Wonderfully offbeat film!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

For those of us who recall suburbia before city people began repopulating it then cities became repopulated with people just relocating from low density rural areas this is a nostalgic memory of what we once lived through. This is life as we no longer live it but have fond memories of the good not the bad parts. Jane Wyman lives in a pampered world of luxury in total widowhood boredom to be awakened by Rock Hudson in fact eight years her junior. He plays a working fella young enough to be her third child more in fact interested in her than are her distant children in fact going through their own angst at social changes they seem unprepared to deal with. A brilliantly photographed and edited memory of what our lives were like when luxury and pampering could still replace personal meaning and satisfaction.

A little soapy. A little sudsy. But it's first class spa quality soap and suds! This is not as good as "Magnificent Obsession", which preceded it, but it's still top notch in terms of production values and acting. The one thing that the film suffers from is the different world we live in today. Small towns are still small towns, but the almost town-wide peeping into Jane Wyman's life would be so much less today than it was back in 1955. Nevertheless, it's a fairly good story if you put it in perspective of its era.For the most part, the critical players here do fairly nicely. Jane Wyman was too young for the part as the "older woman", but she actually pulls it off quite well. Rock Hudson is just fine as the younger love interest. Agnes Moorehead is sort of torn between a character with a heart, but still a town gossip...but she handles it well. Conrad Nagel does nicely as an older love interest, although it's a small (though critical part). Virginia Grey is quite good as Wyman's friend...an underestimate character actress in my view. Gloria Talbott was decent as the daughter, although most will perhaps remember her more as an early television actress. I can't quite decide if William Reynolds, as the son, was just a lousy actor or if he was directed poorly...but his performance is totally unconvincing. Donald Curtis as a letch...thumbs down.If you can only watch one, opt for "Magnificent Obsessions", but this is a fairly good film with a relatively interesting story.

An upper-class widow (Jane Wyman) falls in love with a much younger, down-to-earth nurseryman (Rock Hudson), much to the disapproval of her children and criticism of her country club peers.Today (2013) we live in the world of cougars and a very laissez-faire attitude to relationships and sexuality. For the most part we do not care who sleeps with who, who lives with who, and whatnot. Of course, not long ago, it was taboo to be openly gay or sometimes even to embrace cohabitation.In 1955, what were the standards? Apparently even to date a younger man was frowned upon. They did not live together or have an intimate relationship... and yet Cary's children practically disown her. Why? Perhaps it could be more the class issue than the age issue, but regardless it comes across as silly by today's standards, considering the children are grown and this is not their business.The film's use of color is impressive. In some ways it reminds one of "Black Narcissus" (1947), though the color palette makes the characters and backgrounds seem almost like stained glass. Cinematographer Russell Metty had a long career, dating back to the 1920s and earning an Oscar in 1960 for "Spartacus". Perhaps he should have received an award here.In this film, Rock Hudson is shown as "an object" or "a spectacle", somewhat reversing traditional gender roles. This, of course, is quite intentional, as it would hardly be taboo for an older man to pursue a younger woman. But in some ways it is more than age, with his very body being something to admire, not a common male trait. (Cary's son flatly says that he is nothing but "muscles".)Much can be said about the replacement of a lost love with television and what the film was trying to say with this. Television was still a relatively new medium at the time, so in some ways this is prescient in how it suggests that we could fill our lives with such a thing.The Criterion commentary discusses whether or not Sirk's approach was "Brechtian" and how his shots were largely claustrophobic. Much of the discussion is helpful, though they do tend to get a bit too academic at times, seeing symbolism where it likely is not. And there is a long tangent on trying to define "melodrama" and whether or not it is a gendered term.

Come on...."All that heaven allows" was cheesy in 1955 and its cheesy now.The difference is, cheesy is regarded as cool in 2012 in a post - modern - ironic kinda way;but that doesn't change the fact that it is and always will be an overheated melodramatic piece of kitsch with very little to commend it. How Douglas Sirk's admirers have conned critics into considering him as a major auteur is beyond me.But I guess if you stand on a street corner and shout long enough that the moon is made of cream cheese somebody is going to believe you. We have a Lady Chatterley thing going here with Mr R.Hudson as the gardener becoming involved with the socially superior Miss J.Wyman. When they decide to marry, her children - a twenty going on fifty five boy and a girl who makes a lot of speeches but absolutely no sense - strongly disapprove,as do her friends. She dumps the young Rock so hastily it almost seems rude,but,as you know,love will find a way - and it does,but not before he falls down a cliff.Don't ask. So there you have it.And I read that this film is in the Library of Congress.It's almost enough to make me want to withdraw my subscription.