Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

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

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 1957. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 17 January 1957 (ran two weeks). U.S. release: 1 February 1957. U.K. release: 1 April 1957. Australian release: 27 May 1957. 9,453 feet; 105 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Tyrannical Victorian father keeps his grown-up daughter a virtual prisoner in his Wimpole Street (London) home.NOTES: The stage play opened on Broadway at the Empire on 9 February 1931 and ran 372 performances. Katharine Cornell and Brian Aherne starred. The 1934 film starred Norma Shearer, Charles Laughton and Fredric March, and, like this version, was directed by Sidney Franklin. COMMENT: Originally designed as a vehicle for Grace Kelly, this lifeless re-make, filmed entirely in England, was the first movie Franklin had directed since "The Good Earth" (1937). He produced twelve features in the intervening years. This version of Barretts was also the second last film with which Franklin was associated in any capacity. It is a sad farewell to an often distinguished career, dating way back to 1914.Fortunately the movie is redeemed in part by Sir John Gielgud who makes his Barrett such a monster incarnate, he acts everyone else – except Susan Stephen (in the small but important part of Bella Hedley – right off the screen. No wonder Jennifer Jones makes such a pallid Elizabeth. But at least she is watchable. Bill Travers, on the other hand is an absolute disaster. Although he tries hard to make his dull, slow voice move impetuously, his "exuberance" takes the form of repeating everything twice. True, he does seem to have more than his fair share of stilted dialogue, but repeating it does not make it sing, it only makes it worse. Franklin's 1934 version had a force and intensity, this monotonously routine, watered-down, slow, overly mannered, and – aside from Gielgud and Stephen – totally insipid version signally lacks.

MartinHafer "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) is a word-for-word remake of the classic 1934 version by the same name. And, as such, I wonder why anyone should even bother seeing this film. After all, since the original version was a very nice and well-acted film (despite Charles Laughton overacting a bit), I can't see seeing a re-make--especially one that took almost no effort to make. Now I am not saying the 1957 film is bad--it is lovely to look at and the story is interesting. I just don't believe in rewarding studios for slap-dash remakes. In fact, unless the original film is seriously flawed and the remake corrects this, I can see no logical reason to see the remake and usually make it a habit to avoid them! So why did I watch the 1957 film? Well, I was flying cross-country and this film was one of the choices on the menu for in-flight films. And, in this sense, it fit the bill--and was pleasant but not particularly inspired.

mpgmpg123 I thought this was a very good movie. I always found it amazing that Jennifer Jones was so effective in it as she was hardly a young woman when making this movie. Nevertheless, you hardly notice it and she is really excellent in it. I also thought Gielgeud (I think I am misspelling his name!) and McKenna were also excellent. I love when she is able to tell him after he orders her to get the dog to kill it, "She took Flush with her." It is such a triumph for Barret, for the sister, and of course for Flush too!!! Another reviewer mentioned that they kept thinking of The Heiress in watching this movie. I have thought so too at times. I feel De Haviland would have been great in this role, or actually in a few other of Jones' roles over the years too (Good Morning Miss Dove, Love Letters, and Cluny Brown all come to mind). But Jones was wonderful in each and in this one too. She certainly makes one seek out some of Barret and Browning's poems.

Spaniel-5 Being owned by two English cocker spaniels my comments are a bit biased.This film is intriguing, not just for the overall story but the way Flush, Elizabeth's cocker, was so much integral part of it. Given the 120 line poem that she wrote about Flush it was pleasing to see that Flush was very much a part of the movie.Sir John Gielgud was a superb actor cast in the role of Elizabeth's tyrannical father. Jennifer Jones performance above par. And of course there was Flush. One very lucky cocker spaniel.