JohnHowardReid An attractively photographed, stylishly produced costume drama with director Forde taking full advantage of his magnificent sets and period trappings. The playing is most agreeable, and though the film was obviously produced to reinforce a wartime message of Anglo-American co- operation, the propaganda is not overly intrusive. Unfortunately, the U.S. version, namely "Sons of the Sea", is 16 minutes shorter than the U.K. release. In this cut-down offering, Griffith Jones simply disappears from the movie, whereas in the U.K. version he dies in the fog to save his ship. In the original version, there was also more of the race climax. In the American version, the sailing ship is simply left behind at the home port and is not seen from again. It's a shame all this action was eliminated (presumably to give the movie an undiluted happy ending) whereas the original action-filled climax is not only what the movie needs but what it has been relentlessly leading up to, namely the final confrontation between sail and steam.

xerses13 SONS OF THE SEA aka Atlantic FERRY (1941) is another of those hands across the seas pictures meant too solidify the relationship of Great Britain and the U.S.A. Though a Warner Brothers (WB) release this is a British production and the cast reflects this as well as the rather 'cheesy' production values. If you can ignore its technical short-comings the cast does a fine job. Lead by Michael Redgrave, who is a little too much 'stiff upper lip' and the luminous Valerie Hobson, who never disappoints.If the plot of the development of trans-Atlantic Steam-Ship travel seems familiar, it is. Two (2) years earlier Paramount released RULERS OF THE SEA (1939) featuring Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Margaret Lockwood as the romantic leads. Which we also rate IMDb******Six (6). Its main advantage was having Gordon Jennings head of the SFX department at Paramount and that Mr. Fairbanks Jr. is a FAR more engaging lover then Mr. Redgrave. If his lack of 'sex-appeal' had been typical of Englishmen the Country would be depopulated!Both films are a enjoyable matinée watch and if you can view them 'back to back' you will see the contrast in production styles. The WB did not invest as much into their production as did Paramount. Neither are 'classics', but worth watching every few years.

bkoganbing Atlantic Ferry, made by Warner Brothers in Great Britain celebrates the conglomerate that formed the Cunard line which inaugurated steam powered travel across the ocean. Of course this film was made at a time when Great Britain was trying ever so hard to get the United States involved in the second World War on their side and Warner Brothers was the studio most involved in that. The year before in America they had done The Sea Hawk and before that Confessions Of A Nazi Spy.The emphasis here is on shipping magnates Charles and David MacIver who joined with Samuel Cunard to provide regular passenger and cargo service across the Atlantic. The brothers are played by Michael Redgrave and Griffith Jones with style and conviction. These two don't always see eye to eye and there's a rivalry going between them for Valerie Hobson.Naturally the folks who are heavily invested in sail not thrilled with what the brothers propose. That scene where one self styled 'expert' says that the real problem is storage of fuel and there's no place to refuel in the middle of the ocean. Americans felt even stronger about that put their faith in sail for years longer than the British. It's also way we and the British acquired such odd places as the Falkland Islands for them and Midway for us to serve as coaling, later diesel refueling stations for our cargo, passenger, and most important, our military naval fleets. That 'expert' is voicing real concerns.American Hartley Power is playing Sam Cunard who was Canadian from Halifax and was already operating successfully in steam before doing the Transatlantic run. He acts as a steadying influence between the sometimes contentious brothers MacIver.Atlantic Ferry is a good historical and biographical film about a singular development in transportation. The sailing scenes are handled well by the special effects department and as a hands across the sea propaganda film, Atlantic Ferry holds up well today.

rsoonsa The action begins in 1837 when steamships were new and seemed to have little chance of supplanting sailing vessels upon the seas, until England's Charles and David MacIver attempted to develop the new underdog invention for commercial use. The sailing ships were seen as "coffins" with their owners emphasizing the importance of capital profit rather than passenger safety and this film is based upon the real life efforts conducted by David. Scripted by his descendants, Derek and Wynne MacIver, the work demonstrates the increased safety value of the steamships for passengers, although MacIver was considered reckless beyond redemption. When the fictional pair's first efforts prove to be akin to farce, Charles, portrayed with panache by Michael Redgrave, refuses to concede defeat, and presses on, despite a lack of funding or general support, in an attempt to prove that the view of his stodgy rivals is erroneous. His brother David (Griffith Jones), however, rejects the eternal freshness in the attitude of Charles, as depicted by Redgrave, and decides to withdraw his underpinning, leading to a coolness between the two. Charles eventually obtains financial backing and is bound to prove to all that the improvement in safety, coupled with increased reliability of the new breed of craft, will prove profitable to all concerned. To establish his credentials within the shipping industry, Charles will have to develop regular steamship travel between Great Britain and the United States, and he sets out to do so. By journeying upon a typical sailing craft, Charles is exposed to and experiences the common dismal and dangerous conditions for passengers, which serves to enforce his faith in steam power as an improved alternative. Woven with all of this is a contest betwixt the smitten brothers for the heart of beautiful Valerie Hobson, who plays well as the daughter of a potential sponsor, and there are fine acting turns by others in the splendid cast, including Henry Oscar, Margaretta Scott and Felix Aylmer. Director Walter Forde leads the players crisply through the always interesting and well-written scenario, and he and editor Terence Fisher, of later Hammer Films renown, unite in generating the film's most dramatic set of sequences, an expansive competition faced by a quick sailing ship and one utilizing steam. Although there are two brief moments of propagandistic moralizing (the work was released in 1941 when Britain was forcefully urging the U.S. to enter the war in Europe), this remains outstanding historic cinema, a good tale, well told.