Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

tomsview Of the three film versions of "Of Human Bondage" this is probably the least known. Critics at the time found it dull and compared it unfavourably with the 1934 version starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard. On the contrary, I think that this version is more complex, more interesting and ultimately more satisfying than that earlier film.All versions chart the course of the destructive, one-sided relationship between medical student Philip Carey, played here by Paul Henreid, and working class waitress Mildred Rogers played by Eleanor Parker. But after his self-esteem reaches its lowest ebb, two far more caring women enter his life, one he rejects almost as cruelly as he himself was rejected, while the other provides him with the happiness he has searched for.For anyone who has read Somerset Maugham's novel, the film versions all share the same drawback; they only concentrate on one aspect of the novel - the unrequited and obsessive love of Philip Carey for Mildred Rogers. This is the most fascinating part of the novel to be sure, but it doesn't take place until about half way through the book. By the time it happens, we know a lot about Philip Carey - we have followed him from childhood, understand the sensitivity about his clubfoot, and identify with him totally. When he encounters Mildred Rogers and is rejected by her, we are as shocked as he is at the effect it has on his sense of self-worth and his life from that point on. No one has ever described the anguish that such a one-sided affair can unleash better than Maugham in this extraordinary novel - Sigmund Freud couldn't have done a more insightful job.And therein lies the challenge for the filmmakers because they all want to leap straight into the Philip and Mildred affair; there is no real build up, we are only vaguely aware of the vulnerabilities, and even the vanities that have been nurtured in Philip that could lead him into so destructive a relationship.With that said, after a slow start, this version of the story does become quite compelling. However it could have done without the narration, which doesn't even start until after Philip meets Mildred. The filmmakers should have worked a little harder to explain things without resorting to narration, which both the 1934 and 1964 versions managed to do.Paul Henreid was too old for the part - it's almost as though he was going through mid-life crisis - and his accent needed explaining. Fortunately, he had a strong enough screen presence to carry it off.Critics considered Eleanor Parker's performance weak when compared to Bette Davis's showier one in the 1934 version, but she handles it pretty well on the whole. She is possibly a little too strident, and like Davis struggled to deliver a decent Cockney accent. For anyone who has seen the 1964 version, it's interesting to compare her with Kim Novak who gave a very subdued performance, which didn't seem right at all. Possibly the forced, slightly neurotic quality in Parker's performance actually caught the spirit of Mildred Rogers all too well.Although not without fault, this version of Maugham's great novel is better than the critics would allow, and is certainly a film that rewards at least one viewing.

gamay9 What I find fascinating is that two of my 12 favorite (most alluring) actresses starred in different versions of the same film: Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak.In an era where lousy remakes of good films are made once a month, 'Of Human Bondage' improves with time. Kim Carnes might have idolized 'Bette Davis' Eyes' but I think Bette was homely. Eleanor Parker was (and still is, at 90) a scintillating, wholesome looking beauty, as I also rate Cathy O'Donnell ('Best Years of Our Lives') and Margaret Sullivan ('Shop on the Corner,' amongst others). Problem is, they all were divorced several times, so they may not have been as wholesome and charming as they appeared on-screen. Then, again, they may have been 'unlucky' in love; perhaps they had cheating husbands. I can't imagine Cathy O'Donnell being anything but the eternal virgin.Kim Novak was (is?) sexy and flaunted it. That's why she was best cast in 'Of Human Bondage.' I have always been a fan of Laurence Harvey (my middle name is 'Harvey').I would recommend watching all three versions of 'Of Human Bondage' and judge for yourself.

jotix100 W. Somerset Maughan wrote a great novel about the complexity of human relations. It's amazing how a person can lose his soul when possessed by a passion that will consume everything. Which is why one feels such compassion for Philip Carey, the man whose love for the tragic Mildred Rogers will almost destroy him.In comparison with the John Cromwell's 1934 version starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard, this 1946 take on the novel, as adapted by Catherine Turney and directed by Edmund Goulding, pales somewhat. Not that this is a terrible film, on the contrary, it has some good points, but the essence of the novel is not as poignant as the other film made clear. In fact, Hollywood in the early version was freer from the censure that the second film, shot under the Hays Code, had. It sort of makes the action lose reality.The other thing that is notable in the movie is the different interpretations of Englis accents spoken by most of the actors. Another failure of the film was to have Paul Henried cast to play Philip. He was a man much older to play the character, as Neil Doyle has pointed out in his comment. Eleanor Parker, who plays Mildred, was not in the same league as Bette Davis, although she struggles to make a go with the role.The film makers "cleaned up" the basic problem with Mildred's character. Nothing is ever mentioned about her prostitution. Her outburst in thrashing Philip's apartment should have been more effective as a confrontation where all her venom should have bee directed at the man she deeply hated, in spite of all the kindness she received from him.While the film holds the viewer interested, we always found ourselves thinking how much better it could have been.

whpratt1 If you love old great classic films in B&W and great actors, this is a must see film. This 1946 Film Classic had all time greats, like Paul Henreid,(Philip Carey),"Casablanca",'42 who was very handsome and had a handicap, and fell in love with the wrong lady, Eleanor Parker(Mildred Rogers),"A Hole In The Head",'59. Mildred took advantage of Philip's great love for her and wound up in many other men's beds. Edmund Gwenn,(Athelmy),"The Keys of the Kingdom",'44 came to the aid of Philip and gave a great supporting actor's role through out the entire picture. Athelmy even introduced his daughter, Janis Paige(Sally Athelmy),"Two Guys From Milwaukee",'46 to Philip, who seemed to warm to her beautiful good looks and warm and kind ways! A great actress Alexis Smith,(Nora Nesbitt),"Rhapsody in Blue",'45, also appeared in this film and gave a great supporting role. Edmund Gwenn and Eleanor Parker made this film into an all time film Classic for many generations to view and enjoy!