- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
To Millie and Commenter 77
You each got it right! Thank you both for your insights. I have watched the film 2-3 times. Will now have it on my iPhone and iPad. Agree totally on Garson's 'luminous' performance.she has a couple of good scenes..that first Lotte intro, the scene with the butler where she speaks French (remember her university degree was in 18th Century French literature! She also did post-graduate work for 1 year in Grenoble.)Then, of course, that scene at the Near-end when Mary reveals her romance with Greer's husband. The movie is a bit too long, too talk-y. Too much like the stage play it came from...but it does grow on you..and watching Greer Garson makes it all worthwhile.
All Time Favorite Chic Flick
Hey, I like both versions of this film. Not into parsing them either. The assembled talent, story, parts, clothes, set. This is the kind of movie I like to watch multiple times. First, watch the movie through. Then, maybe follow separate characters through. There's a lot going on simultaneously. Then, watch the clothes. Then, check out the house, furniture, etc. There was so much style put into these. All of these elements are what made these 30's and 40's films so special. I don't understand why all the comparisons and nitpicking.In both versions, the lady of the country house is something of a wonder - Spring Byington here. I like the Jimmy part a lot, and thought both actors did him well. He's the kind of guy who makes a wonderful friend, though he could get on your nerves at times. He's a young man who will settle down and make a good husband, reliable and good company along the way. Woodruff was an older man who hadn't settled down, self-centered, made a bad husband and rather a dullard actually.I think the sorting out between the women worked for both of them. The wife shook off the dead weight or drew her line anyway; the "girl friend" woke up from her naive daydream. We hope the husband woke up as well. Looks like Jimmy has a chance to come out on top as well!
Paula, can you not see the forest for the trees? Robert Taylor was so charming as "Jimmy" and very comical. That's hardly 'flat'.Herbert Marshall was playing his role as it should be. He was an upper crust publisher who obviously wasn't in love with Crawford, only flattered by the attentions of a younger woman. I was glad to see his character get his just desserts when Greer was through with his indiscretions for the last time. One can only hope he couldn't change her mind when he went running after her at the end of the movie. And Crawford's character didn't deserve to have someone like Taylor waiting for her.Steve, do some proof reading, your typing and spelling skills are atrocious.
Oh, please, Steve. What would please you, Heaven's Gate or Ishtar? Greer Garson certainly was "luminous". She wasn't self-sacrificing in "Julia Misbehaves" or "Remember?" or in "Adventure" or in "That Forsyte Woman" and others. It doesn't matter whose career lasted longer, Greer Garson outshone Joan Crawford in every way. At least Greer made quality films with quality performances. Joan was so desperate, she made some really awful, "Z"-grade clunkers. And I agree with another reviewer here, a man leaving Greer for Joan?!? Oh, come on!
Greer Garson is really the only reason to watch this movie. Robert Taylor and Herbert Marshall are so flat. And, who could possibly believe anyone would leave the beautiful Greer for (ugh) Joan Crawford? But Greer is totally a joy to watch. Spring Byington plays the usual ditzy role at which she was so good in so many films. I love to see Greer outshine Joan!
Good story; better back story
Crawford had just come off "A Woman's Face" in which she was ccriticaaly acclaimed, but the movie didn't sell many tickets. Mayer was trying to keep her in her place (doing movies with lousy stories) by bringing in potential replacement Garson. Interesting how cordial the ladies appeared to be on screen and apparently Crawford was not upset at Garson in real life, just a little incredulous as to why someone with vitrually no screen acting experience would be brought in to headline with Crawford and Robert Taylor.I never really understood Garson's appeal. "Luminous" as one reviewer put it? She's a Johnny One Note, who plays the Miniver/Parkington/Chips role (stiff upper lip and tra-la-la self sacrifice) in every movie she ever made--maybe that's why her career only lasted about 7 or 8 years, whereas the always reinventing Crawford was a major headliner for almost 50. Interesting movie, however. Love Crawford, can take or leave Taylor, and can take a nap through Garson.
NOT ON DVD?!
ok, not cool, not on dvd? seriously, you can't have a movie like this and not put in on dvd.
Well worth seeing.
- Thomas L Miller
I thought this was a great screenplay...considering how long ago it was written. This is a sly film that sneaks up on you and it's well worth seeing.
Greer Does it Again
- Chris Mack
Greer Garson once again exudes charm as usual in this mostly wacky romp-- until it's dramatic soap opera climax. Robert Taylor is a joy, and even Joan Crawford is excellent as a self-absorbed (what a stretch) author who thinks she's in love with her older philandering publisher. Just a fun time capsule of how love and marriage was viewed in a different time.
The ladies should meet again soon.
- Scott Lingenfelter
What a gem! A rare chance to see Crawford and Garson together in a subtle look at marriage. For fans of Garson, luminous in this film, a chance to see her upstage Crawford.Worth another airing soon.