Good movie but grossly overrated

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 biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Charles Brackett and Jacques Thery wrote a wonderful screenplay for a heart-wrenching story about a life that happened more than once, especially around the two world wars of the 20th century. It's a story that needed to be told, and that people should understand. A woman in love with a man in the military becomes pregnant out of wedlock, and the man is killed in the war. To have a baby in those times, without a husband, brought deep shame on a woman, and her family. It meant social ostracizing. That was the culture of many centuries that existed past the middle of the 20th century. Yet these women were mothers, and most wanted their babies. They were the offspring of the men they loved. But to bear the child in one's hometown or neighborhood would be unthinkable. So, some of the young such mothers married other men to have a father for their child. Most others went off to relatives or close family friends elsewhere to have their babies. Some were put up for adoption. Others were raised by relatives. The orphanages of the day were frequent places where such babies were left on doorsteps to be found and cared for. Some mothers kept track of their children, others didn't. Adoption policies then were much more restrictive than those of today. "To Each His Own" tells one such story, and Paramount couldn't have found a better actress to play the lead than Olivia de Havilland. She is one of the best performers of all time. Her Jody Norris portrays so perfectly what so many young women of her age and time must have felt and gone through. Her angst and fear, her love and devotion, her sadness and resolve – we feel something of all the emotions of a loving mother frustrated at her inability to have and to raise her child. De Havilland is one of the few actresses who could play this role so realistically and convincingly. The Motion Picture Academy agreed when it awarded her the 1946 Oscar as best actress. She won over a field of great performances in great films that reached far beyond those of the handful of nominees. De Havilland is joined here by a superb cast, all of whom give wonderful performances. Mary Anderson, who never reached much acclaim in her long career, gives one of her best performances. Her Corinne Piersen might have gained her an Academy Award nomination in another year without so many great films and performances. Phillip Terry is very good as Alex Piersen who is faithful to wife Corrine, but still pined for Jody. John Lund is very good in his dual roles. Roland Culver is just right for the character of Lord Desham, a man who helps bring some happiness into the life of Jody in mid-life. All others of a sizable cast are excellent. "To Each His Own" is an excellent film in all its technical areas. Mitchell Leisen did a tremendous job in directing, and all the film, camera, sound and editing work shine. The costuming and makeup excel, as Jody looks the perfect part of a woman in scenes 25 years apart. The flashback technique is this film works very well. It wasn't necessary but probably made the ending more dramatic where we see Jody's character change from grouchy to soft. This is a wonderful film that all should enjoy. It's a nice slice of sociology study for the period from before World War I to World War II. Yet, I can't help wonder, considering the dislike between them, how the film might have turned out had Joan Fontaine played Corinne. She probably wouldn't have taken the role – to play second fiddle to her older sister by one year. What tremendous talent these two sisters had. Olivia and Joan were born of English parents and seemed to have inherited their talent and love of acting from their mother, Lillian Fontaine. Joan Fontaine won the best actress Oscar in 1942 for "Suspicion." She beat out Olivia who was nominated for her role in "Hold Back the Dawn." Joan was nominated two more times for Oscars, and later was nominated for a daytime Emmy award. Olivia won two Oscars – the other being for "The Heiress" in 1949. She was nominated three more times. She also won two Golden Globes, with one more nomination and a prime time Emmy nomination in her later career.Two other English families had multiple stars who loved acting. The most prominent was probably the Redgraves. Father Michael, son Corin, and daughters Lynn and Vanessa were prominent stars of stage and screen in the 20th century – the children into the 21st century. Another English family of film and theater would be that of John Mills and Mary Hayley Bell. Their daughters Hayley and Juliet became stage and screen actors.Perhaps the most famous talented family of actors of all time have been the Barrymores of America. Brothers Lionel and John and sister Ethel commanded top billing for the first half of the 20th century. They had later theater progeny, the most recent being Drew Barrymore. She is the granddaughter of John.

