romance and social drama were inserted to make them more entertaining for the public at large.

George Arliss and Paul Muni dominated the 1930's with their portrayals of such loved (or despised) men like Disraeli, Voltaire, Alexander Hamilton, Louis Pasteur, Emile Zola and Juarez, and after years of playing gangsters or G-Men, Edward G. Robinson went historical to play Dr. Paul Erlich, a physician who turned to research to help alleviate man's suffering. He becomes a national hero by finding a cure for typhoid which has been claiming the lives of thousands of children, and after recalling an early case where a patient died of syphilis, sets out to find a cure for that. "Did you say syphilis?" wealthy Maria Ouspenskaya asks him as the guests at her dinner party gasp at the mention of it. After he confirms, she blandly repeats, "He said syphilis", as if asking the butler to bring her the gravy.

The film utilizes the assumption that the public knew that syphilis was mainly attracted through sexual activity, never mentioning it during the movie (as this was only six years after the code). Yet, just as Louis Pasteur had done and as Kay Francis's Florence Nightingale had done, the need to help humanity is important enough to document for a fair view of history to be presented. Robinson gives one of his very best performances as a character who isn't as much noble or out for fame as he is to simply contribute some small matter to mankind. Ruth Gordon, years from her wacky old ladies of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Every Which Way But Loose", is his mild-mannered wife who frets over his health and unknowingly ruins an experiment which actually creates major findings for the good doctor.

Donald Crisp and Otto Kruger also deliver excellent performances as Robinson's colleagues, Kruger particularly memorable when he finds himself suddenly at odds with his long-time friend. Sig Ruman represents the part of society fighting against advancement and as the villain of the film, has Erlich accused of creating a medication that kills rather than cures. This leads to the gripping court battle between old science and new science with either the possibility of triumph for science or failure for the advancement in medicine.

Painstakingly crafted through outstanding technical work from Warner Brothers' A unit, this manages to be informative yet never dull. It lacks, however, the thrill of Warner Brothers' greatest classics, being respectable but never truly impactive. One of the highlights of the film is the scene where a group of doctors representing the money behind Robinsons' research show up only to be violently screamed at by him for making demands on his research he can't possibly commit to.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
an intelligent and interesting movie that was ahead of its time
planktonrules6 June 2005
It's very hard to believe that this movie was made in 1940, as much of the plot centers on Dr. Ehrlich's attempts to create a cure for syphilis. At times, the studio appeared to dance around the whole STD aspect of the disease, but it was extremely daring to try to cover such a taboo topic.

It's actually quite amazing that a story as seemingly mundane and medical research is as compelling as it is. I think this is due to excellent directing, writing and acting. In particular, Edward G. Robinson is a standout as the lead. This movie clearly demonstrates that his range far exceeded playing gangsters or that annoying Egyptian in The Ten Commandments.
37 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Seen Before Medical School
Air America7 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Though a comment was previously deleted; likely because of the mention of the common name of a disease prominent to the time (I can hazard, no other guess as to the reason); this must really be a unique movie, and I will be on the edge of my seat to view it again and possess the disk for further viewings. It broke the mold for the Hayes censor board with the-then unpardonable mention of Lue's. For Dr. Erlich to persist through 606 compilations is astonishing.

An interesting "medical" maxim bringing levity to observers of hip radiographs in some oldsters even as late as the 1960's; often a radiolucent area was noted at the injection sites of the arsenical/mercurial. We used to say, "One night with Venus, and seven years with Mercury," a reference to "exposure" and the subsequent treatment and its length of time and the signs left behind.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fine Biographical Drama
harry-763 June 2000
Due to the enormous talent, tenacity and courage of Dr. Paul Ehrlich to persevere in his quest to develop a cure for venereal disease, the world was made a safer place. This outstanding biography relates Dr. Ehrilch's quest to conquer disease which plagued 19th century populations.

Edward G.Robinson heads a fine cast, which recognized an outstanding script and rose to the occasion. There is no overacting or exaggerated dramatics here, only earnest and sincere acting work, enhanced by a peerless Max Steiner score and James Wong Howe cinematography. William Dieterle's direction is both sensitive and solid, wrapping up a fine production, presented by Warner Bros.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Somewhat dated, but still worth seeing!
JohnHowardReid26 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Sober, respectful, beautifully photographed, impeccably acted, reasonably dramatic, skilfully directed, but lacking some of the fire and passion of earlier Warner biographies like Pasteur and Zola. In fact, in many ways, Ehrlich is a sort of watered-down Pasteur. Once again, the conflict lies between the scientist and an ultra-conservative medical profession.

In theory, Ehrlich should have been even more forceful because it introduces an additional conflict: Jew versus Gentiles. But in practice, these two conflicts counteract instead of reinforcing each other. The reason is that the film's makers seem peculiarly afraid to call a spade a spade. Oh, they can bandy words like "syphilis" around all right (but significantly without once alluding to the fact that it is a sexually transmitted disease — in fact Ehrlich actually says in one scene that the disease can be contracted by other means), but when it comes to calling Ehrlich a Jew, the best the writers can manage is an oblique reference to Ehrlich's "faith" in a report from Rumann to Love. It's a reference that few moviegoers will even notice, let alone appreciate.

Yet the writers obviously see the Rumann character as a crystallization of anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany, with obvious contemporary parallels. But they don't actually come right out and say so. They hint. They speak slyly to those few picturegoers that are in the know. There were doubtless good political reasons for this. But all this hiding behind a veil, waters down the essential drama. What we have left is a conflict between a big team of experts led by Ehrlich and a few disgruntled, ignorant but powerfully-placed bigots. Not exactly the stuff of high drama. A bit of tension there certainly, but 250 volts compared to a possible 25,000.

These restraints in the scripting are echoed by the players. In the key central role, Robinson's acting can be, was and is justly described as restrained. That's fine. But is restraint what his fans expect and want? To my mind, Edward G. Robinson stands for full- blooded power, charismatic playing with all gloves off. This dignified, selfless, persistent, undiscouraged, turn-the-other-cheek Ehrlich is not the Robinson we know and love.

In short, a very classy production, with marvelous technical credits, always very appealing to look at (a special bow to Perc Westmore for his wholly credible make-up work on Robinson), but one that seems, despite good pacing and attractive production values, to be operating at half-steam.

Robinson dominates the film. Aside from the ever-reliable Otto Kruger and the hissingly villainous Sig Rumann and Montagu Love, most of the other players, talented as they are, fail to get much of a look-in . Even Madame Ouspenskaya figures in only a couple of scenes.

OTHER VIEWS: Among all the plays and films in which I've appeared, I'm proudest of my role in Doctor Ehrlich's Magic Bullet. It was, I think, one of the most distinguished performances I've ever given. I say that not only because the critics said it and the mail and the box office said it, but most of all because that inner voice, that inner self, that captious critic Emanuel Goldenberg said it. And others said it, people who, in the end, meant the most: Dr Ehrlich's family. — Edward G. Robinson.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Another great Hollywood Bio
d149424 May 2002
I must echo the glowing comments about this fine film by William Dieterle. The entire cast is superb, from Robinson to Maria Ouspenskaya and Donald Crisp. Some of the cast had appeared in the very fine 'Life of Emile Zola' some 5 years earlier. Everything about this film was well done, from the acting to the photography to the music. A Must see.
23 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An Ambivalent Movie
disinterested_spectator6 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" is a movie with a paradoxical goal: it wants to convince us not to be ashamed of something that the movie is obviously ashamed of.

It begins with a prologue informing us of the fact that the movie is based on a true story, explaining that it was the goal of Dr. Paul Ehrlich to develop chemicals that would treat diseases, which he called "magic bullets," to treat the "scourges" of mankind. No mention is made of the particular scourge that this movie is about, which is syphilis. Already, we get the first indication of reticence on the part of the movie to actually mention the word "syphilis."

In the first scene, a young man enters Ehrlich's office for a physical examination. As with the prologue, Ehrlich does not utter word "syphilis," referring to it as a contagious disease, and then, incredibly enough, adding that it is "an infection just like any other." Inasmuch as the unmentioned syphilis was, at that time, an often fatal, neurological degenerative disease, what are we to make of this inappropriately reassuring phrase, "an infection just like any other"? A clue to what he is getting at comes with the following remark, "I've seen cases where it was transmitted by an inanimate object."

In other words, most people get syphilis through sexual intercourse, which makes the disease shameful. Therefore, to separate the disease from the shame, Ehrlich is making excuses for the patient's condition, indicating that he might have contracted it in some manner other than sex. Hence the phrase, "an infection just like any other." Of course, we all know that this young man probably had sex with a prostitute. So, in the very act of telling him (and us) that the disease whose name he won't utter might have been contracted in a non-shameful manner, he is implicitly saying that the vast majority of cases of syphilis, which are contracted through sex, are not infections just like any other, but are in fact something to be ashamed of.

After the examination, we see Ehrlich putting some substance into a jar for the man to apply to his skin. He picks up a label, holding it between his thumb and fingers, licks the label, and applies it to the jar. Now, how's that for an inanimate object? In the very act of licking something his hands just touched right after examining the patient, he makes it hard for us to take him seriously about alternate means of transmission.

He lies to his patient that some people are cured, but the man does not believe him, and while supposedly getting dressed, the patient commits suicide, apparently slitting his own throat with a scalpel. Needless to say, nothing like that ever actually happened, but exists solely for its melodramatic value. Later, Ehrlich tells his wife Hedwig that the man is better off dead, and the world is better off because he cannot infect anyone. He despairs that all the treatments he prescribes are useless, just something to give patients a false sense of hope.

From this point, the movie follows Ehrlich through various medical discoveries. As is typical in movies about scientists, the role of accident is emphasized, "Eureka!" situations, as it were. Such accidents do occur in science, of course, but they are given more significance in the movies than they really deserve, because they have more dramatic value than the norm of dull, plodding science that moves from one carefully controlled experiment to another. The movie further provides us with an Arrowsmith situation, specific to medical science, in which the experiment requires that half the subjects get the serum or vaccine while the control group gets only a placebo or nothing at all; but in the name of humanity, the doctor ends up giving everyone the medicine, which saves their lives. Of course, in these dramatic situations, there is always a de facto control group anyway, which is all the people who were dropping dead from the disease prior to the experiment.

In any event, about one hour in, the word "syphilis" finally makes its way into the movie. And now, what he once referred to as "an infection just like any other," he calls "man's most vicious disease." At a dinner party, when asked what he is working on, he shocks the guests by uttering the word "syphilis." Anxious to reassure the guests, he returns to the earlier dodge of saying that this disease can be transmitted by an ordinary object like a drinking cup or eating utensil. We see that Ehrlich is once again trying to remove the shame of syphilis with his reference to alternate forms of contracting the disease, which he refers to as "innocent ways." In so doing, however, he implies that there are guilty ways of contracting syphilis, which are by far the most common, such as by whoring around.

Eventually, he develops Compound 606, later to be marketed as Salvarsan, a compound that allows arsenic to kill the spirochete bacterium without harming the test animals. We then get the trope of the scientist that experiments on himself, when one of Ehrlich's staff injects himself with the compound to see if it is safe for humans. Following this, we get another Arrowsmith situation, in which Ehrlich allows Compound 606 to be made available to doctors before he is through testing it, sacrificing strict scientific procedure for the sake of the dying patients. As a result, a few patients die, leading to accusations against Ehrlich, who in turn sues for libel. This is most fortunate, from a cinematic standpoint, because a trial is also a good way to dramatize science.

In the end, however, Dr. Ehrlich was more successful in his struggle to defeat syphilis than the movie was in its struggle to defeat the shame that comes from contracting it.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I was unable to observe/imagine Edward G. as the renowned Dr. Ehrlich
Ed-Shullivan5 February 2018
Unfortunately Edward G. Robinson was in my humble opinion, unable to portray the Nobel winning scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich with any credibility. At first glance Edward G. Robinson's really fake hair piece, mustache and beard appeared to be purchased from a five and dime store. I did not see him speak in any scientific terms either. For example, when Dr. Ehrlich was attempting to gain new funding for his continued experiments when the government cut his funding, he accepted a dinner invitation which his servant like wife (Ruth Gordon) arranged from a wealthy socialite. At the dinner table Dr. Ehrlich proceeds to explain to his wealthy dinner hostess by taking out from his pocket an ink pen and writing out in simple terms directly on to her white table linen by "dumbing down" his scientific experiments using rats, rabbits, and monkeys, such that before he was finished with his explanation, the only person left from the original 24 people was the hostess herself. And yet, we the audience did not hear his explanation(s) to his gracious socialite hostess.

