WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

bkoganbing Now that I've seen all three filmed versions for Of Human Bondage, no doubt about, Bette Davis leaves both Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak in the dust.Still Parker gives a good performance as the amoral and tart tongued protagonist in W. Somerset Maugham's novel who for some reason turns on medical student Philip Carey like no one else can. Not a lot different from the way Sadie Thompson gets the Reverend Davidson's libido in overdrive in Rain, another of Maugham's female literary creations.Amazing how three American actresses, Davis, Novak, and Parker all got to play a cockney tart. No one ever thought to hire an English actress like Vivien Leigh who in her personal life was far more Mildred Rogers than any of the three who played her. Paul Henreid is out of place as a continental type Philip Carey. His is much inferior to the justice done this part by both Leslie Howard and Laurence Harvey. Carey is the man with the club foot and the inferiority complex because of that. Odd that both Howard and Harvey who never had trouble getting dates played a man who couldn't get one and gravitates to Mildred because she's looking real easy and sexy. Henreid's accent is way out of place here.Good performances by Parker, Janis Paige, and Alexis Smith as the three women who enter Philip Carey's life at different times. But you have to see Bette Davis as the real Mildred deal.

edwagreen Eleanor Parker did a very good job in this 1946 remake of the 1934 Bette Davis classic. Parker portrays an English waitress, Mildred Rogers, with passion, but not with the vigor that Bette Davis showed in the role. Her total rejection scene of Paul Henried was a good one, but again not with the torrid hatred that Davis showed.Paul Henried appears to be stronger than Leslie Howard in the original version. He shows anger at Mildred and even rejects her.Alexis Smith is wasted here as the widowed writer who falls for Henried (Philip) in Paris. She does seem to suddenly fade from his life and the film.A story of a waitress, who not knowing what she really wanted out of life, is mean and vicious to the man who really loved her. He certainly was bonded to her.

tomsview Of the three film versions of "Of Human Bondage" this is probably the least known. Critics at the time found it dull and compared it unfavourably with the 1934 version starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard. On the contrary, I think that this version is more complex, more interesting and ultimately more satisfying than that earlier film.All versions chart the course of the destructive, one-sided relationship between medical student Philip Carey, played here by Paul Henreid, and working class waitress Mildred Rogers played by Eleanor Parker. But after his self-esteem reaches its lowest ebb, two far more caring women enter his life, one he rejects almost as cruelly as he himself was rejected, while the other provides him with the happiness he has searched for.For anyone who has read Somerset Maugham's novel, the film versions all share the same drawback; they only concentrate on one aspect of the novel - the unrequited and obsessive love of Philip Carey for Mildred Rogers. This is the most fascinating part of the novel to be sure, but it doesn't take place until about half way through the book. By the time it happens, we know a lot about Philip Carey - we have followed him from childhood, understand the sensitivity about his clubfoot, and identify with him totally. When he encounters Mildred Rogers and is rejected by her, we are as shocked as he is at the effect it has on his sense of self-worth and his life from that point on. No one has ever described the anguish that such a one-sided affair can unleash better than Maugham in this extraordinary novel - Sigmund Freud couldn't have done a more insightful job.And therein lies the challenge for the filmmakers because they all want to leap straight into the Philip and Mildred affair; there is no real build up, we are only vaguely aware of the vulnerabilities, and even the vanities that have been nurtured in Philip that could lead him into so destructive a relationship.With that said, after a slow start, this version of the story does become quite compelling. However it could have done without the narration, which doesn't even start until after Philip meets Mildred. The filmmakers should have worked a little harder to explain things without resorting to narration, which both the 1934 and 1964 versions managed to do.Paul Henreid was too old for the part - it's almost as though he was going through mid-life crisis - and his accent needed explaining. Fortunately, he had a strong enough screen presence to carry it off.Critics considered Eleanor Parker's performance weak when compared to Bette Davis's showier one in the 1934 version, but she handles it pretty well on the whole. She is possibly a little too strident, and like Davis struggled to deliver a decent Cockney accent. For anyone who has seen the 1964 version, it's interesting to compare her with Kim Novak who gave a very subdued performance, which didn't seem right at all. Possibly the forced, slightly neurotic quality in Parker's performance actually caught the spirit of Mildred Rogers all too well.Although not without fault, this version of Maugham's great novel is better than the critics would allow, and is certainly a film that rewards at least one viewing.

gamay9 What I find fascinating is that two of my 12 favorite (most alluring) actresses starred in different versions of the same film: Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak.In an era where lousy remakes of good films are made once a month, 'Of Human Bondage' improves with time. Kim Carnes might have idolized 'Bette Davis' Eyes' but I think Bette was homely. Eleanor Parker was (and still is, at 90) a scintillating, wholesome looking beauty, as I also rate Cathy O'Donnell ('Best Years of Our Lives') and Margaret Sullivan ('Shop on the Corner,' amongst others). Problem is, they all were divorced several times, so they may not have been as wholesome and charming as they appeared on-screen. Then, again, they may have been 'unlucky' in love; perhaps they had cheating husbands. I can't imagine Cathy O'Donnell being anything but the eternal virgin.Kim Novak was (is?) sexy and flaunted it. That's why she was best cast in 'Of Human Bondage.' I have always been a fan of Laurence Harvey (my middle name is 'Harvey').I would recommend watching all three versions of 'Of Human Bondage' and judge for yourself.