I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Blistering performances.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

. . . then two OLD MAIDS will be great, Warner Bros. decided in 1943. In this thematic sequel to OLD MAID (1939), Miriam Hopkins and Bette Davis reprise their roles from the earlier film, with even a JEZEBEL reference thrown into the mix. This time the functions of biological and nurturing mother are switched, as it's Hopkins popping out the daughter but Davis becoming the De Facto mom. In another new wrinkle, screenwriters decide to double the number of Great Loves in the sterile life of the Davis character, and to engineer a series of implausible circumstances to have Hopkins' family snuff out ALL of Davis' opportunities for Love Connections. No doubt this was on the direct orders of the U.S. War Department's censors, who reigned supreme over every nuance of Hollywood flicks during the early 1940s. The prospect of Bette Davis birthing baby after baby on the Big Screen was viewed by the Top Brass as a less enticing reason for G.I.'s to fight their way home than Lana Turner and Betty Grable's bare legs. Though Ms. Davis' "Kit" makes a big point of nixing P.J. bottoms here, military censors were unmoved by her Nocturnal Bare-Leggedness

Enjoyable melodrama is even more so if you are aware of the back stage tension between the stars. Having costarred with Miriam Hopkins in The Old Maid several years previously and finding it a wearing situation Bette had no desire to do so again. She really wanted to make this with Norma Shearer but Norma turned it down and retired so Miriam was in and it became an ordeal that Bette bristled about whenever asked to the end of her life. That conflict seems to have fed into the spark between the actresses on screen and gave a lot of energy to their scenes. That energy is missing from the rest of the movie whenever either lady is not on screen because the other featured players John Loder and Dolores Moran while attractive are missing that spark that makes a star and their contributions are minor. Anne Revere, glamorized for once, has an amusing scene as a reporter who respects one of the ladies as a writer and not the other.

Bette Davis gets my vote for all-time best female actress. I have many of her films on DVD...but I'm not tempted to purchase this one. But, it's not because of Bette Davis.One reason is that, in my view, the film sort of wanders. I got to thinking that if someone asked me what the film was about in ONE sentence, I couldn't tell them. It would take a paragraph...or more.But importantly, this film finally answered a question I have long had. Was Miriam Hopkins a really good actress? After watching this film a couple of times, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is NO! NO! A thousand times NO! I think she is horrible and over-the-top in this film, and frankly I have grown tired of her frequent performances as a foolish ninny. Perhaps some others agreed, since after this film she didn't make another movie for 6 long years. If you want to watch a horrid performance, perhaps this is a good reason for you to watch this film. And the famous scene where Bette Davis violently shakes her (which even Davis claims she enjoyed doing in a realistic manner)...shaking her was not enough. She should have slapped her a few times, as well.Davis' performance her is quite good. Isn't it always? This is the "good Davis" you'd probably enjoy knowing.Gig Young has a supporting role here, and it's nice to see another of his early films where he showed a flair for drama, rather than his later films where he seemed to always show up as the lead male actor's best pal. John Loder, as Hopkin's husband, is very pleasant here, and he's in a role that is very sympathetic. And, Esther Dale is wonderful, as always, playing the maid.In terms of plot, in my view it wanders. You're unlikely to be able to get a grasp of where the story is going. At first this is refreshing when you assume Mariam Hopkins book is going to be awful and she will hate Bette Davis for telling her so. Instead, Hopkins goes on to write pop books that sell, while Davis writes deeper books that don't sell, but impress the critics. And so the film takes off in a different direction than you expect, and continues to do so throughout.I enjoyed Bette Davis here, and most of the rest of the cast, but Mariam Hopkins is so awful it's entertaining...but for all the wrong reasons. Still, it's worth watching at least once.

The film follows the relationship between Kit (Bette Davis) and Millie (Miriam Hopkins) who are both friends and authors with different styles. We span 20 or so years of their lives and their relationships with Millie's husband Preston (John Loder), Millie's daughter Deirdre (Dolores Moran) and Kit's partner Rudd (Gig Young). The film explores the avenues of career woman vs family woman.The film starts badly with the men being portrayed as comedy/ineffectual numbskulls and Miriam Hopkins's screeching voice irritating the hell out of the viewer. The film is boring - it gets better in the 2nd half but it's all still a load of tosh. Bette Davis is good, though, apart from her awful habit of saying "Dahling". You want to shout out "Oi....Davis....the word is Darling!"This is a film for women. It's not bad, it's just boring.