AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,5/10
1,2 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA medical student becomes obsessed with his faithless lover.A medical student becomes obsessed with his faithless lover.A medical student becomes obsessed with his faithless lover.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado para 1 prêmio BAFTA
- 2 indicações no total
Anthony Booth
- Martin
- (não creditado)
Terry Clinton
- Barmaid
- (não creditado)
May Cluskey
- Sister
- (não creditado)
Martin Crosbie
- Lab Technician
- (não creditado)
Alex Dignam
- Student
- (não creditado)
Michael Doolan
- Boy With Club Foot
- (não creditado)
Bryan Forbes
- Medical Student
- (não creditado)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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 ****
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThis was something of a catastrophe for MGM. Filming began early in 1963, but Henry Hathaway resigned as director and Bryan Forbes, who had a prominent supporting role, did a week of directing before also leaving the film. He tried without success to have his credit as writer of the screenplay removed and was replaced as an actor by Jack Hedley. (However, Forbes can be glimpsed, more or less as an extra, in one or two scenes.) Ken Hughes finished the film and reportedly had a very bad time; the film was many months in the editing rooms and was not seen until late in 1964, nearly a year after its scheduled release date. It ran for only 99 minutes - a surprise, as the novel is about 800 pages. It was a commercial and critical disaster, being released in the UK on the lower half of a double-bill. It has only infrequently been seen since, even on TV.
- Erros de gravaçãoAlthough set in 1915 or thereabouts, Kim Novak sports the same tousled bouffant she wore in her contemporary films throughout the 1960s.
- Citações
Nora Nesbitt: You're well out of it.
Philip Carey: Out of what?
Nora Nesbitt: Whatever you came here to forget.
- ConexõesFeatured in Hollywood and the Stars: In Search of Kim Novak (1964)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- W. Somerset Maugham's of Human Bondage
- Locações de filme
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 3.815.000
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 40 min(100 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente