Morning Glory

Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.

I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.

This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far too old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.

Lastly, the musical score is excellent.

A simple movie in the beginning, a simple movie in the end. It does have that un-ending and pretending cliche, but, most tv movies have that any ways.

Christopher Reeve does a good job as being an ex-con/drifter. The marriage between her and the woman he works for, I feel is a bit queer, but, I believe for the time period it is set in, that it is believable none-the-less.

Now, I saw the edited 'tv' version, even tho the movie was made and showed on 'tv', I find that a bit queer as well. But, I feel if I saw the entirety of the piece, I would give it more-in-likely the same rating.

J.T. Walsh does a nice job, not his best role, but, still....a nice job.

7/10

Will Parker is new in the small town of Whitney. He spent five years in prison In Huntsville for killing someone in La Grange, Texas--though he says he didn't do it. The first place he goes is to the diner where Lula works as a waitress. There, he asks for a paper so he can look for a job. It seems Emily Dinsmore is advertising for a husband.

Will goes to Emily's farm and introduces himself. Emily has two boys and is pregnant by her recently deceased husband. Will finally agrees to live in the barn and help out, but neither he nor Emily feels quite comfortable with getting married.

Will works hard to improve Emily's situation, and even goes to the library to learn more about bees, which the farm has (apparently Emily's husband didn't know how to stay safe around them). The boys also seem to like him as a substitute father.

Miss Beasly, the librarian, is very nice and eventually offers Will a job taking care of the library.

Lula has a reputation, and she wants Will, along with nearly every other man in town.

Most people in town don't want to give Will a chance to go straight. Emily is a recluse, regarded as crazy, as a result of abuse she suffered as a child, in the house with the morning glories.

At first, this just seemed like a chick flick. Later, the film got more interesting with a major development that could have changed everything.

Christopher Reeve's character was very polite and dignified though shy, rarely losing his temper, and very justified when he did. His demeanor would have been very difficult to maintain considering where he spent the previous several years. Deborah Raffin also did a capable job as Emily. To me, the standout actors in this movie were Nina Fochs as Miss Beasly and Lloyd Bochner as a lawyer who helps Will and Emily.

There were occasional funny moments. Violence was minimal, though the sexual talk (mainly later) made this less than appropriate for kids.

It was pretty good, though nothing outstanding.

This is a very sweet little movie, and a good adaptation of the book. (Not a GREAT adaptation, but a good one.) Christopher Reeve's portrayal of this character was excellent.

The movie could have been improved with a few flashbacks, to give the characters a bit more back story. Both the widow and the ex-convict were people who had been damaged by the cruelty of others. Both of them wanted something better for the children in their lives. Both of them wanted to believe in dignity, kindness, and respect--and therefore gave those gifts, hoping to get the same things in return.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to think positively about hope and healing.

Having read the Spencer novel, I was very disappointed in the film. The main characters are excellent. Christopher Reeve, Deborah Raffin, Nina Foch, Lloyd Bochner, and Helen Shaver are a pleasure to watch, even in this rather slow film.

The problem is the screenplay by Charles Jarrott and Deborah Raffin, which was unquestionably poor. Much of the character development was lost, and WWII, which figured prominently in the novel and provided context for those stupid jars of honey, was barely noted.

The book's villain was barely a footnote and the conflict was shifted in a move that did not work at all. With a runtime of 1 hour 36 minutes, they could have kept the main villain and the original ending intact without going over two hours. They rushed important elements and left others out, making the movie weaker for their efforts.

The LaVyrle Spencer novel from which the movie was made, however, was excellent.