It Happened On Fifth Avenue (1947)

Tagline of this movie: "It's Happier Than Heaven ... the Hit of '47!" Are you kidding me? Who wrote that? :-)

Hobo Aloysius T. McKeever (Victor Moore) looks forward to winter every year as that is when the O'Connors leave their mansion on New York's Fifth Avenue for three months. He takes the opportunity to move in and enjoy the lap of luxury behind their backs. This year is different though. First off, McKeever meets Jim Bullock (Don DeFore) who just lost his apartment and invites him to be his guest. Second, the O'Connors daughter Trudy (Gale Storm) shows up at the mansion unannounced. She thinks the duo seem more fun than her finishing school so she poses as a runaway to keep her identity secret. Soon her father (Charlie Ruggles) comes looking for her and she begs him to pose as a panhandler as well. More people move in, more sub-plots and more confusion. One thing is certain, the O'Connors and their new friends will never forget this Christmas.

Gale Storm (seriously, is that her real name?) and Don DeFore

I decided to watch this one because I was in the mood for some sort of a holiday movie. This isn't exactly what I would call a holiday movie, but it does take place over Christmas and New Year's therefore it comes close. It has a feeling of warmth and community and I loved that about this one. Over New Year's, with the whole crowd at the table, McKeever says, "I would like to feel that you are all my friends. For to be without friends is a serious form of poverty." Very touching and true words.

Not only is this a comedy on the surface, but it also has a little bit more of a serious level underneath that. One level is the funny shenanigans of McKeever and all the people moving into the home. On the deeper level is the theme of social reform as to what is left if rich developers buy up affordable housing? What are the young folks starting out and the old folks who no longer work supposed to do? Of course, the ever present theme of money not buying happiness is there throughout the film as well.

Some of the funniest lines are given to two night watchmen type characters who are hired to check in on the mansion every night. One of the watchmen says to the other, "How would you like to live in a joint like this?" The other says, "What? And have room for the rest of my wife's relations?" Another funny line is when a detective shows up looking for Trudy. One of the night watchmen says, "She ain't in there. That joint is as empty as a sewing basket at a nudist's camp." I also liked the deadpan of McKeever in a scene with the watchmen. One of the watchmen, upon seeing McKeever in a Santa's suit, says, "Well I'll be a monkey's orphan." McKeever deadpans, "Oh, come sir. Your family connections must be better than that."

One of my favorite scenes is towards the end of the movie when Trudy and Jim are in a Latin restaurant. While they discuss the very serious matter of if he should take a job that takes him out of the country or stay, they keep having the unstable, rocking table problem due to uneven table legs. The physical gag of the table combined with a persistent waiter and the serious conversation, oh, and Latin singers serenading of course, cracked me up. I am a pushover for physical sight gags.

There were also a few things that I didn't like about this one. It seemed they were using a pre-filmed moving backdrop in every outdoor scene. I understand this was 1947 and I understand budget constraints, but still, I found this very distracting from the scenes. Surely they could have improved that with a little more creativity.

I also got annoyed by McKeever's character pretty quick. At first he was a cute old hobo, with a cute little dog, very nice and mischievous. However, after being in the house with a crowd of people, he suddenly turns into bossy boots. Suddenly he acts like the patriarch of this mis-matched family, correcting their every behavior while not pitching in to help. I kept thinking "If I see his finger waggle at someone one more time, I may have to break it." Of course, I don't expect everyone would feel this way. It probably goes back to my disdain for authority figures. :-)

Lastly, I think the pacing was a bit off. It is rather obvious that Mr. O'Connor is going to be the character that goes through the biggest change. At the critical moment when the movie looks like he is going to change, he doesn't. Then the movie drags on for another 30 minutes. I think they missed the opportunity to tighten the movie up a bit there. I am not saying lop off the whole last 30 minutes, but it should have been written tighter with Mr. O'Connor seizing the first opportunity, not letting it pass him by. I don't think that added anything but time to the movie.

Lastly, one of the strangest things that occurred to me while watching this was that McKeever could be the character of Johnny Case from "Holiday", many years later, if he never found love. I kinda liked that thought - that Johnny Case would while away his elder years reading in other people's mansions and enjoying his time. Yes, I know, I am weird.

This was a good movie, but not a great one. There were good comedic elements, but it didn't all come together quite as well as in some of the other great holiday themed movies. If you have the time and opportunity, this is worth a look.

