User Reviews

I do not think this is a movie about love. It is a movie that compares and contrasts MANY human emotions that hold us in bondage - most notably, love and obsession. I pity people who think that what Philip (Harvey) feels for Mildred (Novak) is LOVE! However, of the 3 portrayals of Mildred in this Somerset Maugham tale, this one is the strongest. Maugham, himself, thought so. When you see Novak's Mildred, you will know why.

Bette Davis' performance in the original may have been groundbreaking, but neither the film nor her performance is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; it earns my respect and admiration. However, it is not very nuanced; she is nothing but a shrew. Also, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Philip Carey's obsession with Mildred. The original film and the portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.

For my money, both of the remakes are better movies. Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak both portray a Mildred who is prettier and less shrewish - and consequently more believable. Mildred becomes both more understandable and more pathetic. Also, because they are both prettier than Davis, obsession with either one of them is a great deal more conceivable.

Kim Novak's talent was almost as great as her beauty. She really has a chance to shine in this role. Her Mildred is easily the best portrayal. She delivers an incredibly nuanced performance that renders Mildred much more accessible and sympathetic and less despicable. She truly is human, and in bondage to her obsessions. Bette Davis' one-dimensional portrayal of Mildred absolute pales by comparison with Novak's.

Consequently, this film is also better, for providing a central character that is far more complex and human. Only through the Mildred portrayed with the beauty and complex humanity of Kim Novak does the character of Philip ever make any sense.

Regardless of what you may have heard about Kim Novak or this version of Somerset Maugham's story, give them a shot. I think you'll appreciate this unjustly maligned movie.

In Paris, the clubfooted aspirant painter Philip Carey (Laurence Harvey) is advised by an acquaintance to give-up his artistic ambition since he would be a mediocre artist. Philip joins the medical school in London using his inheritance to pay schooling and to have a simple but comfortable life.

When he meets the waitress Mildred Rogers (Kim Novak) in a restaurant, the shy Philip has a crush on her but she rejects him. Philip stalks Mildred and dates her; however the easy woman scorns him. When Philip proposes Mildred, she tells him that she is going to marry her lover Mille, leaving the brokenhearted Philip obsessed for her. He tries to move on, dating the intellectual Norah Nesbitt (Siobhan McKenna) in an unrequited love. However, when Mildred returns alone and pregnant, Philip lodges her at home.

Sooner Mildred becomes lover of Philip's best friend Griffiths (Jack Hedley) and leaves Philip again. When Philip finds Mildred prostituting on the red light district, he brings Mildred and her baby to live with him. Mildred unsuccessfully tries to seduce Philip but he loathes her. Mildred feels humiliated and wrecks his apartment, and Philip quits the medical school. Meanwhile Philip befriends Thorpe Athelny (Roger Livesey) that introduces his daughter Sally Athelny (Nanette Newman) to him. But Philip is still haunted by his passion for Mildred.

"Of Human Bondage" is an unpleasant romance about unrequited love, betrayal and sexual obsession. I have never read the W. Somerset Maugham's novel but John Cromwell's version of 1934 is better than this 1964 version, with a better development of the whole romance. This 1964 version reduces the whole story to an unrequited romance between Philip Carey and Mildred Rogers and does not emphasize important aspects of the romance. But Kim Novak shines with her beauty and performance, and it is easy to understand why Philip Carey falls in love with Mildred. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Servidão Humana " ("Of Human Bondage")

Not-bad third version of W. Somerset Maugham's depressing story about a sluttish waitress in London and the sensitive future doctor who becomes obsessed with her. Ravaged by critics upon its release (and thought bannable for a time for Kim Novak's suggestive scenes), this remake isn't a classic, nor does it improve on the Bette Davis version, but it does have something. Novak is just fine; Laurence Harvey also good as the smitten medico. The biggest problem is the screenplay's faithfulness to Maugham's plot, which by 1964 standards was pretty creaky. Why couldn't they have updated it just a bit? For all the talk about this version being "too shocking", the movie disappoints by not shocking at all, by playing it too safe. A soap opera, to be sure, though a handsome and interesting one. Novak-diehards will love the film, and her. **1/2 from ****

Those are the words to describe this movie. And that honor belongs mostly to Kim Novak who brings absolute realism to the role as Mildred Rogers. The music is great and Kim Novak is so beautiful and completely believable as Maugham's character. Just a movie not to miss. I loved it and have seen it many times and I have the same opinion over and over. The other players are adequate and just as believable but the real reason for this movie is Kim Novak. She is excellent and superior in this movie. And did I say beautiful.....and she still is today as well. A movie not to be missed. A story that will hold your attention as the character of Mildred Rogers evolves.

I've not seen a version with Eleanor Parker in the lead made in the Forties, but the version in 1934 with Bette Davis and Leslie Howard set an impossible standard that sad to say Kim Novak fell short of as the acid tongued amoral Mildred Rogers in Of Human Bondage.

W. Somerset Maugham's classic of a scheming woman of the low classes is one of the great works of literature in the past 150 years, The role takes a great actress to perform it. Kim was quite a bit out of her depth as compared to Davis and Parker.

Lawrence Harvey is the club footed and socially unskilled Philip Carey, a medical student who becomes completely infatuated with a woman of the lower classes whom he first meets when she waits on he and his medical school peers in a restaurant. Harvey who in real life was quite the lady killer really took a part so totally opposite his nature. The role he got an Oscar nomination for, Joe Lampton in Room At The Top was far closer to the real Harvey. Still he does pull it off.

There are a lot of similarities to the other Maugham classic Rain, in fact Of Human Bondage is almost a looking glass version. Both concern very moral and straight forward men degrading themselves over a woman of easy to non-existent virtue. The difference is that in Rain the protagonist Reverend Davidson does destroy himself and Carey pulls himself back from the abyss.

A couple of other performances of note are Robert Morley in a serious part as Harvey's medical professor and Roger Livesey as a patient who has a daughter who's a nice girl who takes an interest in Harvey. But for the moment he's enthralled with Novak.

Kim has the beauty for the role, but there is really only one Bette Davis.

Philip Carey (Laurence Harvey) is clubfooted, a failed artist and a restless medical student at the East London Hospital. He falls for lower class waitress Mildred Rogers (Kim Novak). She tells him that she's marrying another man while in bed with him. When she comes back to him pregnant and abandoned by her husband, he leaves Nora Nesbitt and takes Mildred in for something about "human bondage". She has an affair with his friend Griffiths and they fight. She leaves and later he finds her working as a prostitute. Later still, she's found dying in the hospital and she takes care of her one last time.

There is a lot of complaints about its faithfulness to the novel's characters. I'm not British and cannot comment on Kim Novak's accent as good or bad. All I know is that she exudes star power even in this role. Harvey is stiff and lacks emotional depth. This is an old fashion melodrama. Maybe the changing times got the better of this movie. I personally don't mind sincere melodramas although they're not my favorite genre.

...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.

Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.

However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.

And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.

Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!"

Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.

IMDb votes concur!

If you read through the IMDB trivia section on this movie, it has all the marks of an utter disaster. First, the original director walked off the film. Second, the film sat for a long time before finally being released. Third, various folks associated with the movie apparently hated each other. Add to that something not mentioned there, that it's a remake of Bette Davis' most famous role, and you have a recipe for disaster...a film that lost a lot of money and certainly was hated by some of the folks who made it! Perhaps you'd just be better off watching the original 1934 version of the Somerset Maugham story.

Philip (Laurence Harvey) is a medical student whose future looks promising. However, after he meets a very common sort of woman working in a restaurant, he becomes incredibly smitten with Mildred (Kim Novak)...even though, apart from her beauty, she has nothing positive to offer him....and she often berates him and uses him. But Philip is a bit of a putz...and time and again, after she mistreats him and he leaves, he only comes back like a lost and needy puppy.

The original casting for the film back in 1934 was much better. It was more believable to have Leslie Howard play Philip, as Harvey is awfully pretty to behave the way he did. And, while I think Kim Novak is a lovely actress, here she simply isn't a match for Bette Davis...but who is?!

So despite all its deficiencies is the film any good? Well, yes, as the original story is interesting and even a mediocre remake is doing to be watchable. Plus, it was more adult and explicit (keeping closer to the original story) due to the prior film coming out just after the tough Production Code was enacted. Worth seeing...but I still prefer the older version.

