Morning Glory

The story has a lot of interesting elements in it and I always enjoy a period piece, but I felt that if the director or writers had been more exacting, the film could have been so much better. One of the things that struck me immediately is how annoying the film score was! It almost put me off watching the film. It was droning and syrupy and grating and came close to ruining some good moments in the film. I also wish the two leads had loosened up a little bit. Someone who watched it with me said that a drifter and a woman who's such a loner would be stiff and unsure in their interactions, but I thought that both actors could have livened up the latter half of the film considerably if they'd let some of their natural warmth and charm and humor shine through. I enjoyed watching the film and would watch it again, BUT I still wished they'd tightened up the score and loosened up the actors! I especially liked the opportunity to see one of my favorite character actors, Lloyd Bochner, in action. (Also, was I the only one who was a bit shocked when someone mentioned paying a worker $25 a week? I thought that seemed like big wages for the Depression-era South, but since I didn't live through that time, maybe it wasn't.)

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

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.