Purple Violets (2007)

Ed Burns wrote, directed, produced and co-starred in this movie. It has his fingerprints all over it and is typical Ed Burns fare. The focus of all of the movies he writes is on relationships - whether they be familial or romantic. He likes to explore how relationships tear apart due to external forces or how they become mended and every scenario in between. He also, almost always, makes his movie a love story to New York City. He films all his movies there and intersperses them with wonderful shots that make me wonder how I miss all that beauty when I visit there.

Patrick Wilson and Selma Blair as cooooool New Yorkers

The movie is about four people who, twelve years ago during college, were all best friends and dating. They happen to run into each other while dining at a restaurant and the history of the past relationships unfold a bit. Pretty quickly you discover that Michael Murphy (Ed Burns) and Kate Scott (Debra Messing) are no longer together and haven't spoken in 12 years because she believes he cheated on her in college and it destroyed her. You also discover that Patti Petalson (Selma Blair) and Brian Callahan (Patrick Wilson) broke up back then due to Brian going off to college in another state and Patti not wanting to have a long distance relationship.

The two women and the two men, separately, have remained best friends throughout the span of time but have not spoken to the others. Each character is pretty well developed by Burns and have their own story to unfold throughout the movie. Patti is in a loveless marriage and even though she used to be a great writer, has lost the confidence to write anymore. Brian became an author of a series of novels that amassed him and his lawyer, Michael, a great deal of money, but he is unhappy with doing that kind of fluff writing. He is also in a relationship with a young girl and soon after seeing Patti, no longer finds the young girl amusing. Kate appears to have never recovered from her heart break over Michael and is so consumed with anger towards him spends much of the movie refusing to even speak to him. Michael became a lawyer and also realized he was an alcoholic in college and for most of his 20s and went to AA to sober up. He spends much of the movie chasing Kate trying to make amends.

I see this movie as having two great strengths. The first one is the actors who deliver solid performances. Everyone in this works well as an individual and as a cohesive team. The second strength of this movie is Ed Burns. He has really seasoned as a movie maker. I don't always love his movies (I recall really hating "Sidewalks of New York"), but I can see where he has learned from his mistakes and corrected them. In this one, he really allows the characters to breathe. What I mean is, instead of trying to cover every second of the movie in dialogue, he allows the characters to have scenes where the actor conveys where they are and their emotion without overtly verbalizing it. Only the camera is there to capture their dialogue and it is all internal. I think it is scary for a director to allow that, but I love it when they give the character time to breathe. Also, I think Burns has made a consistent effort to improve the interest of his chosen shots, which I personally am a stickler for in a director. Burns usually focused on just the actors, but in this effort, he focused on a few clever or beautiful shot setups. I particularly loved one in Patti's apartment where she is arguing with her husband and the camera is at the other end of the hall, showing a wall divider between them. Shots like that speak so much to the story, saying this couple can't tear down the wall, they are completely divided, and probably will never be together as a whole again.

I have to say one negative about Ed Burns, since I just spent a paragraph talking about how he has seasoned and how he did really well in this. I always hate that all of his work has some snide air of superiority. Maybe it is just me, but I always get the feeling that he is trying to say something like "Look at me! I am esoteric! I am an intellectual!" I also get the feeling that if you say you don't like his stuff, then you are branded a Philistine. Again, it could be just me though. :-)

So to wrap this up, this was a good, sweet movie. Not a great movie, but certainly an enjoyable one to sit down and watch for an hour and a half. The main issue with it was the predictability, within 15 minutes of the movie, I was pretty darn sure I knew how this was going to play out. So there weren't really any twists or clever turns, just an exploration of the characters and their relationships. But if you sit down to a Burns film, that is pretty much what you should expect, and this is his most solid one yet.

The Rocking Horse Winner (1950)

I will start with the fact that I really did not like this film. It is based off a D.H. Lawrence short story, which I read ages ago, and wasn't super thrilled with the story. Given that, it is not a shock that I didn't quite enjoy the movie. Even though I didn't enjoy the movie, it was still interesting for certain parts, so we will touch on those points and then I will try to erase this one from memory.

