Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

dougdoepke Plot-- A reverend's 1905 family must find a way to adjust to the eldest daughter's instincts for equality at a time when women were denied many opportunities. Meanwhile, Dad may lose his chance to become a bishop because of town gossip over his daughter.Looks like the misleading title and Shirley's rebellious upstart were meant to provide some edge to her squeaky-clean image. However, the results are what could be expected of the Temple brand—a wholesome little family drama, on the order of Father Knows Best. As daughter Dinah, Shirley manages to keep her feminist instincts within appealing bounds; at the same time, she defies confining norms placed on 1905 women. The rebellious context is carefully calibrated so as to be acceptable to 1949 audiences without offending the values of that later time. Note how in the movie Dinah's desire for women's suffrage is endorsed, but not her inclination for a career as a painter. That accords with norms of the late-40's when women still weren't expected to have careers. Careers would come later in the 1960's.As Pastor Sheldon, Young is likably bland in the type role soon to define him. More importantly, as the voice of reason and church authority, he gives official approval to his daughter's actions. So the audience knows she's more than just rebellious— she's on the right track. On the other hand, too bad the studio didn't hire a more appealing swain than the dull- as-cement John Agar. But then he's certainly no competition for his then real life wife. On the whole, the movie tells us more about Temple's career and the social norms of two historical periods than anything else. However, I'm still wondering how this revealing slice of fluff escaped from RKO's dream factory that was then turning out noirs by the dozen.

vincentlynch-moonoi When I first began watching this film I was nonplussed. But the further I got into it, the better it got. Unfortunately, Shirley Temple -- the little girl who saved the studio when she was a child -- wass becoming an adult, and fairly or not the public wasn't buying it...literally...this film alone lost nearly a million dollars at the box office. In other words, Shirley's prominence was fading and fast. It's too bad, because I thought she should have had a place in movies for years to come. I enjoyed her, for example, in "The Bachelor And The Bobby-Soxer" with Cary Grant, filmed just 2 years earlier. But, apparently the public was tired of Shirley Temple.The plot, particularly as it advances, is actually quite good -- a young lady has an eye on equality and clumsily pursues it, sometimes to the detriment of others...included her father, who may or may not become the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland. Earlier in the film her escapades are a little more frivolous, but as time goes by the topics get more serious. Temple does fine here.Her co-star, as dad and minister, is Robert Young, and I would have to say this is one of his better roles. And you begin to see in young a transition to the type of character he undertook in his greatest success which began just 5 years later -- "Father Knows Best".John Agar is fine as the boyfriend, but I really enjoyed Josephine Hutchinson as the mother. I have never been disappointed by her film performances, though she is a woefully underrated actress.Some will say this film is dated. I would assume so -- it takes place at the turn of the 20th century! Recommended, just give it a little time as the plot matures.

David (Handlinghandel) It is beautifully filmed by Robert de Grasse. And Robert Young's character is appealing and even admirable. This seems like a dry run for his most famous role, the title character in "Father Knows Best." Here he is a father in two ways: He has children, including Shirley Temple. And he is an Episcopal priest (under consideration for Bishop of his Diocese.) Shirley Temple is the main character. She is meant to be saucy and ahead of her time. But she's very hard to like. The escapade in which her boyfriend, John Agar, borrows a speech from her for a debating contest isn't admirable. And right here, it's hard to imagine that a priest would laugh off his daughter's involvement in such dishonesty.Then she paints Agar. She promises she will just use his body as a starting point -- no face. But the painting is exhibited in a show and everyone sees that she has painted him in a bathing suit. That would have been extremely risqué for 1905. What would be the equivalent 101 years later? Something on the Internet or in an X-rated video.All this while her father is being considered for Bishop. I wonder what Christopher Isherwood's original story was like. Maybe she was a forerunner to Sally Bowles. Here, however, she is sullen, pampered, and selfish.

Neil Doyle After a few successful teen-age roles (and a couple of ill-fated ones), Shirley's uneven career as a young lady was not helped by this routine romantic comedy of the early 1900s in which she plays a rebellious daughter of a minister (Robert Young) with shocking ideas about love. As a crusader for women's suffrage, Shirley seems more petulant than feisty, playing a girl who crusades for women's suffrage. Nice to see Robert Young in his pre-Father Knows Best days. The film has an attractive look with handsome photography and a good feel for the period atmosphere, but the script is too lightweight to carry much conviction. Pleasant enough if you want to see what Shirley Temple looked like at this stage in her career. She had three more "clinkers" to go before quitting the screen.Her then-husband John Agar wasn't much help--here he comes across as a wooden actor, not well suited to comedy. Pleasant enough film, but just a trifle.