Simply A Masterpiece

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

This story of the courtship of two poets, the invalid Elizabeth Barrett, and the vital Robert Browning, makes for a very enjoyable couple of hours. It's nice to see a film based on a well-written play, with fine characterizations and good direction. The film is surprisingly suspenseful; apparently mundane, everyday matters absorb us slowly inexorably, until we realize they are matters of life and death. As Elizabeth Barrett, Jennifer Jones gives one of her finest portrayals. Unfortunately, it's not one she's especially remembered for, because the movie doesn't seem to be shown all that much. As Elizabeth Barrett, she's required to be the emotional center of the film, and she accomplishes that, with great warmth and simplicity. You'll find yourself rooting for her. Though she's the one American in an all-British cast, she never comes across a Barrett from Hollywood Boulevard.The great John Gielgud is a bit more problematic in the role of Moulton Barrett, the tyrannical father the large Barrett brood lives in fear of upsetting. At this point, Gielgud, though he had appeared in films, had not especially mastered (or so it would appear) the subtle technique of performing for the camera. He's not bad, but he's stagy. And I also wonder if he's the best choice for the role. But at least he's strong, and makes his presence felt. This works for the film far more than it detracts.The film also features the married team (though I'm not sure if they were, at the time) of Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, later the stars of Born Free. Travers plays Robert Browning; he may not be everyone's idea of Browning, but he's a good actor and he has a lot of energy. McKenna plays the role of the younger sister that was played in the 1934 version by Maureen O'Sullivan. The two performances could not be more different; O'Sullivan playing the frightened little ingenue (quite well, it must be said), and McKenna playing it much more internally and with a stillness and a subtle fear. It's a very fine performance.The supporting cast is uniformly good. Sidney Franklin (who hadn't directed a film in 20 years) does a beautiful job. The sets and costumes, in color and CinemaScope, are perfect.I really enjoyed it.

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) is a word-for-word remake of the classic 1934 version by the same name. And, as such, I wonder why anyone should even bother seeing this film. After all, since the original version was a very nice and well-acted film (despite Charles Laughton overacting a bit), I can't see seeing a re-make--especially one that took almost no effort to make. Now I am not saying the 1957 film is bad--it is lovely to look at and the story is interesting. I just don't believe in rewarding studios for slap-dash remakes. In fact, unless the original film is seriously flawed and the remake corrects this, I can see no logical reason to see the remake and usually make it a habit to avoid them! So why did I watch the 1957 film? Well, I was flying cross-country and this film was one of the choices on the menu for in-flight films. And, in this sense, it fit the bill--and was pleasant but not particularly inspired.

Sidney Franklin's 1957 remake of his own 1934 "The Barretts Of Wimpole Street" is virtually perfect and stands head and shoulders above the original which is a very good, very enjoyable film, but which is also extremely saccharin in tone. A fault which this version never falls prey to. Thanks to the talents of all involved especially those of the excellent Jennifer Jones and the genius John Gielgud this version succeeds almost supernaturally in being amazingly affecting without even a hint of the maudlin.The true story of the material is undoubtedly one of the greatest love stories in human memory, and the depth and wonder of that is ably conveyed here. We not only love to see love triumph, but also to see evil defeated. I have rarely been so satisfied on that account by any film as this one. The defeat and humiliation of John Gielgud's tyrannical, incestuous Mr. Barrett is exquisitely portrayed.Both Jones and Gielgud should have received Academy Awards. Compare the two versions and see for yourself.

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) tells the story of the romance of real-life poets Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning, despite many odds. In 1840's London, the Barrett household is one of fear and unhappiness. Elizabeth, (Jennifer Jones) the oldest child of the family, has been sick and forced to stay in her bedroom for the last several years. Also in the household are her two sisters and five brothers, all of whom are under the thumb of their tyrannical father, Edward (John Gielgud) a widower who found that since he lost the love of his life, he would not allow any of his children to marry either, in particular, Elizabeth, the one daughter who he claims to love. Elizabeth has been corresponding with a young poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), however, and finds that the more she falls in love with him, the healthier she gets, but the healthier she gets, the more desperate and tyrannical her father gets.The story as I told it sounds like it could be kind of interesting and fun in a high-drama type way, which is what I was expecting, but it actually was pretty boring. And when it wasn't boring, it was creepy. Gielgud is a great actor of course, and was great as Robert Browning, a man who needed to look up Freud in a couple of decades. His devotion and stranglehold on Elizabeth was actually pretty disturbing, particularly when his desperation grew to a fever pitch at the end of the film. I have never liked Jennifer Jones, and I didn't like her in this movie. I'm not sure what it is about her exactly, other than the fact that I consider her a mediocre actress – perhaps it is because she always has this look on her face that is a weird cross between anguish and when you feel a sneeze coming on. With a story as bizarre as this one, so much more could have been done to make this film a good one, but unfortunately it just turned out mediocre at best. 4/10 --Shelly