I will say that Dr. Ehrlich was known to smoke more than a dozen cigars every day, and his office secretary was very close to him and appeared to know him best which is why her character was portrayed in this film as the caring employee when he took ill.

With so many great actors/actresses available in the 1940's era of filmmaking I don't know why the producers settled for the gangster mode image of Edward G. Robinson.

I just did not think Edward G. Robinson's portrayal of the famed Nobel prize winner Dr. Paul Ehrlich was delivered with sufficient preparation and final delivery of his lines to be regarded as authentic.

I give the film a 4 out of 10 rating for it's historical value, but I had to take away points for the sub standard delivery of the biographical story of Dr. Paul Ehrlich by Edward G. Robinson. I was not impressed.
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Edward G. Robinson does for Ehrlich what Paul Muni did for Pasteur.
Peter2206028 January 2002
Hollywood in the 1930' s filmed the biographies of some of the world's greatest men. These recreations tower over the current A & E Biography series. The story of Dr. Ehrlich from staining the tubercular germ through the development of his theory of combating disease with so called magic bullets of chemicals is inspiring. His efforts in fighting Diphtheria and his long struggle against the devastating scourge of syphilis with a final discovery after 605 failed attempts is extremely rewarding.
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Magnificent movie
Shotsy16 May 1999
This film is generally forgotten because the only star in it that is remembered today is Edward G. Robinson. While he gives an outstanding performance, it is the entire cast who should receive accolades. Dieterle's direction, the photography, a truly excellent script and Steiner's music are all part of a near-perfect biography. Most highly recommended!
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Perhaps Robinson's Greatest Performance
Michael_Elliott7 January 2009
Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (1940)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

John Huston co-wrote the screenplay and won an Oscar for it for this bio-pic from Warner. Dr. Paul Ehrlich, played brilliantly by Edward G. Robinson, draws heat from his peers when he decides to try and find a cure for the morally incorrect syphilis. It's rather shocking to find out that Robinson never received an Oscar nomination and it's even more shocking after watching his brilliant work here, which is perhaps the greatest I've seen from him. He has to age several decades here but Robinson nails each stage of the doctor's life from his early days working in a hospital to his final days dealing with a trial over his syphilis serum. It's amazing to see how much Robinson transformed himself because he looks and acts unlike anything I've seen him in. He has a wig on, a strange beard and right from the start you see him as the doctor and not Robinson. There's no question the actor will always be remembered for his role in Little Caesar but his work here is so much better. The studio went all out and gave him a terrific group of supporting players including Otto Kruger, Ruth Gordon, Donald Crisp, Maria Ouspenskaya, Henry O'Neill and Donald Meek. The screenplay is very ambitious in that it tries to cover various aspects of Ehrlich's life and for the most part it works, although I thought that a few segments were rushed over so that the film could get onto other aspects of his life. The final trial didn't come off too well but it did make for a nice payoff through Robinson's touching final scene inside the courtroom.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
medical biopic
SnoopyStyle14 April 2024
German Dr. Paul Ehrlich (Edward G. Robinson) grows tired of the hospital red tape. He has two young daughters with his wife (Ruth Gordon). He makes various discoveries over time. After an observation in Egypt, he becomes obsessed with discovering magic bullets to cure different diseases.

