Watch Break of Hearts For Free

Just perfect...

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

For me, this film just doesn't work.The reason -- the casting of Katharine Hepburn in the lead role. Don't misunderstand me -- I like most Hepburn films, and from what I have read, this film was written specifically for her. However, what we enjoy most are those Hepburn roles where she has "spunk" (for wont of a better term). Here, there's darn little spunk; perhaps in a scene or two. Otherwise, we're supposed to see Hepburn as a somewhat demure, love-struck woman. Well, that's what doesn't work...the demure part.Hepburn plays a woman with designs on composing music, although we never quite figure out how talented is is or isn't. She falls in love with a noted classical conductor (Charles Boyer). Although they are happily married, Boyer strays just a bit, taking an old flame out to dinner, where they are discovered accidentally by Hepburn. Hepburn ends the marriage and falls "in like" with John Beal, a pleasant though apparently shiftless young man. Meanwhile, Boyer's character falls apart, becoming a drunk, and is disgraced and withdraws from his career as a conductor. Of course, in the end they reconcile, though not before a twist or two.While the Hepburn role left much to be desired, Boyer does quite nicely here in one of his fairly early American films when he was in his mid-30s; he's quite young looking. John Beal gives a so-so performance as a friend to both Boyer and Hepburn, although I didn't find his voice very satisfying. The well-known actor Jean Hersholt is here as a music teacher, and does nicely, though the role isn't the most impressive (this film was 2 years before he played the beloved grandfather to Shirley Temple's "Heidi").Worth mentioning is the score here...by the great Max Steiner. Several of the orchestral pieces are excellent.Not a bad film concept, just bad casting in terms of Hepburn. The film never recovers from her insipid performance (and incidentally, the film didn't do much more than break even).

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of Charles Boyer playing opposite Katharine Hepburn in a romance is odd...to say the least. Now I am NOT casting any aspersions on their acting--they were both fine actors. But the combination of the two in a film like this just seems strange. Perhaps at the time it didn't--as Hepburn wasn't yet a huge star and hadn't the reputation she'd have just a few years later. But the reddish-haired lady with a refined New England accent and the suave Frenchman--what an unusual combination The film begins with Boyer playing a very famous orchestra conductor and musician. He's a bit of a womanizer, so it's surprising when he meets a young would-be composer (Hepburn) that he'd fall for her so hard that he'd ask her to marry him. They seem deliriously happy and go off on a wonderful honeymoon in Europe. Things couldn't be better for the pair until he decides on a whim to go to a party with an old lady friend. However, when Katharine seems them together, she assumes he's cheating on her and perhaps he was, so she storms off--and is ready for a divorce. Can the two get past this or is their marriage headed for an untimely end? See the film and find out what happens next.Overall, while the acting is pretty good and a nice looking production, the movie itself is very ordinary...at best. In fact, some parts are a bit embarrassing to watch--it just wasn't written all that well and seemed overdone and unreal--particularly in the second half. A sticky and clichéd soap opera and not a whole lot more. There just wasn't enough interesting material in this film to elevate it anything more than a time-passer. Too bad--with this talent, it should have been a lot better.

This love story was actually good. Philip Moeller did not make this movie what it could have been. A better director such as George Cukor (who was familiar with Hepburn) would have made the scenes much more enjoyable. Katharine Hepburn does a good job of the aspiring composer and Charlie Boyer as the Great Franz Roberti, conductor. The two both have too much pride instead of talking things over, which is relatable. It's also surprising how Hepburn and Boyer got away with slamming each other with insults of their promiscuity. All in all, it was a good movie for Hepburn to do in her early career, and fans of her will enjoy it.

In the 1930s, there were many "adult" dramas about marital maladjustments. This film is striking because the two main characters, played by Katharine Hepburn and Charles Boyer, have musical careers, she as a composer and he as a famous conductor. The movie is sometimes preposterous, but it has an unusual background of classical music, it's nontraditional in its endorsement of female independence, and it has fine performances.