IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,5/10
1146
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA 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.
- Nominiert für 1 BAFTA Award
- 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Anthony Booth
- Martin
- (Nicht genannt)
Terry Clinton
- Barmaid
- (Nicht genannt)
May Cluskey
- Sister
- (Nicht genannt)
Martin Crosbie
- Lab Technician
- (Nicht genannt)
Alex Dignam
- Student
- (Nicht genannt)
Michael Doolan
- Boy With Club Foot
- (Nicht genannt)
Bryan Forbes
- Medical Student
- (Nicht genannt)
Handlung
WUSSTEST DU SCHON:
- WissenswertesThis 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.
- Zitate
Nora Nesbitt: You're well out of it.
Philip Carey: Out of what?
Nora Nesbitt: Whatever you came here to forget.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Hollywood and the Stars: In Search of Kim Novak (1964)
Ausgewählte Rezension
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.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- W. Somerset Maugham's of Human Bondage
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 3.815.000 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 40 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Der Menschen Hörigkeit (1964) officially released in India in English?
Antwort