What a disappointment! I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake. And poor, dull Martha Scott -- who could believe that she inspired such love and devotion after one meeting. Personally, I could have done without quite so much "Tom" Jefferson.The plot was simplistic; the dialog mundane. I couldn't take it for the entire two hours.

This premiered yesterday on TCM. In his intro, Robert Osborne said this was one of Cary Grant's least-known films. Ten minutes in, you know why. Matthew was 9 or 10 when he loses his father. A title card then moves us forward 12 years, meaning Matthew should be 21 or 22, but is played by the 36 year old Grant! It doesn't help that Matthew is an a-hole! He rejects his first son because he is crippled. So instead of naming the kid after his dead father, Matthew sticks it to him by naming him after the hated Fleetwood! The irony that Matthew becomes the very kind of man he despises Fleetwood for being - landowner (and slave owner), politician, member of the upper-crust - is completely lost on Z-Grade director Frank Lloyd.As if he knew he was horribly miscast, Grant tears through this like he's on crack! Martha Scott struggles mightily. Only the great Cedric Hardwicke emerges from this unscathed. Fleetwood is a snob, but one with an innate sense of civility who tries to walk a fine line between love of his King and love of his adopted home. He makes you feel Fleetwood's bitterness as his world crumbles around him, betrayed, through no real fault of his own, by the very people he thought of as his own.Did anyone pick up on that Roger was gay? Fleetwood gives Jane the family's necklace because he knows Roger will never marry! And Tom-Cat Jefferson was SO effeminate, I was waiting for him to hook up with Roger! Boy Howdy!

Despite rather mediocre reviews here on IMDb and in Leonard Maltin's guide, I really liked this movie. Unlike the few other American Revolution films Hollywood has made, this one was both interesting and did an excellent job in conveying WHY the Colonists were rebelling and didn't paint the British as total buffoons or Nazis (like in THE PATRIOT). Plus, the main character's father-in-law is a loyalist, so the real tensions that existed within families was given decent treatment. As an American History teacher, I must point out that despite coming from Hollywood in 1940, the realism in spirit is quite surprising and I could recommend this to kids, as they'd learn a lot.It was odd to see Cary Grant as a bit of a rag-tag outdoorsman, but he carried it off better than I'd expected. Plus, his British accent really wouldn't have been out of place in the Colonies at that time.Another big plus for the film was the relationship between Grant and his sons. Yes, it's a bit manipulative, but I really liked the way the writers dealt with this relationship in the movie. All in all, an excellent film.

Movies about the American Revolution for some reason have never succeeded as well as those about the Civil War. My guess is that the best of them is Drums Along the Mohawk and that was about one of the more obscure theaters of that war.Like Gone With the Wind, the Howards of Virginia is taken from a rather sprawling novel. But Gone With the Wind was very faithful to the original and managed to hold interest even given its length. The Howards of Virginia is a condensed version of the novel and some of the characterization has been sacrificed in the screen translation.Nevertheless it's a good story about a fictional Matt Howard from his days as a youth hearing the news about his father's death with Braddock's army in the French and Indian War to just before the Siege at Yorktown. Of course growing up with Thomas Jefferson, it's not surprising that Howard develops the opinions he does.Cary Grant is cast against type as Matt Howard. Takes a bit of getting used to in buckskins, but I like his characterization. In point of fact if you want to see the real Cary Grant on screen look at None, But the Lone Heart, Gunga Din, or Sylvia Scarlett. That's where you see the real Archie Leach. Cary Grant was the best role Cary Grant ever played.If The Howards of Virginia were made 10 years later, Burt Lancaster would have been spot-on in terms of casting.Martha Scott is fine as the Tory girl that Cary Grant woos and wins. It's quite a culture shock for her coming to the mostly unsettled Shenandoah valley among Grant's frontier friends and neighbors, but her best scenes in the film are at that point.Of course I think both Grant and Scott are acted off the screen when Cedric Hardwicke is on. As Scott's older brother Fleetwood Payton, Hardwicke is easily the best in the film. He's a privileged Virginia aristocrat and loyalist supporter of the crown. He's an aristocratic snob to be sure, but he's also a tender and loving brother to Martha Scott. Hardwicke managed to capture all the elements in Fleetwood Payton well as well as his losing his mind as his well ordered aristocratic world tumbles down about him.Richard Carlson is very much what I picture as the young Thomas Jefferson, full of new ideas and quite the rebel against his own class. Of course Patrick Henry and George Washington make their appearances as well in colonial Virginia. My guess is that in the book a whole lot of familiar names made it there, but were not in the screenplay.This is not the American Revolution's Gone With the Wind, but taken on its own terms The Howards of Virginia is good entertainment and does capture some of the motivating spirit behind the Virginia patriots and tories.