Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

sdave7596 "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" made in 1957, is a remake of an earlier MGM movie made in 1934. Here Jennifer Jones plays the invalid poetess Elizabeth Barrett. The film focus primarily on her, but also tells the story of her siblings and her father (John Gielgud). Elizabeth Barrett is an invalid, confined to her bedroom, where she writes poetry. Her father is a stern and tyrannical man, obsessing over her illness, which we are told is a serious heart ailment. Elizabeth meets the poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), and two quickly form a bond of friendship, which becomes more romantic later on. Elizabeth overcomes much of her illness, urged on by Browning, much to the dismay of her father. Virginia McKenna has a strong supporting role as Elizabeth's sister. She falls in love with a Captain, and incurs her father's wrath; in a cruel and heartbreaking scene, he makes her swear on a bible never to see him again. Elizabeth begins to see her father for who he really is; a man hardened by life and the loss of his wife. In a creepy scene, he seems to profess his love for Elizabeth that clearly has incestuous overtones. Elizabeth knows she has to get away from her father, which she does, marrying Browning. Overall, the film is beautiful to look at; the technicolor is well-done, and the performances are respectable. It is difficult to judge Jennifer Jones in this remake vs. Norma Schearer's in the earlier one, since both were made at different times. Shearer was a more theatrical actress, typical of the 1930's; Jones is more of a natural actress. I think Jones pulls it off nicely. John Gielgud plays his part with all the tyranny and bluster required of him. Bill Travers as Robert Browning is respectable, although at times he seems to yell his lines. THe film drags a bit at times, but overall, as far as remakes go this is a well-made film.

David Fowler Sidney Franklin's 1957 remake of his own 1934 "The Barretts Of Wimpole Street" is virtually perfect and stands head and shoulders above the original which is a very good, very enjoyable film, but which is also extremely saccharin in tone. A fault which this version never falls prey to. Thanks to the talents of all involved especially those of the excellent Jennifer Jones and the genius John Gielgud this version succeeds almost supernaturally in being amazingly affecting without even a hint of the maudlin.The true story of the material is undoubtedly one of the greatest love stories in human memory, and the depth and wonder of that is ably conveyed here. We not only love to see love triumph, but also to see evil defeated. I have rarely been so satisfied on that account by any film as this one. The defeat and humiliation of John Gielgud's tyrannical, incestuous Mr. Barrett is exquisitely portrayed.Both Jones and Gielgud should have received Academy Awards. Compare the two versions and see for yourself.

FilmOtaku "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) tells the story of the romance of real-life poets Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning, despite many odds. In 1840's London, the Barrett household is one of fear and unhappiness. Elizabeth, (Jennifer Jones) the oldest child of the family, has been sick and forced to stay in her bedroom for the last several years. Also in the household are her two sisters and five brothers, all of whom are under the thumb of their tyrannical father, Edward (John Gielgud) a widower who found that since he lost the love of his life, he would not allow any of his children to marry either, in particular, Elizabeth, the one daughter who he claims to love. Elizabeth has been corresponding with a young poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), however, and finds that the more she falls in love with him, the healthier she gets, but the healthier she gets, the more desperate and tyrannical her father gets.The story as I told it sounds like it could be kind of interesting and fun in a high-drama type way, which is what I was expecting, but it actually was pretty boring. And when it wasn't boring, it was creepy. Gielgud is a great actor of course, and was great as Robert Browning, a man who needed to look up Freud in a couple of decades. His devotion and stranglehold on Elizabeth was actually pretty disturbing, particularly when his desperation grew to a fever pitch at the end of the film. I have never liked Jennifer Jones, and I didn't like her in this movie. I'm not sure what it is about her exactly, other than the fact that I consider her a mediocre actress – perhaps it is because she always has this look on her face that is a weird cross between anguish and when you feel a sneeze coming on. With a story as bizarre as this one, so much more could have been done to make this film a good one, but unfortunately it just turned out mediocre at best. 4/10 --Shelly

gleywong Throughout this film, I kept thinking of Director Wm. Wyler's adaptation of Henry James's novel, with Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress." What made that a better movie? was it the casting? the directing? the actor chemistry? or all of the above? Previous reviewers of "Barretts" all praised Gielgud's acting, but I wondered why he accepted the role, or could stand himself in it. I could barely view him on screen, so wooden, so inhuman was his incarnation of Moulton Barrett: this was not a person, it was a caricature. Compare, instead, Ralph Richardson's interpretation of a similar emotion-starved and pathologically driven father in his love for his daughter.As for the casting of Bill Travers as Robert Browning, I felt he lacked any subtlety, any "poetry" in his manner, any semblance of an understanding of female psychology or charm, most of all, lacked any chemistry with Jones as Elizabeth. He seemed to be barking all of his lines as if he were on the football field. Can you imagine his role cast instead with, say David Farrar, or one of the Ealing Studio regulars? Fans of Jennifer Jones may still want to sit through this movie to see her conception of the poetess. But when we compare this role with her performance in, say, "Wild at Heart [Driven to Earth]," the great Powell-Pressburger film, or even "Madame Bovary," it falls far short of full realization. In those films, she revealed passion, coyness, charm and geniune fear, gripping us with the emotions of her predicament. As noted by another reviewer, here she appears far too healthy, even too mature (although that would be an accurate estimation of her actual age when she met Browning, according to her biography) to be believable. Of course we can accept some cinematic license -- we don't have to expect that Mimi should actually be consumptive in "La Boheme"--but Jones's conception confused strength of character with bodily health -- her fainting on the stairs was almost a joke, more a sign of her rare weakness as an actress. In fact, one actually felt more pity for her sister, as portrayed by Virginia McKenna, in a lively,deeply felt role, in which we feared for Henrietta's emotional health and future in that stifling household.So, shall we lay the blame at the foot of the hapless director Sidney Franklin? All the settings, the costumes, even the lovely tune, beautifully sung by Jones at the piano should have offered the right support. The clumsiness of the production is almost encapsulated in that little scene around the piano: when Jennifer sings it (whether or not she herself indeed voiced it), there is lyricism and musicality, and one longs for her to continue, but everyone, namely her brothers, is urged to join in. None of them can really sing, they shout out the melody, drowning Elizabeth's soprano, and the whole scene, at least for this viewer, is ruined. Just like the movie.Of a possible four ****, I give it my lowest rating one star*.