Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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

jotix100 This copy of this film, seen recently on TCM, had a faded look, which contributes to lose the viewer's interest in a film that doesn't seem too relevant today. The main attraction for watching it, was the interesting cast put together for it. Unfortunately, the most important part, is terribly miscast.The story takes place in Manhattan at the end of the Great Depression. Based on a play by Maxwell Anderson, it probably worked better on the stage than in the adaptation that Julius Epstein, one of the best writers of the period, gave it. It doesn't help either, that director Vincent Sherman didn't appear to be too enthused with the material, as evident in the finished product.John Garfield was totally wrong for Rims Rosson. He doesn't have that spark that was his trade mark. In the film he is just too bland. Ann Shirley plays the sweet Bobby Halevy. Claude Rains, though, is about the most likable character in the film because as the father of Bobby, he is an honest man who wants to do everything possible to guarantee his daughter's happiness.The supporting cast is excellent. Lee Patrick, is seen as Florrie. Roscoe Karns and the always dependable George Tobias, make good contributions in minor roles.Watch "Saturday's Children" as dated curiosity piece.

lkpo90 It should go like this: Monday's child is fair of face Tuesday's child is full of grace Wednesday's child is full of woe Thursday's child has far to go Friday's child is loving and giving Saturday's child must work for a living and the child that is born on the sabbath day is bonny and blithe and good and gay. I'm not sure why Jack Warner didn't catch this. It seems that to use the title to begin with presumes knowledge of the poem (I for one have to run through the entire thing in order to make sure myself. "Work for a living" also seems to fit better with the theme of the movie-- not that it matters though since the author came up with the title to begin with.

Chris Wuchte I've been watching any John Garfield films I can lately, and so far, this has been the most disappointing. Garfield is so miscast. I can't imagine what the studio was thinking. The film attempts to deal with the issue of young marriage facing poverty, but every character is so naive that I often found myself wondering if there was a gas leak in their building. It's the only rational way to explain their inability to cope with major problems at anything other than a fifth grade level. Garfield, who was Brando before there even was a Brando, is thoroughly wasted here. He plays his character as a sort of slack-jawed mope, who either pouts or widens his eyes at every little thing. Anne Shirley is attractive, but bland. Claude Rains starts promisingly, but even he can't surmount the problems inherent in the script. The film also commits the horror of having a character use the title in a dramatic moment in the end, summing up the entire film just before the credits roll. As if people really talk like that. John Garfield is amazing, and worth watching in just about anything. But not this.

Michael O'Keefe This very entertaining film is directed flawlessly by Vincent Sherman and based on a Maxwell Anderson play. Top notch script providing laughter, sympathy and reflective determination.A lovely young woman(Anne Shirley) ends up tricking a hopeless schemer/inventor(John Garfield) into marriage. Is it tricked or trapped? The young couple struggle to the point of almost breaking up. They earn $101 a month, but spend $108. The poor lovers try to prove two can live as cheap as one...maybe if one doesn't eat!My favorite scene is when Garfield and brother-in-law(Roscoe Karns)come home drunk. Also funny is when Garfield is told that he was tricked into the marriage.Claude Rains is the young woman's father and plays the part cool and witty with his own brand of humor. Lee Patrick is sister Florrie, who is quite obnoxious from the get go.A very touching movie. Being poor is no fun, but it isn't the end of the world. Someone always has it worse. More than likely another Saturday child.