It is a pretty straight forward medical biopic headed by a Hollywood legend. It is not like they could add a car chase or anything like that. The acting is solid. I guess that syphilis was unmentionable back in the day. That probably made this edgy. Otherwise, this is very solid and it is also very informative.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Accurate depiction of Paul Ehrlich's labor and sagacity
hffoundry12 August 2006
Well made and accurate film illustrating the great efforts Dr. Ehrlich made in strict scientific method and his ability to comprehend disparate events. This culminated in Dr. Ehrlich's nearly single-handed development of cytology, histology, hematology, hypothesis of immunity and antitoxins and cure for syphilis. Illustrates what one determined individual willing to work may accomplish to the betterment of mankind. Paul Ehrlich was a dedicated physician and scientist of the first order. His efforts likely saved the lives of some of your ancestors if not you, yourself. I regret I can not afford to buy the movie, nor find it re-listed on the TV guide or movie listings. I would be happy to see it again, though it illustrates how little I have made of my life in comparison to that of Dr. Ehrlich.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not amazing, but quite engaging and educational
JurijFedorov18 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
How ironic that USA made a movie during WW2 about a heroic German in Germany with a heroic Japanese helper. This alone makes it very peculiar and worth a watch.

Dr. Ehrlich was Jewish though so Germany had already erased him from their street signs and textbooks. The movie hints at his religion in one scene. But it's only mentioned with a few words in 2 scenes and most viewers would likely miss it. It's definitely a peculiar movie considering that nearly all big movies from this period are movies about WW2 and how great the Allies are and how mean the Germans are. This is basically the opposite as it glorifies Germany as a whole and only has the evil guys be directly racist. But many of the filmmakers were German born so they likely did like Germany. Edward G. Robinson himself, playing the lead, was Jewish. He is known for his gangster roles from that time period playing various mafia bosses controlling the illegal alcohol trade in the new mafias created because of the prohibition. It's nice to see him take on a serious role here and not a fake mafia boss. He's actually a good actor here which just shows that you need to try out new roles to show your full acting range. Many other actors here are great too, like his friend and his wife. But you do have the typical wooded acting and lazily done scenes too. A very few movies could get past this back then as you needed a perfect studio to make the sound work. This one looks like it was mainly set in a sound studio with just a few walls behind them. So even quiet talk can be clearly heard which saves the movie and makes especially the scenes with the wife high quality acting. There is very little "screaming acting" here. In most movies from that time period it was the normal. Just scream your lines and get out. It becomes obnoxious after some time. But the lack of streets and nature hurts the movie for sure. I would have loved just maybe 6 scenes set outdoors in Germany while 3 of them being in the street with walk and talk or just people walking. We don't see any buildings in the movie. No horse carriages, no streets, nothing outdoors unless it's a fake small studio set. This is a giant error.

The quality of the movie is low, at least the version I watched. So you legit feel like all sets are real locations, they may have been. The low quality and B&W video makes it seamless compared to modern historical movies that all look fake in many scenes. But it's also way easier to make it look real when the background is hazy. And without any streets or color many scenes become dull. At least all lab and home scenes were great. You feel like he is in the lab or at home with his wife.

There is also a question of action and characters. The plot is a bit weird. The movie starts with little to no emotions or goals. We just see this young doctor research on the side. It's cool, but lacks tension. While in later scenes they overdo the tension and you have people crying or screaming in scenes where it feels like less would have been more as these are smart geniuses not random drunkards. It's just not easy to make a movie with subdued emotional performances when the camera is so low quality. You do need to zoom in on faces and show one single emotion to make your point. It's not like today where HD cameras can pick up a small frown in the background. Dr. Ehrlich aging in the movie is spectacular make-up work. His beard turns grey and you legit feel it's real. Again unlike modern movies where such make-up is clearly fake as the camera easily picks it up. The wife on the other hand looks like she's 35 at the start and 45 at the end. As always the woman doesn't age. This of course is still a problem in modern biopics following some big man. Some guy is 20 at the start. At the end 75. And yet his wife looks nearly exactly the same years later. It's not a great issue, but it does take away from the historical aspect to a smaller degree.

