Watch The Barretts of Wimpole Street For Free

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This story of the courtship of two poets, the invalid Elizabeth Barrett, and the vital Robert Browning, makes for a very enjoyable couple of hours. It's nice to see a film based on a well-written play, with fine characterizations and good direction. The film is surprisingly suspenseful; apparently mundane, everyday matters absorb us slowly inexorably, until we realize they are matters of life and death. As Elizabeth Barrett, Jennifer Jones gives one of her finest portrayals. Unfortunately, it's not one she's especially remembered for, because the movie doesn't seem to be shown all that much. As Elizabeth Barrett, she's required to be the emotional center of the film, and she accomplishes that, with great warmth and simplicity. You'll find yourself rooting for her. Though she's the one American in an all-British cast, she never comes across a Barrett from Hollywood Boulevard.The great John Gielgud is a bit more problematic in the role of Moulton Barrett, the tyrannical father the large Barrett brood lives in fear of upsetting. At this point, Gielgud, though he had appeared in films, had not especially mastered (or so it would appear) the subtle technique of performing for the camera. He's not bad, but he's stagy. And I also wonder if he's the best choice for the role. But at least he's strong, and makes his presence felt. This works for the film far more than it detracts.The film also features the married team (though I'm not sure if they were, at the time) of Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, later the stars of Born Free. Travers plays Robert Browning; he may not be everyone's idea of Browning, but he's a good actor and he has a lot of energy. McKenna plays the role of the younger sister that was played in the 1934 version by Maureen O'Sullivan. The two performances could not be more different; O'Sullivan playing the frightened little ingenue (quite well, it must be said), and McKenna playing it much more internally and with a stillness and a subtle fear. It's a very fine performance.The supporting cast is uniformly good. Sidney Franklin (who hadn't directed a film in 20 years) does a beautiful job. The sets and costumes, in color and CinemaScope, are perfect.I really enjoyed it.

I thought this was a very good movie. I always found it amazing that Jennifer Jones was so effective in it as she was hardly a young woman when making this movie. Nevertheless, you hardly notice it and she is really excellent in it. I also thought Gielgeud (I think I am misspelling his name!) and McKenna were also excellent. I love when she is able to tell him after he orders her to get the dog to kill it, "She took Flush with her." It is such a triumph for Barret, for the sister, and of course for Flush too!!! Another reviewer mentioned that they kept thinking of The Heiress in watching this movie. I have thought so too at times. I feel De Haviland would have been great in this role, or actually in a few other of Jones' roles over the years too (Good Morning Miss Dove, Love Letters, and Cluny Brown all come to mind). But Jones was wonderful in each and in this one too. She certainly makes one seek out some of Barret and Browning's poems.

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of Director Wm. Wyler's adaptation of Henry James's novel, with Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress." What made that a better movie? was it the casting? the directing? the actor chemistry? or all of the above? Previous reviewers of "Barretts" all praised Gielgud's acting, but I wondered why he accepted the role, or could stand himself in it. I could barely view him on screen, so wooden, so inhuman was his incarnation of Moulton Barrett: this was not a person, it was a caricature. Compare, instead, Ralph Richardson's interpretation of a similar emotion-starved and pathologically driven father in his love for his daughter.As for the casting of Bill Travers as Robert Browning, I felt he lacked any subtlety, any "poetry" in his manner, any semblance of an understanding of female psychology or charm, most of all, lacked any chemistry with Jones as Elizabeth. He seemed to be barking all of his lines as if he were on the football field. Can you imagine his role cast instead with, say David Farrar, or one of the Ealing Studio regulars? Fans of Jennifer Jones may still want to sit through this movie to see her conception of the poetess. But when we compare this role with her performance in, say, "Wild at Heart [Driven to Earth]," the great Powell-Pressburger film, or even "Madame Bovary," it falls far short of full realization. In those films, she revealed passion, coyness, charm and geniune fear, gripping us with the emotions of her predicament. As noted by another reviewer, here she appears far too healthy, even too mature (although that would be an accurate estimation of her actual age when she met Browning, according to her biography) to be believable. Of course we can accept some cinematic license -- we don't have to expect that Mimi should actually be consumptive in "La Boheme"--but Jones's conception confused strength of character with bodily health -- her fainting on the stairs was almost a joke, more a sign of her rare weakness as an actress. In fact, one actually felt more pity for her sister, as portrayed by Virginia McKenna, in a lively,deeply felt role, in which we feared for Henrietta's emotional health and future in that stifling household.So, shall we lay the blame at the foot of the hapless director Sidney Franklin? All the settings, the costumes, even the lovely tune, beautifully sung by Jones at the piano should have offered the right support. The clumsiness of the production is almost encapsulated in that little scene around the piano: when Jennifer sings it (whether or not she herself indeed voiced it), there is lyricism and musicality, and one longs for her to continue, but everyone, namely her brothers, is urged to join in. None of them can really sing, they shout out the melody, drowning Elizabeth's soprano, and the whole scene, at least for this viewer, is ruined. Just like the movie.Of a possible four ****, I give it my lowest rating one star*.

Although not as engaging as the original play, This film adaptation of BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE ST is a very well made film. John Gielgud gives one of his finest screen performances as Edward Barrett, he is despicable yet worthy of pity. Jennifer Jones is strong as Elizabeth and her character unfolds beautifully before your eyes. The actors who play the clan of brothers nicely delineate each role so they are individuals and not a unit. this film does suffer a bit from the over emphasis on the elizabeth/browning relationship as opposed to the father/daughter one but I suppose this was the hollywood trend toward romance at the time.