I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I suppose "Life with Father" had two things going for it in 1947: it probably appealed to a war-weary public who responded to a film set in a simpler and saner time, and its gender dynamics might have resonated with a generation of husbands and wives having to deal with men reasserting themselves after relinquishing their duties to women for a period of time. But from the perspective of 2016, this film -- and it pains me to say this given my admiration for William Powell and Irene Dunne -- has virtually nothing to recommend it."Life with Father" is one of the dullest films I've ever seen. It's a one-joke, one-note premise extended over nearly two hours: father is stubborn and clueless, mother pretends to let father have his way while all the time running the house. Over and over and over. Each scene feels interminable. I swear there's a fifteen-minute conversation about buying a new coffee maker. And the mystery is that Powell and Dunne, two of the best comedians of their time, make none of this funny. It is inexplicable to me, on the basis of this film adaptation, that this thing ran on Broadway for so many years.I don't think it's just a matter of this film being made in a different time. I think it's just not good. "Meet Me in St. Louis," which came out three years earlier, is very similar in many ways, a colorful film that evokes an earlier, happier time. It even has a gruff father who everyone tiptoes around in order to get what they want. But that film is tremendously entertaining and heartfelt, whereas "Life with Father" feels like a desultory slog.Powell undeservedly received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, while the film also garnered nominations for its color art direction and cinematography and its Max Steiner score. It won no awards, and didn't deserve to.Grade: D

If you watch this film because you adore the urbane and witty William Powell, you're going to be sorely disappointed. In this film he is a stodgy old tyrant (well, that may be overstating it a bit, but not much). So for me, this rather famous movie was rather disappointing. And it didn't end with Powell; I was equally disappointed with Irene Dunne. Oh, it's not their fault. It's just the nature of the characters they play here.The cast is interesting. Elizabeth Taylor is along as the female romantic interest for teenager Jimmy Lydon ("Henry! Henry Aldrich! Coming mother!"). Edmund Gwenn is here as a minister. Zazu Pitts has a small part. Martin Milner ("Route 66") plays one of the middle sons. And, there are a number of other fine character actors.Staid. That's the perfect word to describe this film. This film has its moments, but they are few and far between. And, usually I like this type of film.Ah well. Maybe it's just me. But I won't want to watch this again.

There was a time, when films like this one were "cute". This was before we knew what was really going on in these times and, for that matter, what is still going on. We now know that "cute" is not the right way to describe a mass murderer, even if the guy is so full of himself that he could never understand that it is not all right to treat other people like exploitable trash.The film depicts a time in American history in which the working class hardly reached the age of thirty. They were treated worse than slaves and it was people like this "father" that did the treating.Of course there is not one frame of that in this "cute" movie. Here the problems does not deal with the murder that is going on in the background - way back in the background.What is this movie about? I think it is lies, lies and republicans. It is about wasting your life and dedicate it to evil beyond all evil and on the surface of it all, it is just "cute".The three stars is for William Powell, who plays the villain with gusto.

This film speaks to us today in modern day life and how far we have declined as a society. The power of our civilization rests on the bulwark and strength of family life. Since the decadence of the 60s and 70s we are facing economic ruin since our currency does not have gold anymore to back it up against the forthcoming imminent economic collapse that may come sooner than we think. Just look at gold and oil prices. There is no stability there. They are gauges indicating a fever pitch of troubles that lie ahead. Which leads me to William Powell. He was the Alan Greenspan of his household and he was representative of most households worth anything in 1883 New York. No credit and no electricity. Bills to be paid off at once. It was no accident that he was a Wall Street Privateer. If things were run today with the precision of his household the world would be in a lot better shape than it is. Yes, Irene Dunne, the mother, ran the household as she should. But it was the backbone of strength displayed by the "O Captain My Captain" of Clarence Day Sr (as told in Clarence Day Jr.'s story) that keeps everything financially above water. He had too hard a way of earning his money to have it squandered recklessly without accounting for every penny "which is what the household accounts are for." Liz Taylor is good as are all the characters. The tender moments of marital bliss expressed by his gift of a Tiffany diamond ring for his wife is beautifully rendered on screen like a "Moonlight Sonata." The religious theme of the mother endeavoring diligently to make sure that all of them get to heaven by ensuring the proper baptism of her husband reflects the truth of society at that time. That wealth was not a right or a privilege but was something that had to be earned through hard work and the right knowledge. The touch of Buck Ewing hitting a home run put a light on the "new" game of baseball and an early reference to baseball in heaven. ("Field of Dreams"). The way the father relates how he will organize a baseball team of their own in heaven before his son joins them up there shows the strong faith they had in the Christian afterlife. After all he was an "Episcopalian." I think this film portrays the late 19th Century in New York accurately and reflected positively what it took to run a decent and successful household. The time it was released in 1947 was right after WWII which was a time when people started to go back to church because of the horrors just recently endured. I fear it may take another depression and global conflict (only it will be worse this time) to get society back on track morally and to help us show respect for one another. This film hearkens to the way things "oughtta be." Great film.