Brilliant shot of Valerie Hobson with the shadow of her son trying to predict a winner

The story is about a young boy named Paul (John Howard Davies) whose family is in a financial crisis, despite being upper class, due to his mother's voracious appetite for money. His mother, Hester (Valerie Hobson), constantly spends on whatever she thinks she wants and isn't even remotely remorseful. She bluntly tells her husband that he simply must make more money despite the fact that he obviously has a well paying job as is. The story takes a strange turn when the children are given a rocking horse as a Christmas present. Paul senses his mother's unhappiness and understands that money is the only thing she really wants. Through his desire to make his mother happy, he discovers that if he rides this rocking horse long enough and hard enough, he comes up with the name of the winner of the local horse race. He confides this to their servant Bassett (John Mills) and soon the two are placing bets and making money off of Paul's revelations. The question becomes how long Paul can keep the secret and keep up the stressful pace required to have the winning horse names revealed to him.

The theme of consumer greed is very timely considering today's rampant desire to live beyond our means using credit that we can't pay back. I have a hard time understanding how such a beautiful woman with a loving family couldn't be happy with what she already had. At one point when faced with the obvious conclusion that they are in serious trouble she says, "We will scrimp and save and do all the ghastly things you say we must do." Exactly when did saving money become a ghastly chore?

The main reason I think this film really didn't work was the young boy. He was 10 or 11 when he did this film and I think it was too complex a role for him to handle. When he is in a conversational scene, he is fine, but the heavier scenes of him with his rocking horse consist of him widening his eyes in some poor display of the power the horse has over him. I just don't think he had the chops for the role so it didn't work for me.

The other problem is that this is a rather well known short story with a rather well known subtext. This is supposed to be an oedipal story about Paul's desire to become the bread winner to take the place of his father and "please" his mother. The scenes of him on the rocking horse are supposed to be of a sexual nature. In the movie, they ever so slightly hint at this and perhaps it is something that should be read and not seen. Watching the young boy on the horse, with the thought of what it should be in the back of my mind, completely creeped me out. Plus, they took several steps trying to sexualize the scenes of him including having him walk around with his pajama shirt wide open and riding the rocking horse with a crop. It is hard to explain if you haven't seen it, and perhaps I was over-reacting, but it just didn't feel quite right.

Having gone over what didn't work, I should mention a few things that did. I really enjoyed Valerie Hobson's performance as the selfish mother. She was incredibly beautiful in this, which I thought was odd since I didn't feel that way about her in "Great Expectations". The arc of her character is done well and despite her being the cause of the troubles, you feel sorry for her before the end of the movie.

I also really enjoyed John Mills performance as Bassett. So far, I haven't disliked anything that he has been in. I may have to seek out more of his movies to watch.

Lastly, my favorite scene is very short, but worth mentioning. Paul is being drawn up the stairs to the rocking horse and he pauses and looks out the window. The sky seems to be turning grey and threatening and the clouds form the shape of the heads of horses. I am impressed they pulled this off in 1950. It is kinda creepy and really perfect for setting the tone of the next scene.

Unless you are a huge fan of D.H. Lawrence or like mild horror movies, I have to regretfully suggest that you give this movie a pass. The interest factor of the odd story doesn't outweigh the pain/discomfort factor.

Great Expectations (1946)

A great friend tipped me off to the fact that "Great Expectations" was coming on TCM last night and I might want to give it a viewing. I was very familiar with the story, having read it a couple of times in my misspent youth. Since I hadn't seen the movie, I fired up ye olde television set and got down to business.

The thing that struck me the most about this movie was the awesome cinematography. I noticed it won the 1948 Oscar for Best Cinematography and boy, did they get that one right. The cinematographer is listed as Guy Green. According to IMDB.com, Guy Green replaced the first cinematographer after the director, David Lean, viewed the opening shots of the marshes and was quite dissatisfied. I don't know what the first cinematographer did, but the opening scene was what mesmerized me in this movie. The screen is filled with a big expansive sky and a small path between marshes and this tiny silhouette of a boy running down the path. Brilliant shot. That shot and the churchyard scene both easily convey the feeling of this tiny boy in this desolate place, isolated and alone. Your heart breaks for him.

Part of the beginning of the movie - stunning scene and image

I am going to choose to kinda skip over the plot as I think most people know the plot of this story, either from the various movies or the novel. The movie does vary quite a bit from the novel, but still, I think it is a wonderful representation of Dickens work.

