Nice effects though.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

'Pygmalion' is a wonderful play with George Bernard Shaw at his best. It is full of sharp wit, bite and charm. It is so wonderfully written with finely written characters, great character interaction and dynamic relationships. Its class and society views are also of great interest value and fairly daring back then.Love 1964's 'My Fair Lady' and am more familiar with it. While that is more visually beautiful and Freddy was written stronger there, the detail and spirit of Shaw's writing and story in 'Pygmalion' is more faithfully done here and the lead performances better. 'Pygmalion' is a wonderful film and for me it's the best film version adaptation-wise and overall of any of Shaw's plays. It is hard to say which is better between this and 'My Fair Lady', would rate them equally while finding aspects in one film done better in the other.My only complaints are Freddy's role being rather bland (not the film's fault though) and in particular the contrived missing-the-point ending, not surprised that it is a controversial one.However, 'Pygmalion' looks fine. Not exactly audacious or technically incredible, but it's nicely shot and the attention to detail is wonderfully meticulous. The script is one of the film's best assets, the wit sparkles like bubbles on top of a champagne glass and it's very clever and biting still, it's got classic Shaw all over it. With the exception of Freddy, the characters are fleshed out well and the character interactions and relationships dynamic. The relationship between Higgins and Eliza is suitably complex, witty, sometimes charming and enjoyable to watch. The story is beautifully told, never dull and opened up enough without feeling too stage-bound even when it is quite talky. Anthony Asquith directs with an adept hand and the Embassy Ball is beautifully handled.The performances are without fault, with Leslie Howard at his best embodying every ounce of Higgins' character and Wendy Hiller's brilliantly definitive Eliza. Wilfrid Lawson and Scott Sunderland fare best of the supporting cast.In summary, terrific. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Some aspects old-fashioned especially the wanting to be a "lady." Mother's role unconvincing. But Shaw's play is a classic and this production and acting are first rate.

After having been required to read this play in high school and then being re-exposed to it in My Fair Lady, this authentic movie version was a total breath of fresh air. First and very important, is the fact that Criterion has beautifully restored this black and white movie. In fact, one wonders if it was ever seen in theaters with such clean, pristine images and sounds (the latter of which is very important to the story itself). The opening credits say "Introducing Wendy Hiller." I remember thinking, if this is her film debut, how could she have thought that she would ever equal it!! Nevertheless, she did come back in another great Bernard Shaw movie in 1941, Major Barbara (which also cries out to be equally restored by Criterion). I especially appreciate these two movie versions of Shaw's plays due to their closeness and authenticity to Shaw, himself. In both, Shaw wrote the scenario and dialogue; both were produced by Gabriel Pascal (who went on to produce and or direct other Shaw play-based movies) and directed by Anthony Asquith (who went on to direct other Shaw play-based movies). This 1938 movie is the "gold standard" of the play! I've never seen a better Henry Higgins than Leslie Howard (who also co-directed the movie). He was born for this part and it is hard to imagine that Rex Harrison didn't use him as his model in My Fair Lady. Likewise, Wendy Hiller—unlike Audrey Hepburn--was totally believable as Eliza Dolittle. Also look for Jean Cadell to shine in the small role of Mrs. Pearce, Higgins' housekeeper.

This is a four-star movie in the various video guides, but not for me. True, there is much to like. It can be very funny. But two-thirds of the way through the film I began finding the Henry Higgins character unbearably dense--for all his brilliance--and tiresome.Here Eliza Doolittle has been transformed into a veritable princess, but for Higgins this just means he's won his bet with Pickering. He can't see the beauty that's right in front of him. For that matter, throughout the film he cannot see the human woman that's right in front of him; he treats her like an object and is downright mean.Higgins strikes me as the sort of irascible eccentric that we are meant to find delightful and, when all is said and done, endearing. It's been my belief that eccentrics are tiresome because they really have no sense of what they look like to others and in fact don't really care that much about others. They're too busy riding some behavioral or mental hobby horse. And that's what makes them eccentric.Wendy Hiller is wonderful as Eliza, both pre- and post-Higgins. I don't see anything funny about the way Higgins treats her character.I don't know anything about G.B. Shaw other than this film derived from one of his plays. It doesn't make me want to find out more about his work.