The whole plot to this thing is so contrived that from the get go it's not going to work. A man gets saved from a reckless act at the expense of another man's life. He then woos the guys widow. Filled with guilt he goes to medical school. He begins to learn about things she can do to help others. The wife goes blind. Hmmmm! I wonder what is going to happen. The thing that is missing is the ability to bring the husband back from the dead. I know I'm being sarcastic, but there are so many lame plotting contrivances and virtual impossibilities here, and the sappy conclusion. I'm sure this all played well with people who want a happy ending at all costs, including believability. Rock Hudson was a handsome guy and Jane Wyman was also a good actress. Too hokey for my tastes, however.

According to IMDb, Jeff Chandler declined to star in this film as he found the script to be 'too soppy'. Well, after having seen it, I would definitely agree that this movie is a soppy soap opera...but it is also watchable in spite of this.

The film was first made back in 1935 and starred Robert Taylor and Irene Dunne. It's every bit as good as this 1950s version, though the 50s version is a bit stickier and glossier thanks to the direction of Douglas Sirk. It's a completely ridiculous story about a selfish playboy who eventually falls for a blind lady who he's wronged. Sounds confusing? See the film and see what it's all about.

The bottom line is that the actors do a fine job and the director makes about as good a version of the film as possible given the silliness and stickiness of the dialog. Not a terrible movie at all but it gets low marks for realism, that's for sure.

'Magnificent Obsession' could and should have been a lot better, and this is coming from somebody who really wanted to like the film. Being somebody that likes enough of Douglas Sirk's other films, 'Imitation of Life' being a prime example, and who appreciates melodramas when done well. Was also intrigued in how Jane Wyman's Oscar-nominated performance would fare and what the fuss was about Rock Hudson's breakthrough performance here.

So it was really sad for me to say that 'Magnificent Obsession' didn't really do much for me. It was a hit in the day, but in my view over-time it has not held up and the things that people criticise some of Sirk's other films for (not always agreed with just to say) are major failings in 'Magnificent Obsession'. It doesn't have enough of what made Sirk the interesting director he was, other films of his did much better at showing his trademark touches, and as far as his films go it's one of his weakest.

It's not all bad certainly. The best thing about 'Magnificent Obsession' is the way it looks. The film still looks very handsome and ravishingly shot in Technicolor. The music does contain some inspired and beautiful use of Chopin, a favourite of mine when it comes to classical music, which has an achingly elegiac quality.

One can see why Hudson properly became a star after this film, he looks great and is ardent, charismatic and doesn't seem stiff. Sirk was one of the few directors Hudson worked with who knew and understood Hudson's strengths and played to and made the most of them, evident in all their collaborations and evident here. Otto Kruger and Agnes Moorehead are solid support.

Was a lot less keen on Wyman sadly and out of all the actresses nominated in the Best Actress Oscar category that year, she was by far the least deserving. She did not seem very engaged at all with her role and seems entirely distant in it. How the character is written is a big problem too, the more nonsensical the story gets the character loses any sense of realism. She and Hudson didn't seem to have much chemistry in 'Magnificent Obsession' either, the little that there is still manages to not be all that interesting let alone sizzling. Sirk directed with a lot more passion and subtlety elsewhere, he really does struggle to reign in the melodramatic excess and narrative silliness and he seemed at sea and as uninterested in the material as Wyman.

Not that they can be entirely blamed. The characters are very difficult to care for and believe so unrealistically that one tires of them. The script manages to be both over-heated and under-nourished, lots of soap and syrup overdose but no substance underneath. Sirk often did incredibly well with his hold no barrels approach to his subjects, but that hold no barrels approach is lost underneath all the outlandish nonsense, excessively sentimentality and unintentional camp that passes for a very slight and dully paced story. The ending felt very tacked on and jarred with everything else and other than the use of Chopin the score is over-bearing and too syrupy.

In summary, semi-watchable once but quite disappointing. Magnificent it isn't sad to say. 4/10