I read the book many years ago and it has remained one of my favorite novels. For many years since I read the book, whenever the film was shown on television, it was always the 1934 version with Bette Davis. Don't get me wrong, Bette Davis was a great actress, but for me she failed to come across as the writer Somerset Maugham had intended Mildred to be. The first time I caught the Davis version, I could only watch a few minutes of it before I gave up and could watch no longer, lest it ruin the impression of Mildred the book provided for me. Finally after many years of waiting, I caught the 1964 version and I wasn't disappointed. Someone on the message board mentioned that Somerset Maugham was most pleased with the way Kim Novak played the role and I could understand why. Immediately when I began watching Kim Novak, I was transfixed by her and felt that I had at last found Mildred as the writer intended her to be - not some shrill shrew, but an emotionally damaged beauty, still a child that had somehow made it to adulthood. It was easy to see how Philip, played perfectly by Laurence Harvey could have fallen in love with her - vulnerable, lovable, innocent, unsophisticated, always forgiving yet at the same time mean, selfish hateful, irresponsible, helpless, ignorant and vindictive. Aren't those the same characteristics we find in children? Some might question describing Mildred as innocent. Because of her promiscuous flirtatious nature, some might understandably dismiss her as a whore as Philip's best friend Griffiss continually tries to remind him. But this film is set in England of the Victorian era and some allowances can be made for that. And with Novak's great acting skills we see that Mildred was very complicated and we can't easily condemn her on the basis of her sexual misbehavior. This is what makes Novak's adaptation so appealing, that she can take this role and actually make us empathize with Mildred, if not actually see ourselves, like Philip, falling into the abyss by falling in love with her ourselves. This is what Kim Novak succeeded in doing and Bette Davis never even attempted. Bette Davis never developed the character to the degree that Novak did where we could see if she could pull it off. We could never feel much for the character Davis portrayed, but we could with Novak's - in spite of those same flaws that each of the actresses had to work with in the character of Mildred. Philip did in this saga come across other women with the best of qualities, and without those flaws found in Mildred though certainly not her beauty. But it was Mildred that would always be his great love -whether it destroyed him, as it nearly does, or finally her, as it does in the end. Only by her death could he ever escape the hold she had upon him. Kim Novak captured Mildred perfectly. Don't be put off by the IMDb's low rating for this movie relative to the Davis version. Read the book and you'll see right away that this was Mildred as the writer intended.

This film was set in Victorian England and it was perfectly suited for black and white format. It would have made as much sense to have made this movie in color as to have made the movie The Elephant Man in color. By using black and white, the film had the look and quality of that same movie, also set in Victorian England. Indeed, the story lines were similar in a sense - one of a good and gentle man trapped in a hideously deformed body that ultimately kills him. And in this, we have a cripple, and as Mildred herself often refers to him, a gentleman, who is also trapped, but unlike John Merek of the Elephant Man, in a relationship from hell that nearly destroys him as well. Philip as he confides to a friend when asked to describe his relationship with the now dead Mildred: "It is like a disease has burned through me. But not like one that one can see." Some might see parallels between the Elephant Man and Philip Carey. They are there.

Particularly sad to watch was the end of this movie. People sometimes note movies for their tear jerker quality - movies like Madam X, Imitation of Life, The Elephant Man and others. But this movie, because of the ending especially should be rated up there with any of those. In this movie, trains and train stations figured prominently in the most happiest of times in the relationship between Philip and Mildred. The final scene where Mildred is being lowered into her grave, a train passes, on a berm above this sad scene, probably the same train they had once ridden together happily in life and in love. The train seems to be saying good bye to her as we hear the rumble of train across the tracks and the mournful cry of the train's whistle. This happens as Philip turns his back on her for the last time to walk from her and to his new love waiting just outside the wrought iron gate of the cemetery. We can't but wonder if this new love he has found can ever release him from the grip that Mildred, if only her memory must still have upon him. This scene can't help but be emotionally emotionally wrenching for anyone who sees it. This is a great movie and a great credit to a great novel by Somerset Maugham and a great actress, Kim Novak who made it come alive for me. This film belongs way up there among the IMDb's 250 best movies of all time.

Kim Novak 's portrayal of Mildred is by far the best of the 3 that have been filmed (Davis, Parker). It is rather blistering. It is one of her best performances, along with Middle of the Night, Strangers When We Meet, and Vertigo. She was grossly under-rated as an actress during her prime. Didn't seem to fit the expected mold at the time. Otherwise the film is rather minor - not bad but not special or particularly memorable. Lawrence Harvey is not very compelling or particularly sympathetic. The musical score is quite effective and memorable. Appropriately filmed in black and white. Supporting performances on the mark. Effective cinematography.

