You won't be disappointed!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The acting in this movie is really good.

I had seen the 1957 version of "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" so I wasn't going to take time for this one. My scheduling changed, I ended up with time and decided to watch the 1934 film. In it were Norma Shearer and Fredric March. I was surprised to note that they were superb. They played off of each other's characters. That spark of emotions were there.Edward Barrett's (Charles Laughton) lustful feelings for his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, become obvious right away. You know he's intentions are not honorable. The fact that he forbade any and all of his children to marry and have a life and family of their own shows that he is mean and self-centered. He isn't above belittling and tearing them down until they give up any idea of breaking away from the family. Edward Barrett wants total control over his complete family. This becomes obvious in the treatment of his own niece in front of her intended husband. How would you like to have the old monster sucking face with you? Ugh! Then comes Robert Browning who reads several of Elizabeth's poems. He falls in love, decides to meet her and convinces her to leave her father, family and marry him. Elizabeth agrees. They leave together with Wilson her maid. (Una O'Connor has that role.) They, also, want to take Elizabeth's beloved spaniel, Flush.Barrett is furious when he discovers their leaving. His cruelty quickly becomes definite. He is going to do away with Flush to get even with Elizabeth for leaving her father for Robert. Will his attempt succeed? Will he ever see his daughter again? What happens with the rest of the family once he loses his hold on Elizabeth? Will Flush make it to the wedding? There's one way to find out, see the movie.

Two famous personalities from Victorian England, and yet Hollywood can't be bothered giving them English accents. Laughton, despite his mutton chop sideburns and glowering demeanor, looks far too young to be Shearer's father (in actual life is only 3 years older than she). Well at least he adds some spirit to this rather stage bound, dull movie.March didn't convince me he could write a line of poetry. The engaged cousin is a female Elmer Fudd, advewse to evew pwonouncing an R. Shearer's illness is not explained, perhaps she recovers from a bad cold, we don't know, in any event she appears remarkably fit at movie's end.Maureen O'Sullivan, and Una O'Connor are good in supporting roles, and the costuming is well done.I'll remember this movie for Laughton's valiant attempt at portraying a middle aged man, all the more ineffective having seen him as a middle aged man in his more recent films.

There are few films regarding the lives of great poets or poets at all. I can think of "Shakespeare in Love" (Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe), "The Bad Lord Byron", "Tom and Viv" (T.S.Eliot and his first wife), "The Great MacGonigal", and the two versions of "The Barretts of Wimpole Street". Although the second version of the film is considered better by some viewers (who think John Guilgud's performance as Edward Barrett is more subtle than Charles Laughton's), most film lovers thing the 1934 version is better. It certainly showed that Norma Shearer could act more than competently (her 1931 Oscar for "The Divorcée" seems justifiable due to the number of character changes she undergoes in the film, but the film was weak to begin with). Here she had a great script, and "The Barretts" remains one of her top three performances with "The Women" and "Marie Antoinette". Her jousting with Laughton as her tyrannical father is worthy of attention, and look at their eyes in their last confrontation scene. Laughton could not be too explicit about his character's incestuous motives, but his eyes tell the story - and Shearer's frightening reaction tells the revulsion and fear she feels. Fredric March's Robert Browning is optimistic and caring - which is what the character calls for (it is also what Browning apparently was like - he seems to have been ever the optimist). His willingness to admit his less than perfect side is admirable - witness how he realizes that a passage in one of his poems that Shearer cannot understand is one that does not make sense to him either (the lines concluding that sequence are quoted on this board). He is not weak reed, but a firm support for Barrett's need to flee her father. One cheers him on through the film.It was not the first film he made with Laughton. In fact, one can make a case that March and Laughton almost made a dramatic "Laurel & Hardy" pair: "Sign of the Cross", "The Barretts of Wimpole Street", "Les Miserables". To be fair Laughton got the juicier parts ("Nero", Edward Barrett", "Javert"), but March held his own in their scenes together. No small acting here, given that Laughton can steal the thunder of the picture each time by his characters and their personalities.For most of the film Laughton's character is detestable by his combination of selfishness, self-righteousness, and control-freakishness. Check out the brief scene where he is with a niece and her weak husband (Ian Wolf), which ends when he gives an overwhelmingly passionate kiss to the niece. He is a monster just barely in control of his "id". But there is one scene stands out for another reason. It is nearly comic.Edward's second oldest daughter Henrietta (Maureen O'Sullivan) has also found a boyfriend, Captain Surtees Cook (Ralph Forbes). They have been stealing away every now and then for some time together, and Forbes has even ventured into the Barrett home. They have not been caught by Edward, but he comes in early one day and finds them together. Barrett of course is surprised, and quickly realizes that Cook is a local barracks soldier who has latched onto his daughter. Barrett is also a tax payer (and a wealthy one) and he knows his tax money is spent on the upkeep of those barracks, and the training of the soldiers there to defend his country. The scene is dramatic in that it will lead to one where Edward will browbeat poor Henrietta into emotional surrender (although also eternal hatred), but for a moment the situation becomes comic. Edward stands at the door listening to first Henrietta and then Cook explain their love and devotion. He is not really impressed by this, and pulls out his watch, which he looks over. Gradually Cook realizes that his explanations are not helping him and Henrietta, and that Mr. Barrett is getting tired of his presence in his home. Eventually poor Cook leaves with some vague promise to contact Henrietta at some later date with her father's permission. As he leaves a bored and stern Edward just remains looking at his watch. In the context of the movie it is just one more reason to detest Edward Barrett, but it is a hint of Laughton's later performance as Henry Hobson in "Hobson's Choice". One wonders if it was in the original play or screenplay. It certainly helps enliven the darkness and gloom surrounding Edward Barrett.

This was a prestige effort in every way in 1934, gathering together the Academy Award winners of the past three years to appear together in the film version of a highly respected play. That the play no longer holds the stage, and that it is old fashioned melodrama, is hardly the point. The script may lean towards the treacly, but both Charles Laughton and in particular Norma Shearer give it s real lift.Laughton is somewhat hammy, playing Mr. Barrett as a slightly toned down Dr. Moreau. But I defy anyone to look away; and towards the end of the film he does give a fine impression of a man in torment. But it is Shearer who really carries the film; absolutely lovely performance, restrained and wisely underplaying with Laughton. Observe their final confrontation and note how Shearer's performance rises in intensity as Laughton's grows more subdued. This is a high class of ensemble acting.Only Fredric March lets the film down by being far too energetic as Robert Browning; meant to be cockily eccentric, he succeeds in putting your teeth on edge. Still, Norma loves him convincingly enough.A highly recommended film for a rainy afternoon.