Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Screenplay based on a novel by John O'Hara in 1958. One of a dozen films Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward did as husband and wife. They stayed married until Newman died in 2008. The film cost $3 million and grossed $5 million. So it was major deal in those days but was not a runaway success. There was quite a lot of adult content for the time which was surprising. It was certainly apt for the time but all the concern about divorce makes it a period piece but an accurate period piece. I find all the filming on sets restrictive as I am spoiled by modern location and outdoor shooting. Although it is certainly not a great work. Will give it a solid 7. RECOMMEND

This film, based upon a best-selling novel of the period by John O'Hara, is a savage attack on the materialistic imperatives of American society. Paul Newman stars as the young heir to a steel mill in Pennsylvania who does not want to take on the running of Daddy's business, but wants to shape his own independent life. So far so good. But it turns out that what he really wants is to get richer than Daddy. Big mistake. He falls for a wholly materialistic and self-centred beauty played by Joanne Woodward (as most people know, Newman's wife in real life, if there is any real life outside movies, that is). There is the usual struggle against the horrified parents, who are richer than Newman's father because they are part of 'the Dupont set' in Delaware. Newman's sperm accomplish what his charm could not, and persuade the parents of Woodward that as she is pregnant, they had better accept 'a poor boy', i.e. someone who is only moderately rich, as a son-in-law after all. So stratified is the American social hierarchy! John O'Hara knew what he was talking about, being from Pennsylvania, when he told his popular tales of what goes on there, and in neighbouring Delaware. The marriage falls apart and Woodward is serially unfaithful but Newman puts up with it in return for earning a partnership in a large financial firm which will make him richer than Daddy at last. He meets the archetypal good girl, played sympathetically by Ina Balin (an actress who was later to die prematurely at 52), but he even turns his back on her and on True Love for money. Can he save his soul? Can he say no to money and yes to love? Can he redeem himself? I dare not tell. But this is a very effective melodrama, excellently directed by Mark Robson, and well worth watching. And oh yes I almost did not mention that Newman's mother, a hopeless alcoholic, is magnificently played by Myrna Loy, and although she only appears in the early part of the film, it is worth seeing just for her alone. This is a good 'un.

Joanne Woodward steals this lengthy movie. Cast as an unthinking bourgeoise daughter with no ambition other than comfortable marriage, she lands the handsome Alfred Eaton instead of her current love, a psychiatric doctor. But she's soon back in bed with him after being ignored for several years by the success-obsessed Eaton.Woodward is pretty and witty in this role, and beautifully dressed. Sadly, she is cast as the "bad guy" because she goes to bed with her ex-lover, although she tries all the time to get Eaton into bed with her. Finally, she tries a reconciliation, secretly knowing that Eaton is to be named a partner at his bank in her presence next day. But Eaton throws a testy scene, walks out and drives off to join his young love in Mountain City, somewhere in Nevada, and make a completely different life. Poor Joanne is left shouting "Alfred" after his taxi, a pathetic role for this actress who injected the only sense of fun and adventure into this ponderous yard. No way did I reject her: I felt sorry for her!

Over these many years I have been told, time & again, about what a really great actor Paul Newman was in his heyday.Well, I have now seen Newman in 6 films that all came from the first decade of his acting career, and, let me tell you, I am not at all impressed. In fact, I'd actually go so far as to say that Newman was one of most over-rated and disappointing, big-name actors from that particular era, bar none.Set in the year 1946, From The Terrace was yet another star-vehicle of Newman's where I strongly felt that, at 35, he was clearly too old for his part. This time around he played a young soldier returning to his Philadelphia home after the war.The very minute Newman's character (a spoilt, tormented rich kid named Alfred Eaton) sets foot inside the door of his home the story immediately accelerates into a most tedious and predictable soap opera of non-stop bickering, jealousy and resentment, with a generous dash of infidelity thrown into the mix for good measure.Everybody in this story seems to either have an axe to grind, or be out for blood, or at one another's throat, ceaselessly.I, for one, found this 1960 film (with its plodding 145-minute running time) to be a tiresome ordeal which went far beyond anything even reasonably tolerable.Paul Newman, or not, I would never, ever recommend this bitchy, backstabbing bull to anyone.