Of the three film versions of Somerset Maugham's semi-autobiographical novel, this should have been the best, but it ended up the worst. Critics blamed Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey, but it was the attempt to 'improve' on Maugham in the script and direction that undermined it; no amount of fine acting by either of the stars could have counteracted that.

Set in England in the late 19th Century, the novel tells the story of Philip Carey, raised by his religious uncle after being born with a clubfoot and orphaned. At 18 he set off to study in Germany before trying his hand at art in Paris. Unsuccessful he returns to England to study medicine.

It is then that he meets a waitress named Mildred Rogers who rejects him in an off-hand manner, setting off an infatuation in Philip that leads to the most painful, one-sided affair in all literature. Among other insights, Maugham's masterwork is also an uncompromising dissection of unrequited love. As Maugham observed, "The love that lasts the longest is the love that is never returned". From this painful experience, Philip becomes more accepting of himself and others, and begins a satisfying relationship with another woman.

Philip's doomed attraction to Mildred only begins halfway through the novel. Filmmakers faced with condensing the whole thing into a two-hour movie, usually cut straight to the affair.

Admittedly in this version, the filmmakers did try for more of a build up before the fateful meeting. However when the meeting between Philip and Mildred does take place in a tearoom, the script tries to one-up Maugham. Kim Novak's Mildred is portrayed as far too knowing; too worldly and too aware of the effect she is having on Laurence Harvey's Philip. It's almost a come-on, the exact opposite of the put-down in the novel - it totally misses the point as to why Philip becomes entangled with Mildred.

The Mildred of Maugham's novel, and the other two film versions, is quite an obtuse person; part of Philip's dilemma is that although he does not consider Mildred his intellectual equal he still can't control his feelings for her. Anyone who had only seen this film and not read the book would have to wonder why Philip was so drawn to Mildred other than the fact that she was pretty; the critical rejection and by-play of the novel are hardly in evidence.

The film well and truly departs from Maugham when Philip goes to bed with Mildred. In the novel, Philip never goes to bed with her - it's a big part of the poor guy's problem - when he gets the chance later, circumstances are such that he no longer wants to. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was a bare Kim Novak just too strong a temptation? It totally changes the dynamic. Although Kim Novak's calm, almost ethereal quality served her well in "Vertigo", Mildred Rogers' changeable moods were probably outside her range. Nonetheless her final scenes are startling and affecting.

The last half of the film follows the book as Philip has other relationships with women including treating Siobhan McKenna's character, Nora, almost as callously as Mildred treated him. Despite his 1960's 'do, Laurence Harvey is quite believable as the overly self-conscious young man whose ego could be battered by Mildred's off-and-on attentions.

Although this version benefits from real locations and looks good, it has to disappoint anyone who has read the novel. For those who haven't, the other two film versions are closer to its spirit, but why not read the book? It may have been published in 1915 but it's still hard to put down once you've started.

Kim Novak after leaving her long term contract at Columbia made "Boys Night Out" at MGM and then this fine version of the great classic novel. MGM filmed "Of Human Bondage" on location in Ireland first billed over British star Laurence Harvey assigning Henry Hathaway,a very well known but gruff, 'shoot em up' Western Director, to helm this film. Hathaway and Novak clashed from the beginning of the filming and Kim Novak walked off the film. MGM had to decide who was more important and soon Kim Novaki was back on the film but a new director assigned. This film had a lot of bad press during the filming due to the Novak-Hathaway feud, but seen today it is a very fine film with Kim Novak superb in the role of Mildred that made Bette Davis a superstar worldwide. In fact I feel Kim Novak is better in this role than Bette Davis was, less shrill, and Ms.Novak is particularly moving in the End of the film. Kim Novak was always regarded as a big box office star, but her work in review demands a more intelligent appraisal of her varied work from "Picnic" thru "Vertigo" to "Middle Of the Night," "Strangers When We Meet" this film and another film bashed when it debuted "Kiss Me Stupid". Walter Matthau before he died gave an Interview where he stated he learned more from Kim Novak than any other person in Hollywood on screen acting.