There were several casting choices for this one that raised my eyebrows, either in a good way or in a bad way. The first was John Mills as the adult Pip. He is playing a man just coming into adulthood, yet, according to IMDB, he was 40. I must say, he didn't look like a young man so I thought that was a surprising choice. However, having said that, I still thought Mills delivered a wonderful performance so I quickly forgot whatever quarrel I had with that one.

Secondly, the casting of Jean Simmons as the young Estella. What an absolutely fabulous casting choice. I estimate she would have been 16-ish and she was perfect. She was exactly who I imagined when I read about the young Estella. She is so beautiful that one immediately understands why Pip would fall for Estella instantly. And Jean Simmons played Estella with such disdain for poor Pip, yet a mild curiosity. She was cold and mean, yet beautiful and interesting. It was perfect for the character.

Which, sadly, brings me to the casting of the adult Estella. This part was played by Valerie Hobson and after watching Jean Simmons, it was utter disappointment. I won't really go into how she wasn't nearly as beautiful as Jean Simmons. Estella is supposed to be a woman who mesmerizes men with her amazing beauty and torments them with her indifference. As Pip says at one point, "My admiration of her knew no bounds" and that was the way every man felt about Estella. Yet, Estella was trained by Miss Havisham to break men's heart for retribution because a man broke hers. Valerie Hobson did not play Estella as a heart breaker at all. She actually played her as a flirt and as someone who genuinely likes Pip even though she doesn't feel the need to be with him. I don't know, maybe I am being hard on Hobson, but I thought her performance was a little flat for what Estella should have been. When I watched Jean Simmons' Estella, I was captivated. When I watched Valerie Hobson's Estella, I was a little bored.

Of course, having said all that, she did crush Pip's heart. I loved the scene at Miss Havisham's house where Estella tells Pip that she is going to marry someone else. She tells him, "You will get me out of your thoughts in a week." The reason I loved this is the layers of complexity of her saying something so poignant with Miss Havisham behind her, in the room that has become a monument to her own heart break. She is even wearing the wedding dress that she was never married in, all those years later. Miss Havisham certainly didn't get her betrothed out of her thoughts in a week. Yet, Miss Havisham looks on, saying nothing as if proud that her revenge is being exacted on the male population.

There are a few other brief, interesting things to mention. Alec Guinness was in one of his earliest talking roles in this film as Herbert Pocket. That was a nice surprise for me - I had no idea. Also, towards the beginning, there was a scene with talking cows. Now, I watched this on TCM and I was tired, I am beginning to think I dreamt this part. Were there talking cows and if so, why? That seems like a terribly strange thing to throw into this kind of movie. I am not sure what the motivation was behind that. Any ideas?

I definitely think this is a great, great film. Well, aside from talking cows, if there was such a thing. Maybe I was just hungry? :-) Seriously, the black and white, gorgeous cinematography alone makes it worth the two hours. It is like moving art on screen. The story, is a great story. You can't do much better than Dickens with his twists and turns of the plot. Also, most of the performances are very strong. The characters themselves are terribly interesting and complex. When you are in the mood for a good drama, do yourself a favor and give this one a chance.

Female (1933)

I will start out by saying I loved that they explored gender role reversal in 1933. They put a woman as a top executive in a male dominated field (which most everything was then). Not only did they have her working in a man's role, but they showed her acting like a man in her personal life. What a freakin' awesome statement and progressive movie in 1933!! Of course, there are flaws which we will discuss, but I guess we will take what we can get.

Ruth Chatterton longing for a vodka-hazed man

The general idea of the movie is Alison Drake (Ruth Chatterton) is the owner of an automobile factory. She works hard like a man and plays hard like a man. She uses her attractive male employees as evening entertainment until they profess feelings for her. Then she has the lovelorn transferred far away so as not to annoy her with their insipid feelings and grotesque gestures. Of course, as you might guess, she runs into a newly hired engineer named Jim Thorne (George Brent) who does not come when she gives the come hither look. From that point on it is a battle of wills, but who's will is strongest?

One of my favorite scenes was the seduction of poor old Cooper. After plying him with vodka and being all sweet and feminine, he had no chance. She asks him, "Are you naturally enthusiastic?" followed with a toss of a pillow on the floor, a twinkle in her eye and a wry smile. Oh, she was one saucy minx!

I have to say that I find it fascinating that according to her birth date on imdb.com - she was 40 when she made this movie!! She looked fabulous. We talk about how 40 is the new 30 now, well, apparently it was then too. Not only that, but I think I admire the bravery of the movie even more to show a sexy 40 year old cavorting around with young men.

