ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

RanchoTuVu A romantic comedy about how the fear of marriage was nearly enough to scare a guy (Larry Parks), a New York talent agent, away from the young and very good-looking Elizabeth Taylor. It portrays a wholesome family background set in suburban Connecticut, with Taylor living with her parents and the owner and number one dance instructor of a school which trains dozens of local children. Stanley Donen used the kids to good effect in several dance scenes, the best of which is the finale production the school puts on for the town, with Taylor standing in the middle of a long line of four to six year-olds. Her attraction to Parks' character forms the crux of the plot, bringing him to Connecticut and seeing his character as a savvy New York pro mingling with the small towners, a bit reminiscent of the story in The Music Man, where, after being subjected enough to the simple life, a cynical guy and committed bachelor finally gives in.

David (Handlinghandel) The young Elizabeth Taylor looks gorgeous. But she wears an unbecoming hairstyle. I have read about Larry Parks but never before this seen him in anything. I am very sympathetic to the tribulations he endured as a result of HUAC. Nevertheless, in this movie, he turns in such a sour, uninterested performance, he sinks the movie.Not that there is much to sink. Taylor, yes. And Tom Tully, droll as her father. However, the ploy is negligible. And, as she plays a dancing teacher, we see dancing children. I love children but not here! The ostensibly cute dance scenes we have to watch wouldn't make it into a small town talent contest.Maybe MGM was trying to figure out what to do with Taylor, no longer the child of "National Velvet." Thankfully, we have her earlier movies and many, many later ones.

belcanto26 I just saw this film this morning on Turner Movie Classics, and was actually very surprised. The film is certainly pleasant to watch, and some of it is actually funny and very appealing. The two stars merit comment. Larry Parks, of course, turned out to be a truly tragic figure in Hollywood, and he was virtually decimated by the Hollywood black list in the 1950's. As the head reviewer on this page said, Parks would probably have evolved into an excellent character actor had his career not been destroyed (his wife, actress Betty Garrett, herself said in an interview that Park's life was ruined by the Hollywood blacklisting. To our country's shame, many others shared the same fate. In this film, he is convincing and moderately successful, but opposite Elizabeth Taylor, one would have expected a more handsome leading man. Elizabeth Taylor, at age 20, is, of course, drop-dead gorgeous, but more importantly, she exudes an appeal and demeanor that is altogether winning. She had this same quality in such films as "The Last Time I Saw Paris", "Father of the Bride", and "Giant". Then she entered her most intense period with the films that brought her Oscar nominations (as well as two Oscars). It's a shame that after "Virginia Woolf", her second Oscar-winning performance, she essentially kept repeating the same loudmouthed strident type of demeanor. She was never able to regain the vulnerability and tenderness that she so beautifully demonstrated during the early and middle 1950's. Of course her much publicized personal life played a major part. In essence, she became a parody of herself in the late 1960's and never recovered. Whatever the case, "Love is Better than Ever" is worth watching for the light entertainment, the uniqueness of Larry Parks, and above all, for the charm and sweetness Elizabeth Taylor brought to the screen at this stage of her career.

Ripshin there is really very little to recommend. The young Taylor is beautiful, but Larry Parks in the lead it totally unbelievable. Perhaps the fact he looks like a clone of Regis Philbin doesn't help. How could Taylor's character fall for this guy?? And, what is Gene Kelly doing in this flick? It is just a cameo, but I don't see the point.Supporting performances are fine, and there is a limited amount of location filming.I'm not sure why Taylor agreed to this MGM B movie - perhaps due to contract obligations. Probably my least favorite Taylor film from the 50s/60s.