Given multiple reviews about 1937 ['movie'] ['Another Dawn'], each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ["What was Errol Flynn thinking doing this muck? This is the kind of film that once you've seen it, you have no intention on ever seeing it again. Not even if it comes out on DVD with a picture that looks like it was made fifty years later, would still make you not want to see it. This is Hollywood of the 1930's at it's worst and Errol Flynn at one of his worst. An unpleaseant, worthless, total piece of garbage of a film. Errol Flynn must of been desperate to get work, or maybe wanted to do something that wouldn't require a lot of energy. In the previous two years he did two action packed films that probably took out all his strength and energy and probably wanted do something like this muck. I could sit here and put down this film for a very long time, but hell I'm not going to waste my time. I'll just say this and end this review. WARNING: Think twice before watching this!! This is as bad as it gets, well ... almost as bad as it gets. I rate this film * out of ****. ", 'Good but not great film; it was successful at the box office Warning: Spoilers I quite disagree with the comments of several reviewers here. It\'s not that this is a great movie. It\'s not. But it is a good movie, particularly when seen from a perspective of the time. This is not prime Errol Flynn, but after all, it was filmed when he was still quite new to starring roles. So this is an opportunity to see the early Errol Flynn, and I think he does rather nicely. Kay Franics had been Warner Brother\'s biggest star, but regrettably they handed her a number of projects that were just plain stale. A year after this film she was labeled box office poison, but not due to this film. Here, she proved once again what an appealing actress she was when she had a good script. The third "star" of the film was the story. This was another of the the sun never sets on the British Empire films that were so often popular (after all, Flynn had starred in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" just a year earlier). Those films don\'t set quite so well in our era, but at the time, this was a box office success. Three supporting actors are worth mentioning here. As time goes by, I am more and more impressed by Ian Hunter, who here plays Flynn\'s commanding officer. I don\'t think I\'m familiar with Frieda Inescort, but as Hunter\'s sister here she is quite good. And Herbert Mundin...not that impressive, but her quite likable and one feels sympathetic toward his plight. As I said, it\'s not a great film, but it is a good film. You could do lots worse. '] Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words 'Reply finished' to indicate that your response is complete. Ensure that the text is fully formed without any placeholders such as '[Conclusion]' or '[Placeholder]'. Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.