At one point Alison says, "You know, a long time ago, I decided to travel the same open road that men travel. So I treat men the exact way they've treated women." Mighty bold Miss Alison.

I also love the scene where her she is in misery because her male secretary professes his love. This scene is great for several reasons. The first reason is Pettigrew, her assistant, played by Ferdinand Gottschalk. I noticed him earlier, but his cheekiness won me over here. As her secretary sits there, she tells Pettigrew that the secretary, Briggs, must be transferred to Montreal immediately and to make the arrangements. Pettigrew, knowing exactly why he must be transferred, delights in tormenting him with a sing-song "Ohhhhhhh ... does Mr. Briggs WANT to go to Montreal?" The second reason I loved this scene is for her edict that she will only have a sensible female secretary from then on. She asks Pettigrew to line up interviews with sensible woman and says, "And remember, it takes more than flat heels and glasses to make a sensible woman."

I really enjoyed George Brent in his role as well. Jim Thorpe tried desperately to avoid the vodka trap she laid out for him while being stern and maintaining his dignity. I think I have seen George Brent in two movies now and both times I thought he was a bit stiff in his performance at first. I am not sure if that is by his design or if I am not used to him as an actor yet. It took no time for me to definitely appreciate him. I especially loved when he was working on the automatic transmission and that cute curl of hair fell across his forehead. I am always a goner for that look. :-)

Before I get to the joke they called the ending, I will add that I thought it odd that Ruth Chatterton spent most of her time naked, kinda. I am not talking about the bedroom type scenes. They had that poor woman take two or three showers during this short one hour movie! What exactly was up with that? She must have been the cleanest, dirty girl out there in the 30s :-)

Now, I need to discuss two parts about the ending. So if you haven't seen it and don't want to see the ending, please skip all this.

********************************SPOILERS***********************************

The part that I was a bit confused about was when Alison broke down in the directors meeting and ran to her office. Pettigrew said to her that he had been expecting that to happen. Basically because, "You are just a woman after all (so you can't run a big business you silly little thing)". I felt betrayed by Pettigrew since he seemed to really support Alison. He seemed to be pretty proud of her and how tough she was. I have to admit, I quickly thought of him as a toadie and got pretty angry with him being supportive one minute and sexist to her the next. Then, after a bit of reflection, I began to think about why he said that to her. I started to think that maybe he was just trying to goad her into bucking up and charging back in there like a strong woman. What does anyone else think about that scene? I thought he was goading her because in the next scene when she ran out to go chase her man, he acted terribly upset. If he really were sexist and wanted to see her out of the comapny, he would have been thrilled to she her chasing a man down. So, that makes me think he wasn't being sexist, just trying to get her back on track. Anyone have thoughts about this?

Lastly, the dreadful end of the movie. I hated it. HATED IT. I definitely support a woman's right to choose to stay at home just like I support a woman's right to choose to have a career. That is what feminism is all about to me - having the right to do what you want for yourself. The reason I **HATED** the ending is because it seemed like such a sexist cop out! It is totally unrealistic to me that she would be happy to just be subservient to her man and play house while he goes off and runs her company. It was such a drastic change that it makes no logical sense. If they had simply left it with her running the company and him doing great engineering work that made the company successful too, it would have been brilliant. What a team they would have been! I am not sure if the censors forced this kind of an ending on them (like in the cut version of "Baby Face" with the bad ending) or if the studio was afraid of public opinion or what exactly motivated this, but it shouldn't have been done that way. End of story.

*******************************END SPOILERS*********************************

Even though I SERIOUSLY hated the ending, I would still say this is a very worthwhile movie. Just watching a woman in a power position in the 1930s makes it worth watching, despite the "bite the big wiener" ending.

Wife Vs. Secretary (1936)

Myrna Loy, Jean Harlow, Jimmy Stewart ... and oh yeah, Clark Gable ... how could this movie go wrong? Well, it really doesn't. This is a very enjoyable drama with a lot of light moments thrown in for good measure.

With Jean Harlow on his right and Myrna Loy on his left, Clark Gable is a very lucky man

The basic plot is as follows: Gable, as Van Stanhope, is a millionaire magazine publisher. He is married to Linda (Myrna Loy) and the beginning of the movie portrays their loving and happy marriage. However, after a few suspicious incidents occur between Van and his beautiful secretary named Whitey (Jean Harlow) friends and family begin to plant seeds of doubt in Linda's mind where there never was any before. Even though Whitey has a boyfriend named Dave (Jimmy Stewart) it doesn't take long for the audience to wonder if she might harbor secret feelings for her boss as well.

