Holm don’t say much but her points are interesting. It’s nice to have her on the track because she is in this great movie. Geist talks about Mankiewicz’s style and his life. He dislikes the guy and his gossip for the other commentary.

Christopher Mankiewicz dominats the track. He has a lot to say about his father’s career and his life as a family man. These parts are very honest and interesting. There are a lot of connections between the family llife and the movie. The alcoholism of Mankiewicz’s wife and brother (he has co-written the script of Citizen Kane) are also discussed. A funny point is that Mankiewicz never worked in a theatre or wrote a play.

They all agree that this movie is his best film.

The commentary is good but don’t expect too much information about the movie itself. It’s more about Mankiewicz’s life and films in general. 8 out of 10.

I don't know what I expected from these tracks but this was not it. With these three there is substantial dead air, Mankiewicz dominates narrating some harsh albeit honest stories about his father. the other two contribute little to nothing but altogether is bland and rather pointless.

Surprisingly thin commentary considering who they have on it. It feels like they werent recorded watching the film, but taken from interviews and pasted over the moments that fit the best. The actress only talks for about ten minutes, and the other two for about 30 min each. They say some interesting things about the psychology of the film, but I would almost rather have heard their interview than watching the film to hear bits of the opinions scattered in with lots of dead air in between.

I liked this commentary, but later discovered that the validity of many of Staggs anecdotes (and of his book) is questionable.

Page 6 type commentary with little interest to the movie itself beyond the anecdotical. The whole commentary with additional bits from the other track has been bastardized on the IMDB Trivia section so go read that instead.

Unusual that this commentary is better than the first. This is a more traditional commentary, like the ones you hear from film historians, as he wrote a book on the film. He points out various bits of trivia, back stories, underlying themes not easily noticed, ways they skirted around the morality rules of the time, and stuff like that.

Its missing the psychological insights from the first commentary, but otherwise this is the one to listen to first.