For all the complaints about Bette Davis' accent, I think the earlier version with Davis and Leslie Howard was much better at evoking the ratty edges of the story and the essence of the characters.

There seems to have been a strange "opposites day" bit of casting here. Kim Novak's Mildred appeared rather vulnerable in her ignorance and Laurence Harvey as Philip seemed much more calculating in the early scenes where he first was taken with her. Leslie Howard appeared rather pathetic in the same scenes, but Harvey seemed to have a sharper agenda. Yes it was turned on its head, but he didn't appear to be the poor little shut out clueless failure that Howard was so good at portraying.

Meh... worth watching to see how a story can be updated for more modern audiences than the '34 version, but stick with the original for the gritty stuff.

I had only seen the Bette Davis, Ashley Wilkes version before and it struck me as over the top. Ashley, er.. I mean Howard was so wimpy and Davis so over the top. I love Bette but this was not her best effort. I never saw them as people, only archetypes in a cold exploration of the ironies in human relationships.

This version is the complete opposite. Novak's Mildred really surprised me with her depth. She was completely believable, and all her actions were in character. She was no one-dimensional harridan but a real woman. We could see the qualities that attracted Harvey's Dr. Carey to her. There is true tragedy in her demise, in that she did not realize that she had lost what she truly wanted until it was too late.

Lawrence Harvey was even better. I thought he was great in Room at the Top but this performance might have surpassed that in subtlety. His actions are completely believable and one understands and feels his pain, not for himself, but for the woman that he is bound to, yet helpless to save.

As for the IMDb preference for the 1934 version - well, maybe some of the young film students need to get out of the lecture hall and into the real world a bit more. This film is real, intense and so beautifully sad...

One of the best films I have yet seen. (Then again it helps if you have lived a life in strong coincidence with the lives portrayed; and not merely a commentator, a mere critic of film)

This film was my first introduction to Ms. Novak, and yes I admit I was, am, smitten. Ms. Novak brings great depth to her role, a woman seemingly comprised of true grit, this only serving to hide her truths, truth which she never admits to herself.

Love will always be an ever-spring subject, and morality tales their best method to ambitiously telling the nature of human pain and suffering, of which there is much of in this film. The tale of a woman always lost, a woman whose redemption lies solely with the only man that would ever truly Love her.

Love can be a grand thing, though so often, Love disposes of people with nary a backwards glance.

Kim Novak's greatest role besides The Casting Couch. What makes this story work is having a leading lady more masculine than the leading man. This version cannot compare to the original.

It is unfortunate that the 1934 version of this film has become the precedent by which all following adaptations seemed to be judged. This version does not try to imitate the "classic" and is an entirely different animal (making up for many of the flaws in the original).

Whereas Bette Davis portrayed Mildred as an over-the-top shrew, Kim Novak gave her an almost childlike naivety. It is not that Mildred wants purposely to hurt men but rather that she simply does not know how to behave better. Novak's interpretation gives Mildred the much needed humanity that was absent in the first version. Since Mildred now has genuine moments of kindness, it is much easier to see how Philip (Laurence Harvey) becomes obsessed with her.

Harvey, however, is greatly miscast in this film. As a crippled young man who likes art and helping people through medicine, Philip has a great deal of sensitivity (as seen through Leslie Howard's performance in the original). But Harvey, the actor who relished in being unlikable, is completely unable to deliver this. He fared much better in grimy roles ("Walk on the Wild Side," "Darling") and so he is only convincing in the scenes where he yells and slaps Mildred. (Given the reports that Harvey and Novak loathed each other, it is easy to see why these scenes are the most convincing). He is terrible, however, at looking smitten.

Performances aside, this version is refreshingly modern. Rather than glaze over the seedier bits to appease the censors, you will actually hear words like `whore' and `syphilis.' The final scenes are quite touching too, thanks in part to Novak's humility (she truly looks decrepit towards the end). The score cascades a little too loud and often though in all the pivotal scenes and this version would have benefited greatly from a more realistic approach.

This is a must see if you are a fan of the story and Kim Novak. Somerset Maugham supposedly adored Novak's interpretation of Mildred and it truly is a refreshing take on Of Human Bondage.

