mrcaw12

I forced myself to watch this through to the end.

It COULD have been so much better. So frustrating.

I suppose let me start with the good.

Supporting players:

Kathy Baker, Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer are great. Of course, there's not enough Pfeiffer cuz she's a ghost.

Scenery-

Lovely beach sunny locations and a great beach house. What's not to like about that!

Ok, I'm running short on the good stuff now.

Now the bad.

The worst thing about this movie is PETER GALLAGHER. He just isn't up to this role.

Many times he's having scenes with the aforementioned ladies and I swear I can see in their eyes this look that's saying: "I'm getting nothing from this guy".

It's truly pathetic. He comes across like a mildly talented community theater amateur. He's jus so out of his league.

Now the writing. It's all over the place. This movie totally needed a script doctor.

As I was watching this I thought to myself, 14 year old girls would LOVE this movie.

Or, well, people who really haven't watched A LOT of really good movies that cover this sort of material.

Because the writing is off, the tone of the movie is off too. Things feel very awkward at times.

It's very strange. I haven't watched a movie like this in a long time, where you might get a good moment here and there (usually without Gallagher in it) and then a scene that just seems, well there's no other way to say it, STUPID.

This movie really could have been one of those sweet, tear jerker kind of movies, but there's a reason it's not known very well.

The MOST horrible thing about the movie is definitely GALLAGHER'S acting. A truly talented actor could have raised the quality of the movie from a 6 rating to easily a 7 or 8.

Some of the blame HAS to go to the director. Though who knows, maybe the director DID force Gallagher into multiple takes. At some point you can only use what you've got.

So there it is. An unfortunate miss.

I must say after reading many reviews that I can't understand why this film isn't given more credit. Sure people seem to like it but there always a lot of caveats to their praise.

After watching this movie I looked it up in imdb and saw that Davis wasn't nominated for this movie and I couldn't understand why Well that's because she was nominated that year for Now Voyager. Well, ok then.

I think this is a very unique performance in Davis' career. She's the total psychopathic narcissist. It's ALL about her. She lies through her teeth and only thinks about her. I felt she brought a very specific character to light. Not a carbon copy of anything else she had done before. If I have to find a performance similar it would NOT be The Little Foxes which is a much more controlled, simmering evil character. In a weird way Whatever Happened to Baby Jane springs to mind. It's like she took her character from this movie and showed what happened to the grotesque self absorbed monster 20+ years down the road.

The plot of this movie has lots of twists and turns and keeps moving right along. I wish Olivia De Havilland had more to do in this movie but when she is on screen, she's good. Same thing with George Brent.

What I especially like about this movie is that it's not cloaked in a period piece. It's so of the day, that her "Stanley's" self absorption mirrors the horror of what was going on in the world at that time. It's like they had their own little Hitler right there in their family. It reminds me of murderers I see on shows like Dateline.

Another killer/evil role of hers (she's played a few) is her great turn in The Letter. Her role in that movie is similar but quite the same. In The Letter, she's much more controlled and intelligent where as in In This Our Life, Bette's role isn't driven by one overriding goal or obsession if you will. No, the role of Stanley is purely a narcissistic one. There's no one thing driving Stanley. She just wants what she wants when she wants it.

Her acting style at times yes, is classic Davis, but many times throughout the movie it's more authentically driven ...being that specific woman in that town. It's not just Bette Davis chewing scenery up. Sure she can do the big moments, but she also plays the everyday, cooler moments with much specificity. I had NOT seen that woman in any other movie she had done.

I definitely think this one of Davis' TOP 5 roles. While the movie as a whole is not as great, as say, The Letter or Now Voyager, it's still a very good movie with one of Davis' best performances. If she hadn't been up for an Oscar nod for Now Voyager then she totally would have been up for this movie.

See this movie and be amazed at Davis'!

Funny but when i found this on utube, i decided to watch it and I thought the whole time it was from the 70s...like 76 or 77 kind of vibe.

Anyway, I enjoyed it. Something about these late 70s early 80s movies...especially the TV movies, that just have this simpler vibe to them.

Much more concentration on interpersonal dyamics...lots of chatty scenes between characters without all the special effects and crazy plot twists.

Very homey. You should give it a try. It's got a great New England at Christmas vibe. And anything with both Lee Remick AND Angela Landsbury(as her mom) has got to be good. And Polly Holliday (from the old TV series Alice) is in it too as a spinster aunt. She's great.

Two child actors, who didn't do much else, are in it and I gotta say, it's refreshing to see them played very simply. They feel more like real kids than so many Hollywood cliches.

Earl Hamner Jr (of Waltons fame) wrote the screenplay and produced so I guess that's where all that "simpler time" vibe comes from.

If you're feeling nostalgic for a past that maybe you never even had, give this little charmer a try.