Nonureva Really Surprised!

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

JohnHowardReid Bette Davis (Linda Gilman), Robert Montgomery (Carey Jackson), Fay Bainter (Paul Winthrop), Betty Lynn (Boo Brinker), Tom Tully (Brinker), Barbara Bates (Jeanne Brinker), Jerome Cowan (Carleton Towne), Mary Wickes (Rosemary McNally), James Burke (Luke Potter), Raymond Roe (Bud Mitchell), Marjorie Bennett (Mrs Brinker), Ray Montgomery (Jim Mitchell), George O'Hanlon (Scott Davis), Sandra Gould (Miss Rubens), Esther Howard (Mrs Mitchell), Jessie Adams (Mrs Lace), John Vosper (Stafford), Jack Mower (Varga), Lottie Williams (Woody), Mary Stuart (plane hostess), Ann Kimbell, Barbara Wittlinger (girls on sleigh ride), Raymond Bond (minister), Patricia Northrop, Alice Kelley, Debbie Reynolds (Boo's girlfriends).Directed by BRETAIGNE WINDUST. Screenplay by Ranald MacDougall. Based on the play Feature for June by Eileen Tighe and Graeme Lorimer. Photographed by Ted McCord. Musical score and direction by David Buttolph. Miss Davis' wardrobe by Edith Head. Art direction by Anton Grot. Edited by Owen Marks. Set decorator: William Wallace. Make-up: Perc Westmore assisted by Eddie Voight. Special effects directed by William McGann, photographed by Hans F. Koenekamp. Curlicue decorations: Harry Platt. Assistant director: Sherry Shourds. Sound recording: Robert B. Lee. Producer: Henry Blanke. Copyright 13 November 1948 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Strand: 29 October 1948. U.S. release: 13 November 1948. U.K. release: 20 June 1949. Australian release: 2 February 1950 (sic). 8,747 feet. 97 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Much to her chagrin, Linda Gilman (Bette Davis), editor of a slick women's magazine, learns from her publisher, Carleton Towne (Jerome Cowan), that Carey Jackson (Robert Montgomery), a wandering war correspondent who once wanted to marry her, has been hired as her assistant. Aware that Carey's anti-feminist ego will make him resign his new job, Linda assigns him to a story she knows he will dislike: accompanying her and a crew to the Brinker home in Indiana where she intends doing a layout for the June issue about a wedding in a typically middle-class home.NOTES: "Feature for June" was never produced on Broadway.COMMENT: For all their hot-shot image, showmen tend to be a pretty conservative bunch. Here's Bette Davis making her first comedy for seven years. So what do the showmen/exhibitors do? They run scared. Super-enthusiastic reviews, but how will Mr and Mrs Blow take to Bette in a comic cut-up? Better play safe. Don't risk June Bride on Saturday night.Maybe the exhibitors were right. Maybe "June Bride" is too clever for the masses. True, the plot is developed in a heavily telegraphed, predictable way, but it's an ingenious premise all the same. And while the acid satire of its opening sequences are not matched in the rest of the movie, the players do keep it interesting right up to the final curtain. All the players (most pointedly Tom Tully) are worth watching, and it's good to see Mary Wickes making the most of the double entendres.Anton Grot's masterly art direction deserved at least an Oscar nomination — but didn't get one.OTHER VIEWS: This ingratiating comedy is an obvious variant on The Man Who Came to Dinner. Thanks to a witty script, skillful direction, fine production values and above all a wonderfully agreeable assembly of seasoned players, there's plenty of life in the old farce yet. — G.A.Bette Davis hated working with Bob Montgomery on "June Bride". She complained that he hogged the camera and crabbed her close-ups. There is certainly no evidence of this in the finished film. If anything, Bette seems to have the best of the lighting and the most of the close-shots. Not that this matters much anyway, as both principals are miscast. Especially Bette. With an unbecoming hair style, dowdy clothes and far too emphatic make-up, she looks a sight; whilst her impassioned acting is far more suited to heavy melodrama than light comedy. At times she seems to be declaiming from some long-outmoded textbook on the Rights of Women.Surly, boorish Montgomery is only slightly less unattractive. At least his appearance looks more normal and the fact that he seems out of place is at least explained in the script. But his egotistical air, combined with his patent lack of charm, will hardly endear an audience, or warm any viewers to get sympathetically involved in his affairs.Some of the support players are not over-engaging either. In particular, Betty Lynn.Although director Windust does his best to keep things moving, what emerges is little more than a photographed stage play. And for all the technical expertise, the comedy for the most part seems forced and artificial. — JHR writing as Tom Howard.

GManfred That's the way film critics would characterize "June Bride", but that doesn't give due diligence to a movie that's first class in several respects. The outstanding cast is what puts this picture over, and the pairing of Bette Davis and Robert Montgomery was inspired. Always thought Montgomery was one of our best actors, capable of drama, war movies or comedy and does not disappoint here. I liked him ever since "Private Lives" (1931) opposite Norma Shearer. Sophisticated and urbane, like William Powell.Bette Davis is a curious choice for the female lead as comedy was not her strong point, but she is good here and works well off Montgomery. Contrary to some reviewers above I thought the chemistry between the two was good. It also has an excellent supporting cast headed by Fay Bainter and Tom Tully. I thought the script was delicious and kept waiting for the next sharp riposte between the two principals, but the ending is unworkable in 2016 due to its chauvinistic tone. It worked in 1948, but how long ago those days seem now.

lulu19143 I found this film quite interesting, especially given the current mania for home makeover shows on TV. Bette Davis plays a magazine editor who, for each monthly issue, completes a home makeover for one lucky family. For the June issue, she will make over a family home in Indiana for their daughter's wedding. The catch - her writer is a new hire and a former lover, played by Robert Montgomery. Looking for a "scoop," he uncovers the real romance his goal-oriented editor misses. There's a wedding alright, but not necessarily the one that was planned...Despite an odd pairing of Bette Davis and Robert Montgomery (which still sort of worked for me somehow) and a very disappointingly engineered ending, I quite enjoyed this film, especially Bette Davis' portrayal of the middle aged career woman.

jxm4687 Fitfully amusing for the cast, especially the supporting characters, but the dated material is done in by a weak script. The Davis-Montgomery relationship is core of the film. The chemistry shows promise at the outset, but has really evaporated by the film's end. Davis is watchable, although her performance is variable; Montgomery gets more annoying as things progress and is particularly done in by the strained plotline. Here is an actor who has more mannerisms than Bette Davis (and they don't serve the picture as well). The ending probably annoyed audiences even back in 1948--it certainly doesn't play well in 2003! One wonders what went through Bette Davis's mind during the final scene, considering that this movie was made at time when she was having her famous contract feuds with the Warner Brothers. Was Jack Warner getting back at her?