The fact that the film ran through 3 directors is a big red flag that something went wrong. I can't stand Bette Davis but one thing she is good at playing is a real nasty b%%ch. Kim Novak is much much much more attractive but other than Vertigo she's a lousy actress. Always whispering. What's up with that? She never seems to raise her voice above a dimmer. It's often hard to hear her lines. Harvey seems to have caught the disease as well and never talks in a normal audible tone. The movie is very set/stage bound as well and never opens up to give a clear idea of setting. Morely is good as usual. But that's about the only positive.

As others have likewise commented, it is unfortunate this version will inevitably be compared to the 1934 film, but I think it stands up very well on its own. I'm not a great fan of either Novak or Harvey and I was astonished at their performances. Novak was surprisingly good, with a fresh interpretation of Mildred the slut. She captured her kind side unlike Bette Davis who seemed all bad, all of the time. Harvey also surprised me with his take on the sensitive Philip. There is one scene that is etched in my mind: after sex Mildred has just told Philip that she is getting married and as Philip pulls away the camera focuses on Mildred's profile on the pillow. Her eyes capture her essence better than any other scene. She is simultaneously calculating, bitchy and concerned. Watch for it, it's worth a second look.

I think that this film production of the book is the best that was made. Kim Novak is superb as Mildred Rogers, as is Laurence Harvey as Philip Carey in this telling of the story by Somerset Maugham. I don't think that Kim Novak really got the credit she deserved as an actress in general in Hollywood. The opportunity to play this role, really showed us how good she was. This version was produced by MGM British Studios and Seven Arts Productions (also British). It was first released in West Germany at the Berlin International Film Festival.

Kim Novak was always beautiful, but that was not played up here, as the book tells us that Mildred was not. It was something inside her that caught Philip Carey's tragic need. I found Laurence Harvey to be painfully brilliant in this role. His portrayal lets us see the only thing that he really knows as love, but what is, in many ways, an addiction to this woman (therefore the "bondage"). For whatever reason that Mildred fills his need, it is as if he can do nothing to stop the craving. Therefore, when she does not feel the same, he is not just hurt, but angered. He thinks that he wants to be sweet and kind, and do things for her. But he simply must have her absolute devotion in return. She can not give that to this man. He is not who she craves.

Up until a few months ago, I had thought that there were only two film versions of this book. The other being the more well known one starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard done in 1934. I saw a 1946 version with some alterations to the story to suit the actor Paul Henreid, who played the male lead. Eleanor Parker played Mildred. It is also a good film, and quite true to the book. Though this is not surprising, as Somerset Maugham was the primary writer of all three screen plays of the various film versions of his book.

Though the '34 version is good, it never really got me to feel. It was much more like sitting back and just watching. The acting cannot really be faulted, but it never really moved me in any way.

That is what I find more impressive about this version made in 1964. It moved me to tears. The oppositional qualities of the primary characters are fully played out here. The desperation of Philip Carey. The indifference of Mildred Rogers. The tragedy in this story is very much a theme of other stories of Maugham's. There is a torment in the soul, and thus there is a need to dispense with the torment. Ultimately, there is a tragedy in the development of insensitivity in these people, since it becomes their only method of coping with the pain of life.

I was looking forward to seeing the Bette Davis version of this movie. But as usual the TV Guide messed up and I got this Kim Novak version.I must say Kim Novak played her part to the max. I was screaming and yelling at the TV. She really got me to hate her, so I know she really played her part well. I gave it a 10.

I have also seen the Bette Davis version and I prefer this one much, much more. There is a striking pathos one develops for each of the two characters. Thank God this movie *wasn't* in color! The melancholy noir lighting adds a wonderful dimension and lends an authenticity to the period it depicts.

I first saw this movie as a kid, then as a young adult and now again on the brink of retirement. Each time the powerful simplicity of unconditional love shown by the protagonist moves me.

Watching Kim Novak is quite easy to do. Her beauty is mesmerizing. This makes it all the easier to identify with what the medical student in this movie is going through.

If I were to put together a package of the 50 greatest films as Janus has done, this movie would be in there.

This is one of those films that has given me a lasting memory. The set design was especially appealing and made me dust off my History of London textbook and take a moment to read a little more. I was impressed by Harvey's performance. He played a melancholy personality extremely well not overplaying with melodrama. I am coming from a point of view where he was unknown to me and I had no frame of reference of him or the previously made movie of the same name. ...a movie I would like to view again after I watch the original from the 30's.