I really enjoyed this film. I am not a big fan of Gable, but he didn't look as oily (or whatever it is) as he usually does to me. In fact, in this movie he actually looked handsome and came off as charming without the usual "roguish" adjective attached somewhere. Myrna was, as she always is, a breath of fresh air. In the early scenes of the film she is cute as a button teasing Gable. Harlow is breath taking, as always. I have to say it was a surprise to see Jimmy in such an early role. He looked like a baby! There is something so cute about how boyish and unsure of himself he seems.

I have a few favorite scenes from this film. I already mentioned the beginning of the movie with the interactions between Gable and Loy. They actually have great chemistry together and it is sweet to watch. I also loved the scene at the anniversary party where Harlow dances by with Gable and an older man quips, "Gentlemen, I fear that even I could give that little lady dictation". I was on the floor laughing over that line. Great, great line. I also loved the ice skating scene only because it was fun to watch Jimmy Stewart get completely eaten up with jealousy.

One of the scenes I totally didn't understand was towards the end when Whitey goes to Linda's stateroom on the cruise liner to tell her how she feels about Van. If Whitey really wanted him all for herself, why even talk to Linda when Linda is obviously out of the picture at that time? Only two scenarios would come from Whitey going to talk to Linda: 1) Hearing Whitey talk about what a great man Van is would make her want to run back to him. 2) Linda thinking Whitey is a liar and chooses to ignore her and continue down the path of leaving her husband. It appeared that Linda was going to leave Van anyway, so was there any real upside in Whitey talking to Linda? Was she trying to clear her conscious in some way so she wouldn't feel like she stole him from Linda? I will add that I was secretly hoping for a third scenario that would end up in a good old-fashioned cat fight, but really, I don't think it would have been a good fit for the movie. I just love the hilarity of a good cat fight. Call me crazy. :-)

I also found it ironic that Dave tells Whitey he is sorry for his jealousy and launches into this speech about how there wouldn't be any problems if couples just trusted each other. I thought it ironic because just hours before, Whitey was making it clear to Linda that if she gets the chance to be with Van, she will. In other words, she would have dumped Dave faster than you could say "bye-bye". Was it meant to be ironic or was there some other moralistic message there?

All in all, I definitely recommend watching this one too. The women will love watching how cute and in love Van and Linda are in the beginning of the movie. Of course, the men will enjoy watching Harlow swinging her hips around the office like it is a new Olympic sport.

When Did You Last See Your Father? (2007)

This movie is based off the novel by Blake Morrison about how he comes to grips from the point that he learns his Dad only has a few weeks to live. He returns to his childhood home to help his Mom care for his Dad and, in his own way, to make peace with their relationship. Blake is played by Colin Firth and his dad is played by Jim Broadbent.

Jim Broadbent and Colin Firth both give two very strong performances in "When Did You Last See Your Father?"

I really liked that this was overwhelmingly, an unsentimental film. The film established and explored Blake and his Dad's relationship through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks followed the relationship arc with Blake as a child, believing his dad could do no wrong, to Blake as a teenager thinking he wished his father were dead. It showed the Dad as a truly flawed human being. I loved the almost constant use of mirrors and reflections from the point that Blake returned to his childhood home to be with his Dad before he died. The symbolism is obvious as he reflects over the memories of the past.

The problem with the film is that it has all been done before. That may sound callous, but this is a pretty common story without any unearthed themes. I will concede that the amazing acting by Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent does make this one top-notch from the pack. Colin plays his cards close to the vest as he typically does in roles, but he finishes with a super-emotional scene that would water the eyes of even the coldest of us all. Jim Broadbent delivers an amazing performance throughout. I have always adored him as a wonderful character actor and adore him even more after seeing this.

I would say this film is definitely worth watching for the amazing, strong performances of Broadbent and Firth. Just remember that it is a slow, emotional drama so not for the faint of heart, so to speak. Also, another reason to watch this film might be a bit personal, but I will share anyway. It is this: watching Mr. Darcy naked and, uhmm, enjoying himself in a bathtub definitely made it worthwhile. I know, I am a naughty girl :-)