8/10
NOT a Chick Flick
22 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I must begin by disagreeing with one reviewer who called this a "chick flick". Is something a "chick flick" because it is about children? And, by the way, what's wrong with a "chick flick" if it's a good film. Or perhaps the reviewer thinks all that can appeal to men is a comedy film full of toilet humor and sex.

Sorry, but I see this as a rather serious film that, in the beginning, shows some of the horror of war from the perspective of the women and children who survived the devastation of the blitz in London. It's far more of a realistic portrayal of what war is really like than John Wayne running up over a hill yelling, "Yo, Pilgrim" (not that there's anything wrong with a film like that either). No, this is not about the false bravado you might find on a battlefield, but it is about the courage amidst pessimism by those who are most affected by war...the victims in bombed out buildings who cannot defend themselves. Almost every film seems to have one ill-thought-out scene, and the drunk scene is this one fits that capacity. Otherwise, it's extremely well acted, although I must say the concluding scene is a bit trite. Robert Young and Laraine Day do very nicely here, and both probably deserved better than the B scripts they were typically handed. Fay Bainter is a welcome addition to virtually any film, and she is so young looking here! And, it's nice to see a film where Nigel Bruce plays a normal human being instead of a buffoon.

No, this is not one of the greatest war films of its era. It wasn't intended to be. It was a film designed to show the plight of children during war, and it does a great job of doing so. Highly recommended. And I have increased my rating of the film after watching it a second time.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed