ThiefHott Too much of everything

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Robert J. Maxwell This version of Lillian Hellman's play ("passed by the Board of National Review") is full of anguish, malice, self torture, heartbreak, stupidity, unrequited love, economic ruin, utter misery, and has a happy ending.It's filled with stereotypes. There are the two young ladies, eager to establish a boarding school for girls, though they must start with virtually nothing. There is the doctor who is also handy around the house and lends them his aid. The zymic, lying brat who dominates everyone around her through falsehoods and manipulation. The bubble-headed, hystrionic auntie who lives in the school, never stops talking, and gets everyone in trouble, only to disappear when she has a chance to rectify matters. The haughty aristocrat who is the catalyst of doom.The best role is that of the spoiled brat, Bonita Granville. Boy, is she mean. Of course she overacts, but then everyone overacts except maybe Joel McCrea as the doctor, who is his usual pleasant but earnest self throughout.I was interested in seeing how a movie made in 1936 would handle the lesbian subtext of the play. It does so rather neatly. Instead of two dykes making out, Bonita Granville claims she peeked through a key hole and saw Miriam Hopkins getting it on with McCrea, the fiancé of Merle Oberon. Shocking enough, I suppose, at the time.But Hellman's story is almost as manipulative and goal-oriented as Bonita Granville's brat. The stupidity runs riot throughout the script. A story that could avoid a calamity with a frank five-minute conversation, avoids the conversation instead. A remorseful old lady who begs forgiveness from the offended trio, is repulsed with a sneer and a curse. Everyone deserts everyone else for reasons that it would take second sight to discern.Still, the story was a shocker in its time and I can enjoy seeing these formulaic elements unreeled. There's something reassuring about a vision of life that sees nothing in it but rot -- and yet ends with two lovers in a clinch while triumphant music swells in the background.

vincentlynch-moonoi In 1934, Lillian Hellman wrote "The Children's Hour" as a stage play. Two years later it was decided to make the story into a film...but there were 2 problems in doing so, both related to the moral standards allowed in film at that time -- lesbianism and suicide.And so, today, one has 2 great choices -- this film or "The Children's' Hour".In this film, the 2 most controversial topics are sanitized. There is no suicide...the character just goes away. There is no lesbianism, instead, that theme is replaced by a heterosexual triangle.In "The Children's' Hour", the lesbianism is central to the plot, and one main character does commit suicide.In both films, the leading players are excellent. Here, the 2 female leads are superb -- Miriam Hopkins and Merle Oberon. In fact, their performances here are among the best, if not the best, of their respective careers. The male lead here is Joel McCrea, before his switch to almost all Westerns, and he is excellent, as well, although there are other films where he is even better. In "The Children's Hour" the female leads are Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn, and they are just as superb, thought it's over 2 decades later. The male lead in "The Children's' Hour" is James Garner, in one of his better roles.If one film is better than the other, my vote would go to "The Children's' Hour", and I would say because of the strength of the supporting players. In this film, Alma Kruger is really fine as the grandmother of the girl brat who spreads evil rumors. But, her performance is eclipsed by a stunning performance by Fay Bainter. Similarly, the brat here is played by Bonita Granville, while a better performance is turned in by Karen Balkin.One of the most interesting factors in comparing this film and "The Children's' Hour" is that where Miriam Hopkins is one of the female leads in this film, in the latter film she plays the part of the aunt and aging actress (which in this film is played by Catherine Doucet. Miriam Hopkins's film career suffered greatly in later years, but in this film she was in full tilt.I really encourage every lover of film to view both versions of the story. Both are excellent and worth a spot on your DVD shelf.

oceanchick This comment may contain general spoilers.I swear this has to be the BEST child acting i've ever seen in a classic film in years, and i watch so many classics it's ridiculous. Sure, Mickey Rooney was a capable actor but sometimes I feel he IS acting. With the children in These Three, I was dumbstruck. William Wyler had his hands full w/ child actors in this film and Kudos w/ a capital K to Bill for pulling the best out of everyone.Bonita Granville as Mary Tilford does a mind-blowing job grasping a tremendously dramatic role and she did it so believably and without force that her blackmailing threat to Rosalie and the confrontation scene w/ grandmother, and bulk of cast, I got goosebumps. She carried the part very much like Bette Davis in Of Human Bondage in her famous "wipe my mouth" scene. She did the scene so delicately, so conniving, with such convincing facial expressions and tonal inflections that I was spellbound. Marcia Jones as Rosalie was quite good herself to the point it makes me wonder what the poor girl was threatened with before the scene was shot.I must say, too, that it is great to see Merle Oberon using her face in a way that doesn't make her look demented such as in Wuthering Heights. It was great to see her more natural, less possessed looking w/ her eyes. In this movie, she definitely was reeled in quite a bit and i credit Wyler for that. Miriam Hopkins was as beautiful, soulful and sad as ever.Overall, I believe the child actor Bonita Granville stole the entire film, but I could feel Marcia's fear of her secret being discovered and punishment to ensue. I could feel Miriam's longing and Merle's calm sense of decency. As I said before, William Wyler managed to get performances that were spot on for the film, keeping the tone, believability and atmosphere as convincing as films of the 30s could be.The cinematography was done very well, and Gregg Toland, who had his life cut short at 44, was very much a master of lighting and unique camera angles. A feeling of intimacy was established in a lot of the scenes in ways I can say I've never seen shot before. The 3 leads, standing in Ms. Tilford's living room on the day they go to find out what the issue is, standing side by side, and Toland puts the camera behind them. That little subtle angle conveyed so much emotionally that i'm surprised it wasn't mimicked over and over by every DP worldwide. He went on to DP such greats as Intermezzo, Citizen Kane, Little Foxes, and more, where his influential yet extremely subtle camera and lighting from These Three was turned on it's head, showing his extreme versatility.This is a great film, especially for it's era. I'm a harsh critic, so I give it a 6.

MartinHafer In Lillian Hellman's original play, THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, the scandal involved lesbianism--certainly NOT a topic they were allowed to address in Hollywood in the strengthened Production Code era. Starting around 1935, Hollywood bowed to pressure to clean up the movies and feature more wholesome images. While today some see this as a totally negative thing, you must understand that nudity, violence, crudeness and very adult topics were frequently used in films and there was no rating system. So, kids might go to the theaters and see rather graphic nude swimming scenes (TARZAN AND HIS MATE and BIRD OF PARADISE are good examples) or Frank McHugh giving someone "the finger" (PARATROOPER). As a result, SOME sort of system needed to be created, though I will admit some of the resulting products from Hollywood were a bit bland. In regard to THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, there was no way the studios would be allowed to discuss homosexuality during this era, so they changed the allegations to promiscuity between a man and a woman. This did NOT appreciably alter the play nor its impact and reportedly Miss Hellman was happy with the film despite this minor change--minor in that it resulted in only minor alterations to the script and kept the overall message intact.The resulting film, THESE THREE, was produced by David O. Selznick, directed by William Wyler and starred Miriam Hopkins, Merle Oberon and Joel McCrea. With this terrific combination of talents and the Hellman script, it certainly isn't much of a surprise that the film was excellent throughout--and one of the better pictures of the 1930s. About the only negative at all about the play was the performance of young Bonita Granville. While generally very good (earning her an Oscar nomination), it was at times also a tad over-the-top--and she acted so histrionic that you wonder what sane person would believe all of her lies!!! If this had been toned down just a bit (making her a little more subtle), the film would have earned a 10. As it is, it's still a terrific film with an original and wonderful script.