Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

trimmerb1234 Charles Laughton was unmatched in larger-than-life monster roles, physical or emotional grotesques. Surrounded by stars, he outshone and certainly upstaged them all. And what a range too? The soft-hearted sentimental Hunchback of Notre Dame, the ultimate aloof aristocratic villain Squire Trelawney in Daphne DuMauriers tale of Cornish smugglers, the overbearing, over-drinking Lancashire patriarch in the comic Hobsons Choice.Nobody matched Laughton, nobody played them half as well. Here,what would otherwise have been a nice family of happy siblings is instead daily terrorised by a bullying obsessive jealous widower.What might have been a pleasant life is made one of stress as their reasonable expectations of a happy life are thwarted by the strange exactions of one man: their father.Lives that could have been pleasant and in the main unexceptional are dominated by him. But it is the eldest daughter who receives most of her father's attention who rather than lose her, instead insists that she is an invalid and must remain bed-ridden.Dramatically, the entire world of this family of 10 is dominated - and animated - by the single figure of this domineering monster played by Laughton. It is, after this, a fairly simple tale of the unalloyed good and brave daughter (played by Hollyood darling Norma Shearer) who rebels and against this tyrant and is able to go on to have a distinguished life with nice young suitor, poet Robert Browning (Frederic March in this for him an unchallenging role. March had elsewhere played one of cinema's most memorable monsters: Mr Hyde). Norma Shearer rebels not only on her own behalf but also for her siblings too so that they can all live normal fulfilled lives. Not just for her own domestic happiness but also for her artistic freedom, against the the tyranny of this lone monster who would crush them all. It was Laughton who admitted that the look that he gave his daughter (Shearer) should have earned the film an X certificate - it conveyed the very mixed and complicated emotions of this very odd Victorian disciplinarian pater familias.

wes-connors In 1845 London, invalid poetess Norma Shearer (as Elizabeth Barrett) finds reasons to live, after meeting fellow writer Fredric March (as Robert Browning). "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" focuses on one particular Barrett; not surprisingly, it is the one played by Ms. Shearer. At the time, she was considered one of the best actresses of all-time, and this MGM production captures Shearer's appeal perfectly. Unlike many of her contemporaries, Shearer approached most of her later roles from a movie star perspective, and stayed there. So, rather than trying to inhabit Elizabeth Barrett, she brings the character to Shearer. Herein, it works. This was the last time Shearer had the use of her greatest behind-the-scenes collaborators, director Sidney Franklin and husband Irving Thalberg. The latter assembles the usual top talent, and Franklin expertly presents his star.With William Daniels' loving camera, Shearer is given numerous close-ups and medium shots, made to showcase her acting.So, you will see the litany of Shearer looks. Much of it is unnecessary, but it certainly makes the picture fun to watch. And, Shearer's performance is one of her best. The "Academy Awards" took notice, and Shearer finished #2 behind Claudette Colbert in the annual "Best Actress" race, ahead of Bette Davis. Many people think Ms. Davis was "robbed" that year; but, Shearer was even more slighted. The film was "Best Picture" according to "Film Daily" and "Photoplay" while Oscar placed it second. There were no "Supporting Actor" awards yet, or Charles Laughton would surely have been noticed; if only for the way he practically commands Shearer to fall on their home's imposing staircase. Franklin is also award-worthy; when maid Una O'Connor glides into the screen, you know he intends to lift a stagy story about a mostly immobile woman up off its heels.******** The Barretts of Wimpole Street (9/14/34) Sidney Franklin ~ Norma Shearer, Frederic March, Charles Laughton, Una O'Connor

MartinHafer This film was later remade by the same director twenty-three years later using nearly the same script. In fact, they are so similar that I definitely would NOT recommend you watch both--it would be way too repetitive. So, instead, I think you should watch this one. My biggest reason is I rarely like remakes unless there was something wrong with the original film and I know it takes little energy or talent to just remake an idea and script that already exist. Plus, in a case like this where two of the stars do such a great job compared to those in the remake (Charles Laughton as the over-controlling patriarch of the family instead of John Gielgud, and Frederic March as the love-struck Robert Browning instead of the totally unknown Bill Travers in the remake). I think that Jennifer Jones might have done a marginally better job than Norma Shearer in the original, but it's awfully close to tell. There have also been two made for TV versions, though I have never seen them and unless the story is much different, I have no desire to see them.Once again, why see a re-tread when the original is a very, very good film.

bkoganbing The Barretts of Wimpole Street was the most successful play written by Rudolph Besier and ran almost an entire year on Broadway in 1931. It starred Katherine Cornell as Elizabeth Barrett and featured Brian Aherne as Robert Browning and Charles Waldron as Edward Moulton Barrett. Though Norma Shearer gives one of her best performances as Elizabeth Barrett it might have been nice to see Kit Cornell do this. But as we well know, she like the Lunts disdained film for the legitimate stage.Elizabeth Barrett was indeed a woman of poor health though it surely did not impair her literary output. In 1845 Robert Browning after corresponding with her for some time did on impulse come to meet her and eventually they did run off to Italy and marry. Much to the considerable objection of her father.Whether Edward Moulton Barrett was as tyrannical and lascivious as Charles Laughton portrays him is open to debate and interpretation. Laughton plays him in much the same way he played Inspector Javert a year later in Les Miserables. Firm and unbending and inhuman with only a book of rules to guide his conduct. It may have been the author's dramatic license, but it surely does explain his opposition.On the other hand, he might have thought Robert Browning a deadbeat who couldn't make a living at the poetry gig. But the former makes a more interesting story.Fredric March is fine as the dashing literate Victorian gentleman that was Robert Browning. In the rest of the cast I did particularly like Marie Clayton as Laughton's dizzy niece with a lisp who Elizabeth for all her literary accomplishments envies.The Barretts of Wimpole Street is one classic piece of cinema from MGM during the height of their Tiffany period.