This is de Havilland's personal favorite of her own movies. She won her first of two Best Actress Oscars for this movie. The movie starts in London during the Nazi bombings of WW II and then flashes back to Jody's memories as the teen-aged daughter of a small town druggist during WW I. There is something about this movie that I just don't like. Is it that most of the characters were not likable? Or is it that I personally thought Jody was always selfish to everyone, everywhere? One keeps wondering why she never "got on" with her personal life after giving her son up for adoption. Is this noble or right? It comes down to this: having a life full of love and memories or having one full of regrets and disappointments. For me, she chose the wrong path. Nothing was ever forced on HER the way she forced herself on her friends. For me, there was only one truly noble character in this movie, Lord Desham. Only he was not a mercenary. Only he knew what it was like to have lost everything and know that he had wasted so much of his life in its lonely misery.

Believing she wasn't getting kind of roles she wanted at Warner Brothers, Olivia de Havilland sued the studio to get out of her contract and for several years didn't appear in films. Olivia finally won her suit, and this film, "To Each His Own" was her first for Paramount Pictures; and it is a gem of movie. Olivia plays Jody Norris, and she performs the role from a young naive woman to a somewhat hardened middle-aged one. The film is told in flashbacks; we first see an older Jody living in London during World War II. Jody had a son some 20 years earlier out of wedlock by a young pilot who is later killed. Because it was scandalous to be an unwed mother at the time, she concocts a scheme to have her baby raised by a wealthy couple (Mary Anderson and Philip Terry) in town. The scheme backfires on her, and they adopt the boy. Jody goes on to acquire wealth, but she always longs for her son. She gets the chance when the young man (John Lund) is stationed in London. The ending is slightly predictable, but what saves this film from becoming overly sentimental and sappy (although it is a tear-jerker) is the fine performance of Olivia de Havilland. The script is great, and the subject of unwed pregnancy is actually handled in a mature manner for 1946. There are some fine supporting performances of note, particularly Mary Anderson, playing Corrine, the neurotic woman who adopts her son. John Lund plays a dual role, that of Jody's lover and later her grown son. He does a fine job. Roland Culver is good as Lord Desham, a new love interest for Jody. A fine old Hollywood film, made the way they used to make them!

Olivia de Havilland well deserved the Oscar she got for the lead role in this melodrama. In an astonishing display of virtuosity, she plays the character over the course of 20 years, being utterly convincing both as a sweet young thing with an innocent smile and a hard-bitten middle-aged business woman whose lips are hardened into a permanent grimace of determined refusal to feel anything. Rarely has an actress shown such a range of both age and mood in the same film. As always, Miss de Havilland's eyes positively glow like hot coals with the intelligence and high character which are so much her own personal nature. Having known Miss de Havilland somewhat during the 1990s in Paris, I can testify that even in her eighties she was mesmerising and perfectly spell-binding as a woman, and one of the most fascinating people I have ever met. She has such a fine, generous and loving nature, and such a sound character that she is simply a paragon of human goodness. All of these qualities shine forth in her movies, and were responsible for her turning Hollywood upside down with the famous 'de Havilland Decision' of the courts, which restricted the power of the Hollywod studios over their actors. She has always been as courageous as, presumably, her ancestor must have been who accompanied William the Conqueror when he invaded England. And yes, Miss de Havilland is connected with the once-famous de Havilland aircraft: that was the same family. She is British, which explains why she was able to speak like that in this film during the London scenes (one reviewer wondered how she did it). Another sterling performance in this film was by the wonderful Roland Culver, one of Britain's best-loved character actors. In this film, he showed such finesse and such an impeccably delicate touch that he acted circles round everyone but Miss de Havilland herself. John Lund made his film debut here, in a double-role, which called upon him to play two very different types of personality, which he did very well indeed. Mary Anderson was especially fine in her portrayal of a sweet girl who goes mad with jealousy and becomes a virago when her back is against the wall. But the main importance of this film was its social message, valid for the times although irrelevant now, of intolerance for the unmarried mother. Now they are everywhere, and we pay for them in their hundreds of thousands with our taxes. But in those days, it took rare courage to dare to have a baby and attempt to keep it if you had no husband. Social ostracism and vilification were so strong then, when humans were still acting with their 'herd mentality' of exclusion of anyone challenging the norms. This film helped to change the social picture, and it is well for us to remember that such films as this did not only have a message, they often delivered it too. But without Miss de Havilland in the lead, this film might well have fallen into a sentimental slop bucket. It was she who raised its tone to that of art.