bkoganbing The Twenties post World War I saw a great revival in spiritualism of which the play Death Takes A Holiday is most certainly part. It was hard for rational man to fathom the cost of the greatest war yet fought on the planet. People sought answers in things not comprehensible in this world.Death Takes A Holiday occurs in Italy during World War I which had its own front in that war with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Seeing so much of it with the accompanying fear in men's eyes, Death in the guise of the recently departed Prince Sirki takes a three day holiday and spends it at the estate of Guy Standing and several other guests.Maybe one day someone will write a story where death personified spends time with some poor or working class family on the globe somewhere. I'm sure he'd get quite a different perspective on life. Spending a holiday with Guy Standing or with Anthony Hopkins in Meet Joe Black is not the general rule of things.Fredric March as Prince Sirki cuts a romantic and rather lonely figure and is grateful for the company for those three days. One of the guests, Evelyn Venable is a woman with rather strange ideas. What she does in the end is just a wee bit too weird for my taste. Death Takes A Holiday is a romantic drama with spiritual overtones, directed in a lavish style by Mitchell Leisen. It's an interesting, but I think at this point rather dated film.

coco-121 The story line is nothing like Meet Joe Black. The only thing the two movies have in common is that Death decides to take human form to find out why the living resist Death. The characters are typical of movies of this era - overacted, overly dramatic, too much makeup, almost comical. Death in 1934 forgets that he's trying to keep his identity secret, and he keeps letting slip little comments that reveal who he is. Death in 1998 has no such confusion; he is who he is, and it's for others to figure out why certain things amaze him so, such as peanut butter, tea cookies and the closeness of a woman. I thought the 1998 version was much richer, the premise was much more meaningful - taking human form so that he could learn from a man of good character why a life well lived had such great value. The 1934 Death seemed to just stumble upon this household of shallow elites who loved fast cars and parties. 1934 Death's focus seemed to be on women, and one melancholy woman in particular who welcomed Death into her life. His grand realization was that romantic love was the reason people resisted Death (huh?). The whole premise of the earlier movie just wasn't as deep as the later version. If you like the overly dramatic silliness of early movies, you'll probably enjoy this one. I was disappointed. In the category of early movies, this didn't come close to films like "It Happened One Night."

Tobias_R This fascinating curio from the 1930s is based on an Italian stage play that posited the simple question: Would Death be intrigued by why we mortals cling so stubbornly to life in spite of our self-evident self-destructive urges. Death, in this movie, is at a disadvantage in this since he is immortal and can never death itself. It posits a question that has been posed as earlier as the ancient Greek playwrights such Euripides: Are the gods inferior to mortals because the former have no knowledge nor capacity for understanding the deep suffering the latter are capable of because mortals are always aware on some level that they will ultimately die? This story, Death Takes a Holiday, is reminiscent of aspects of Christian theology that posited Jesus, as the Son of God, was part of the divine Godhead and thus by allowing Jesus the Crucifixion, God could come to understand the suffering of which His creation was capable. By that understanding, Jesus could redeem the sins of mankind as God, through Jesus, gained an understanding of what it meant to be human. Even though this perspective isn't strictly orthodox, it was best illustrated in another movie, The Green Pastures, which was made in 1936.As to the film itself, the presentation has definitely dated aspects. What keeps the film in the category of a flawed classic rather than a dated curio is Frederick March's wonderful performance as Death who comes as Prince Sirki to a weekend gathering of Italian aristocrats at the villa of one of those aristocrats. March captures ideally the worldliness of an ageless figure, such as death, who has seen everything and his endearing naiveté as Death realizes he's actually experienced nothing of what he sees. It's when he falls in love with the beautiful Grazia that he begins to understand the suffering of which humans are capable. Indeed when Grazia wishes to go with Sirki/Death, Death feels the anguish that a person feels who must part from one he loves. It is when she declares that she knew who he really was all along and isn't afraid to follow him to his realm that Death grasps the power of love in the face of death. March conveys all of this beautifully and even makes his final rather overwrought speech memorable and moving.Unfortunately, from those thespian heights, the other aspects of the film are a rather mixed bag. The young actress who plays Grazia is given overdone dialog that irresistibly reminds me of the lines of the "serious" play that Katherine Hepburn's character in the movie, Backstage, is auditioning for. That's the play with the classic line, much parodied, "Father, the calla lillies are in bloom again..." Grazia's lines approach the laughable. Also, for a group of Italian aristocrats, the guests at the house sport frank American or English accents while the few working class Italians that appear are pure stage Italians out of the Chico Marx mold.But despite these limitations which led me to subtract three stars out of ten, it's a film well worth seeing.

Kenneth H. Waters This movie made my top ten list. All of the actors gave very good performances. The selection of costumes, wardrobes and jewelry were excellent. The special effects (1934) weren't overwhelming or too far-out. The location setting was reasonable for such a low budget firm. The direction, lighting and audio were first rate. Its a shame that someone hasn't done a re-make of this classic film. With the right cast, director and resources this film could win an Oscar. Perhaps, I'll make an attempt with a short version on video. As far as I started to explain, I felt very please, entertained and taken by every line of this film. It would be a worthwhile purchase for someones personal movie library. If not available for sale. Please set your VCR for it the next time its listed on the Classic-Movie cable channels. You and your friends (if you like real-good movies) wouldn't be disappointed...enjoy, Kenny