The characters could have been used to create more tension. We follow Dr. Ehrlich in how he does controversial research and most doubt him. But as he gains success old doubters move to his side except a few haters. It creates a good tension and some big fights. But the lead himself is dull. He is written like a regular housewife of a lead from that period. Meaning he is basically all good heart and nothing else. Just trying to help. Of course his wife is the same. Movies from that time didn't try to make any character grey. You were either a good guy and won or a bad guy and lost. The movie code didn't allow for anything else in USA. Here it's just a mess as you'd want him to actually have some kind of personality not be a wet blanket. Sure he's a swell guy, but you need a real life person here not a kind flat character never once doing anything questionable. The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936) made by the same people is way better in all aspects. Louis Pasteur is of course made into a fake good guy. In real life he was devious and tricky and could be a jerk if it gained him power. In the movie he's a great guy doing nothing wrong so it's not a true story as such. But they add in tension by still having him be tricky and win his fights by cleverness and fights. Nothing evil, just cleverness. Here Dr. Ehrlich is equally kind, but he has no spirit to play games or agree to great tests and fair battles. He tries to avoid it and the danger and conflict just hits him nonetheless as OTHER people are irrational. It's hard to create proper tension and plot when you can't do realistic storylines with real people. But it's clearly possible to a larger degree as the same people did it just 4 years prior. I'm not sure if the rules were tightened in this period. There are a few movies from the early 30's that are way more mature than anything made afterwards until the 70's finally did away with the old rules for what you could show.

Despite the movie at times feeling a bit lost and unstructured it's a very interesting real story. The fact that it's real saves the movie. But there is an issue of the depth of it too. Many medical scenes are just shallow moral preachings instead of being about medicine or science. So they feel fake. In other scenes they talk about research without telling us what it all means. Like fighting a disease they won't name or using a cure they don't explain. You need to understand the history to understand what they actually did. So it's a weird mix of too basic and too complicated. Could have been stronger in this aspect. But back then it was harder to explain complicated concepts to the public. You also didn't have 3D graphics. So we either had to see it via a chart or microscope recordings. Which is cool, but not quite enough to fully understand it.

Overall we see them experiment on animals and humans and see how morally difficult it is to release dangerous medicine for the wider public. The movie is curious as it's a true story and it's made in 1940. So overall it's way better than the average movie. I do wish I had watched it in higher quality. The version I found was quite rough. But with such old movies you need people to rerecord them in HD and release them. Which may cost a few thousand dollars with not much profit potential as you can't exactly release them in cinemas again. At any rate without any streets or buildings in the movie the quality of it unfortunately doesn't much matter.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The end of the road? Hardly.
brogmiller31 December 2019
Edward G. Robinson was undoubtedly the greatest actor never to have been nominated for an Oscar. Even his honorary Oscar had to be awarded posthumously! One can only surmise that his being constantly overlooked was due to his 'leftist' leanings. Only a theory of course. He is simply stupendous in the title role of this excellent biopic from Warner Bros. Robinson was a man of immense culture and humanity whose performance in this has both intelligence and heart; an unbeatable combination. Although studio bound with a mix of both American and European actors, director William Dieterle has succeeded admirably in convincing us that we are in nineteenth century Germany. The cinematography by James Wong Howe and a Max Steiner score beautifully arranged by Hugo Friedhofer add to its effectiveness. It is possible that Warner Bros would have been the only Hollywood studio at the time to have touched this subject matter. There are a few scenes with Albert Bassermann as Dr. Robert Koch whose own biopic was directed by Hans Steinhoff a year earlier with Emil Jannings in the title role. This also is highly recommended. Dr. Ehrlich, in the film anyway, expresses the hope that the success of experiment 606 marked 'the end of the road' in the fight against syphillis. This alas has not been the case as he had failed to take into account the 'human factor' involved in the spread of STD's! This is a well-intentioned, well made and well acted film but one that I would not recommend to animal rights activists although happily the chimpanzee is cured!
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Edward Robinson's Greatest Role Ever in the sensational true story of Dr. Ehrlich which changed the medical world forever.
SAMTHEBESTEST16 January 2022
Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (1940) : Brief Review -

