Highly Overrated But Still Good

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

OK, I've seen some sappy movies in my time, but none as saccharine as this. It's the story of preparing for the future of one's loved ones, facing the possibility of death with dignity and leaving a legacy of comfort for the survivors behind. In many aspects, it's not at all realistic, but to criticize it would be like beating your Valentine over the head with a Hallmark card. Therefore, it feels necessary to go into this with an extremely open mind, and the only way is to accept the fact that this is what life is like in some alternate universe, where like the song "Loveland" in the musical "Follies" explains that lovebirds cannot be separated, lest the survivor swoon and die.Upon meeting handsome scientist Robert Stack, doctor's assistant Lauren Bacall offers to soothing his sore back by giving him a rubdown. Within minutes, they are leaving to have a drink, and minutes later are coming out of a wedding chapel. She moves into his home downstairs from an observatory, and it seems like the nest is full, even five years after their marriage. But when fate intervenes, she decides to make sure that if the worst happens, he won't be alone, and brings the young and troubled Evelyn Rudie into their home. However, not everything goes as planned, and for swooning and dying lovebird Stack, it takes a major gift of love to bring him back to life.Coming out as Bacall recovered from the shock of husband Bogie's death, it seems a bit sentimental and even a little sappy at times. The two lovebirds are far too perfect together, yet there's a sense of darkness behind all of the pathos. Rudie is a natural, fine young actress, even when precocious and pretending that she's a horse. Bacall plays the ultimate heroine, not manipulative in any way, and is too good to be true. Stack gives a dark performance as he faces grief and confusion, going through the stages realistically and with intensity. Lorne Greene, Anne Seymour, Edward Platt and young Scatman Crothers are quite good in support. So take this for what it is, a message film with a huge heart, and leave the diabetic medicine for those who need it.

i remember it exactly as the reviewer above. I was about the same age when i first saw it and just recall being drawn in to the story from the little orphans point of view. Lauren Bacall has been my favourite actress ever since and im waiting to watch the film again and gain an adult perspective. Im not expecting i will feel the same and am concerned about maybe some of the magic being lost, but still, i need to do it to satisfy a 25 year long desire to see this film again. I haven't read any critic reviews and im sure it has been rubbished given a loose storyline, but cute and sweet and a little something to warm your heart.

THE GIFT OF LOVE has got to be one of the most cringe-inducing movies I've seen from the '50s when sentimental tear-jerkers were still the rage, especially if they were dressed up in handsome Technicolor photography and settings...and preferably, with stars like ROBERT STACK and LAUREN BACALL for box-office appeal.This one is a sad remake of an even weepier B&W original called SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY that starred Maureen O'Hara and John Payne (with Connie Marshall as the little girl), a Fox film so banal that you wonder why they bothered to toy with the script again. It's still banal, all the way, with a ludicrous script and inept performances you've got to see to believe how bad the acting is.LAUREN BACALL is the noble wife who knows she has a terminal illness, so she prepares the little girl and hubby for her demise, wanting them to go on loving each other and helping each other when she's gone. That's the plot, in a nutshell, and naturally--when she dies--hubby goes off his rocker and makes thing difficult for the girl, ending up sending her back to the orphanage where they adopted her. What happens after this will try your patience to the utmost as the girl leaves her snug bed at the orphanage to run out into a rainstorm with her toy horse along the seashore. You know whatever happens next will reunite her with her father, who seems to be getting a message from his dead wife that the girl needs emergency help.It's as sticky and mushy as these things can possibly be with ROBERT STACK at his absolute worst feigning mournfulness over his wife's sudden departure--the scene of him at her gravesite is almost laughable. And the little girl (EVELYN RUDIE) makes you appreciate what a marvelous actress Shirley Temple was as a child star.Surprisingly, it's all directed by the wonderful Jean Negulesco, who must have been forced into fulfilling contract demands to even come near this maudlin script.I see from the other comments that this sort of nonsense appealed strongly to teen-age girls when first viewed. I hope they have a chance to reconsider calling it "wonderful" if they see it again as adults.

I originally saw this on TV as a child and thought it was so incredibly sad. Recently, I had the opportunity to see it again and thought it was a bit campy, but it was the 1950s. Robert Stack's character is a bit of a selfish jerk, but, since it is the 50's, everyone knows he'll come around in the end. Lauren Bacall looked absolutely beautiful in this film. As for Evelyn Rudie, I thought she was the perfect old soul in a child's body. It's not such a bad film; it's really rather tender and sweet. Perfect, it isn't, but if you watch it for the simple enjoyment of a movie, it's pretty good. It's a 1/2 a hankie film, and great on a cold winter night, with some cocoa and popcorn.