Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Rosie Searle 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.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

cbryce59 or even a scene, for that matter. She is a stiff broad in this one, right down to a short, severe stiff hairdo. I am not a huge Joan Crawford fan, although I liked her a lot more in her earlier films, when she was still loose and a bit floppy. Once she became a "star" she changed her whole acting style so she could appear, as her ex-flame says "refeened." It is a shame she couldn't just go with the flow once in a while, instead of playing herself in different occupations.In this one, she is Joan playing a tough congresswoman. But of course she does a classic Joan melt when she sees Robert Young again after all these years...heart on sleeve as always.She enters the reunion at her old college to the strains of a song being "sung" by by the co-eds, which incorporates her name, yet sounds like a heavenly choir. The girls come forward one by one to hand her a bouquet and each one is a cliché; there is the butch athlete, the drama queen, the good girl, etc and Joan ends up clutching a veritable rose bush as she launches into a speech, gazing off into the bright and shiny future.Of course Robert Young is now a widower. You'll have to see the movie to see if his marital status changes.This movie is a fifties movie, in that it is prim, everyone is a cliché of a type, right down to the wise-cracking assistant (Eve Arden)and the women are stuck with the hairdos and clothes of the period, which were never flattering to anyone.But if you are a Joan fan, she is here, in her glory.

Peter22060 SHAWFAN has the issue correct. The problem is that he does not have a full sense of history. This movie was made in 1951, and there was constant pressure on the motion picture industry to tone down hints of "radicalism".Joan Crawford's attack on the right wing trustee for forsaking the education of these college age students with "entertaining" motion pictures; prevents the message of the film she has brought to campus.Simply, without images, the result of letting the National Socialists destroy education in Germany from 1933-1945, resulted in hanging and executions of the teachers.The trustee in question expressed that buildings were more important than a good education.Yes, there are those gooey moments. They are not there because the film story has a need for it, but rather that the various "approval" boards would have forced the filmmakers to put it in to water down the content.Robert Young's role proves that he is just a weak person. Not the person to stand up for what is right. Even his mealy mouth response to the film being shown AND THE STUDENT'S APPROVAL over everyone's objections prove that.BUT, run this film with two others, THIS LAND IS MINE (1943) and PEOPLE WILL TALK (1951). Then the message of what the film is about comes through like a bell.IN OUR DEMOCRACY EDUCATORS MUST BE BACKED. When cities, states and even your congress-persons yell, CUT EDUCATION SPENDING, these are just three films with which you can relate.peter22060 PS Truth through learning, and a focus on history, should make these three movies text material.

SHAWFAN As a devoted fan of old movies which were released when I was a little boy and in those days already an ardent film fan and moviegoer, I was highly surprised to see this film on TCM today because I had never heard of it. But I was certainly glad to have finally caught up with it. As the plot unfolded it became obvious that this must have been originally a finely crafted stage play from the way it led you sympathetically from one character to another and kept you in complete suspense as to different possible denouements for the action. In fact it reminded me of some of Terrence Rattigan's finer plays. But now I see that the play was written by the wife(?) of Garson Kanin. I thoroughly agree with the first review that the romantic side of the plot, though very touching, was by no means all there was to it. Strong statements on wider issues such as academic freedom, ability of big money to call the educational tune, the growing up out of illusions which must be discarded (very Ibsen or George Bernard Shaw) all were pithily and dramatically dealt with and skillfully presented to the audience. The side roles (especially Eve Arden) were all brilliantly executed in that wise-cracking, zany style that made the plays of the 1920s and 30s such favorites. And the main leads (Crawford, Young, etc) were equally outstanding in their emotional portrayals. This film was at least 10-15 years ahead of its time. When the 1960s finally rolled around American youth finally took the blinders off just the way Kanin and the makers of this film advocated. A brilliant and enthralling accomplishment. I wish we could all personally congratulate all the makers of this film of 50 years ago.

bergman-6 What plays on the surface as a "romantic triangle" film carries a strong anti-McCarthyism message. Robert Young is the once-idealistic President of an exclusive Women's College who years earlier had trysted with Joan Crawford, a Congresswoman who has made a film depicting aspects of injustice. Crawford wants to reunite with Young and have the film played during Graduation Weekend. The school's trustees don't want the film shown, thinking it too "dangerous" for their students to see. The characters' arguments about democratic values play well with a modern audience, and both the political and the romantic aspects of the plot unfold in an engrossing and entertaining manner.