Edward Robinson's Greatest Role Ever in the sensational true story of Dr. Ehrlich which changed the medical world forever. Watching Dr Ehrlich's Magic Bullet in today's time when the pandemic (Covid-19) has hit us hard made me realize the importance of Medical science and the people who are serving it more than ever. These great scientists have done such phenomenal jobs that we as a society owe our lives to them. William Dieterle had already made classic biographicals like 'The Story Of Louis Pasteur' (1936) and 'The Life Of Emile Zola' (1937) before making Ehrlich's biopic, so he knew how to handle the subject and more importantly how to present it. This film has so many moments that will touch your emotions and make you realise the noble services many scientists and doctors have done to us. It's a true story of Dr. Ehrlich, who considered it was not immoral to search for a drug that would cure syphillis and that in future all the serums will be made in test tubes. The guy fought everybody, even his best friend to achieve success and everything he did was only and only for the sake of humanity. He may not be a god, but he's no less either. I say this to almost every scientist/doctor who has invented those medicines and antidotes to those terrible diseases. Just imagine if someone discovers an injection that will kill this covid-19 virus right now at this moment. Hail him, won't you worship him like a God? That's what they deserve and it is our duty to give them that respect. Dr Ehrlich's Magic Bullet is one such sensational story on one of the most important inventions in medical history powered by Edward Robinson's greatest role ever performed on screen. I will always remember William Dieterle for telling these important chapters from the history of mankind through such lovable and educational films.

RATING - 7.5/10*

By - #samthebestest.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Heros
wadesrmail2 April 2020
Robinson gives his best performance in my mind. Happened to catch this movie years ago and though dramatized, am sure, the story is about a man dedicated to helping people and is a very powerful message to us....who are our heros? Sports heros? Music heros? Hollywood heros? No. People like Dr English are the heros of this planet. Great movie and Robinson is superb in the role.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Warner Brothers' courageous bio of a gifted and important scientist
blanche-223 July 2006
"Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" is the story of the groundbreaking Nobel prize winner Paul Ehrlich, credited with many discoveries still critical in the practice of medicine today, and perhaps most importantly, for finding the cure for syphilis. This is an important film for the use of the word 'syphilis' which was the basis of a fight between the Hays code and Warners. But Ehrlich's story deserved telling, and you couldn't do it without using the word syphilis.

The beginning of the film shows Dr. Ehrlich in Germany futilely treating patients who have the disease, though nothing can really help them. It chronicles his rise up the scientific ranks through his use of staining organisms so that they could be seen under the microscope, his work in disease resistance, and finally, after long experiments with an arsenical compound - 606, in fact - the discovery of a cure for syphilis.

For me, one reason to watch bios is that I develop interest in the subjects and seek out more information; after all, some Hollywood stories are less factual than others. Though I'm sure a lot of Ehrlich's life had to be telescoped, the film certainly hits the highlights, and portrays him as a gifted scientist and vigorous innovator obsessed with his work.

Edward G. Robinson was always a good actor in the right role, but as Dr. Ehrlich, he is magnificent, totally immersing himself in the character and drawing the audience in. Stage actress Ruth Gordon, for whom movie stardom was about 28 years off, gives a lovely, understated performance as Ehrlich's wife. The rest of the cast is excellent, from Otto Kruger as a fellow scientist and friend, right down to a small role by Louis Calhern.

The movie is a little too sentimental at times by today's standards, I suppose, but the only thing that really bothered me was the lack of presence of Ehrlich's daughters at the film's end. At the beginning of the movie, we see them as youngsters, and reference is made to them later as being married. Would it have killed Warners to have two female extras at the end of the film? We would have known who they were.

I don't know if Ehrlich really said that diseases of the body will not be conquered until we conquer diseases of the soul, but it's a great and true thought. He was in fact a victim of a disease of the soul: there was a street in Frankfurt named after him, but the name was changed in the '30s because Ehrlich was Jewish. Later, it was reinstated.

This is a marvelous movie, a real must-see.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent story about medical discovery
tanstaafl200428 September 2005
I saw this movie a few times, years ago when they had a lot of old movies on TV (pre-cable). There is much more in it than the cure for syphilis.

Dr. Ehrlich also discovered some amazing new ideas: dye for viewing bacterial slides and identifying those germs; the process of vaccination as a prevention against disease and the difficulty in changing the views of the medical community even with valid & objective scientific evidence.

Edward G. Robinson did an excellent job and the portrayal is artfully and humanely done as a early medical pioneer. The scientific discoveries may seem too banal for today's average person but the work was a milestone in medical science.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed