Reviews

To my mind, Pride and Prejudice was Jane Austen's most engaging novel. And to take it a step further, this 1940 production is perfection. There are so many literary dilettantes commenting here, taking off points because it isn't a total echo of the novel, the costuming doesn't gibe with the era it's set in, and that later films of P & P are far superior. Perhaps they do include more of the novel, but the bottom line is that this first version works so well because of the far superior players--both stars and character roles--that the modern-day actors can't hold a candle to. Every single one of them puts their line readings, their facial expressions, and even their physical movements on glorious display. There's nothing wooden in their performances, and you are swept up from the very first moments of the movie. None of the omissions from novel to script matter; This is high-quality entertainment to love and enjoy no matter how many times you watch it.

This is golden age cinema at its best. And these are actors whose talent still shines brightly 81 years on, long after they've passed away. They are unforgettable and so is this movie. We will never see their like again...not even close.

I hadn't seen this movie since mt first viewing about 20 years ago. I liked it then, but the second time around I was totally blown away by Barrymore's performance, and I realized at last why he was considered one of the greatest actors of his time. His embodiment of the role of Hilary Fairfield is perfection--a master at work. While we can't help but empathize with the plight of his long-estranged wife who has been reawakened to the possibility of a glorious love in her middle age (Billie Burke had beaucoup talent, and it's showcased well here), Barrymore also tugs at the heartstrings, even through his moments of madness that threaten to disrupt the happiness of both ex-wife and daughter. Katharine Hepburn is very comfortable and believable in her role, yet the stars shine brightest when the two troupers share the screen, as their tense interactions vacillate between tenderness and resentment. This movie is a gem.

Comparing the two Wyler-directed films side-by-side , "The Children's Hour" has only one thing going for it: The subtext of Martha's latent lesbianism is true to Hellman's stunning play. But the performances of the leads--and even the minor--characters--in "These Three" far outweigh those in this movie, making viewing the earlier film a much more memorable experience.

I've never been a big fan of Merle Oberon, but she acquitted herself rather nicely in the Karen Wright role; Audrey Hepburn was just okay--not one of her better characterizations. Miriam Hopkins' performance as Martha Dobie was a tour de force. She was riveting every moment she was on screen, whereas Shirley MacLaine lacked the vulnerability that part calls for. Alma Kruger was the quintessential Mrs. Tilford, probably her best work. Fay Bainter--an excellent character actress--was good, but not as good as Kruger. I can't fault Hopkins for taking on the Lily Mortar role. Indeed, she was probably the best choice for that part in 1961. But Catherine Doucet in 1936 was simply brilliant. James Garner was completely wrong as "Joe Cardin", and it shows in every scene he's in, while capable Joel McCrea gave that character a lot more depth. As for the two child leads, Marcia May Jones captured all the emotions of her character without going "over the top"; totally believable and a fine piece of acting. And what can I say about Bonita Granville as Mary Tilford? Only that it is some of the finest work by a child actress, perhaps topped only by Peggy Ann Garner in 1945's "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." Veronica Cartwright and Karen Belkin were both awful in those two roles; real stinkers.

The staging was better, the filmography was better, and William Wyler was better as a director in the "These Three". That 83 year-old movie is still a standout-- a classic--and one that bears repeat viewing. "The Children's Hour", while true to the play, is forgettable. Seeing it once is more than enough.

I had the extreme pleasure and privilege of attending a preview of this film in Hartford, Connecticut December 17th, 2016. All I can say is "Wow!!" It held me mesmerized from beginning to end. This documentary is for anyone with an interest in R&B, soul, and pop music of the 1960s-- the top songwriters, producers, singers, and musicians of that era. It's also a comprehensive look at the inside workings of the music/record business--the deals made and broken, mob influence, struggles and successes. It contains amazing archival footage of NYC, and interviews with the top movers and shakers in the industry who entertainingly share their recollections from those days, and their memories of Bert Berns--a hip genius, a perfectionist, a man who dreamed big--whose body of work as writer and producer gave us some of the greatest musical moments from that time. Incredibly, he shot to the top of the charts and the industry in a short span of seven years, before passing away at the oh-so-young age of 38. There are many moments of laugh-out-loud humor, as well as pathos. And of course, the movie is filled with so much of Berns's wonderful music. It's a visual and aural feast for the senses.

This movie is a perfect example of what is wrong with the state of movies today. The original was a gem, with excellent acting by Katharine Ross, Paula Prentiss, and Patrick O'Neal. It was part horror story, part feminist cautionary tale. Most of all, it was BELIEVABLE! You got the feeling these were real people, and that all this could really be happening--and with a minimum of "special effects". The dialogue was pretty intelligent, the plot twists weren't given away in the first 15 minutes, and the ending was a real shocker. You cared about the female characters in the movie--you cared about Joanna's plight, and rooted for her to escape her planned fate.

The current version could only--and was probably meant to--appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-goer. In this film, the women are just as bad as the men--you don't give a damn what happens to them; that's how annoying the characters are. The laughs are cheap and lowbrow, vital plot elements of Ira Levin's novel are missing, and the acting is just plain bad.

You know what? I'm getting annoyed just writing about this dreck. If you have any taste, any sense, any feeling for good films, any aversion to wasting good money on bad movies--stay far away from this one!! See the original, and appreciate the stunning subtlety of a thinking person's movie, well-made and well-acted.

This is the funniest thing I have seen in many a year, like the early days of "Saturday Night Live"--only better. I have watched it three times already, as has my 17-year-old son, and we are helpless with laughter every time. I don't want to spoil the fun for anyone, so I won't tell you my favorite bits or punchlines, but I loved the Star Wars premiere, Bon Jovi concert, Westminster Dog Show ("That man...Joe...Joe Westminster"), and Hollywood Squares segments. Now that I think about it, it's hard to choose favorites--it's all hilarious! If you had told me that a man with a dog hand puppet would reduce me to helpless laughter, I would have said "You're crazy". But it's true, it's true. Robert Smigel, the man behind Triumph, is a comic genius. This DVD is lewd, rude, crude...and a laugh riot. I am giving it to selected people on my Christmas list. Do yourself a favor and watch it ASAP.