The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

So many viewers have found this film wonderful that I would hate to spoil the pleasure for those who have not seen it yet and might find it the same… so if you are intent on viewing the film anyway, maybe just watch it and make your own opinion before possibly coming back to mine afterwards. On the other hand, if you are not quite sure yet whether you want to watch So Big, rather than another one of the myriad of outstanding or just pleasant Barbara Stanwyck's movies of the period, then you might compare the following dissenting viewpoint with others and decide. First let me state that I am an unconditional admirer of Stanwyck. She has been one of the strongest talents of Hollywood, if not the strongest, with a very wide acting range which enabled her to play mostly everything and never to be dull. So big! was certainly not a film beyond her capacities - actually there is not really much to reproach her, apart from the simple fact that she is not so credible as bright city girl Selina supposedly enjoying for years the dullest possible farm life. And apart also from the fact that while she seems to age like twenty years in the very first first few years of her married farm life, after that she appears to have aged not even a bit more when we meet her again twenty long years later – she is without a wrinkle and with the smooth velvety face and hands of the twenty-five-year-old actress she is, not of the hard-and long-toiling farmer lady she is supposed to be. Possibly asparagus farming is a secret recipe for some wonders? Anyway, so good for her glamour, but so much for making us believe that she really is that nice granny-like lady. But these are indeed very minor qualms. The serious ones are with the film itself. And for that, blame probably the old-fashioned views of author Edna Ferber on women's condition and the admirability of their sacrifice, but blame also, sad to say, the for once unsteady hand of generally admirable director William Wellman. First, for such a short film it has a long and boring start. All the time taken to introduce the heavily-caricatured hick family she lands into, then the equally laughable hick village community, is really misspent, everything there is to understand about it being clear after only two minutes – and not much fun, rather embarrassing in its patronizing way to depict the poor farmers' community. And then the husband, yet one more uneducated slow-witted though rather nicer hick, but definitely not an even remotely inspiring person for Stanwyck to fall into his arms, at least out of any more positive feeling than sheer resignation to her fate. Second, about three quarters of the film has already elapsed until something really happens – but almost immediately after that, whoops, unexpected fast forward twenty years. As mentioned earlier Selina has not changed a bit but her infant son Dirk is now a tall handsome young city professional. And unfortunately, the film mostly stops paying much interest to her and moves to Chicago to deal with the uninteresting professional and sentimental life of this uninspiring young man. The unintended reaction being, "did she really sacrifice the best years of her life for this young jerk, and is this supposed to be an example?". Therefore the last quarter of the film, while very different, would be even slightly more uninteresting if it was not saved from complete boredom by the arrival of a young and sprightly Bette Davis, who puts young Dirk back in the right track of following the hard but inspiring life of an architect rather than the prosperous but soul-stifling one of a bond trader. Not that we care very much about him going one way or the other, but at least it confirms belatedly that Selina' life of admirable sacrifice has not been spent in vain. And that's the third issue. The life of Selina is indeed supposed to be so admirable, and therefore so touching, as well as so inspiring. As to touching, hard to say : after the first part when Selina has landed in exactly the wrong place and with the wrong husband, we do not her spend the next twenty years and come to terms with that life – we understand she did it all for the sake of precious Dirk, but with no means to know whether enduring or eventually enjoying that life. And as to inspiring : if a young lady who makes a silly choice of job location, then doubles it with an even sillier choice of husband, then trebles it by making countless sacrifices for a son who seems to be a spoiled and rather ungrateful jerk – if the value of such a sacrifice is measured only by its price, then Selina is indeed an inspiring role model. I have my doubts about that. Stanwyck will land a similar role a few years later in the much better Stella Dallas, the big difference being that her sacrifice is shown there as pathetic, not admirable. However, Selina is supposedly an example because she takes to heart the life motto of her late gambling father, more or less, "take gracefully whatever life serves you, and then just follow your heart to make the best of it". Why not - this is what Selina teaches to her pupil Roelf and her son Dirk. Except that for them boys, this means following one's envies to become a sculptor or an architect, whereas for Selina, it means submitting to the rather dirty hand that fate (as well as your own decisions) has dealt you, housewife then widow and self-sacrificing mother, and forgetting about any other hopes. Not much of a real choice there, actually. Unless one believes she really stayed as she once asserted for the unsung beauty of cabbage fields?

There is no doubt in my mind after viewing this picture from way back in the early 30's, that this is a great Classic with great actors. Most of these actors, Barbara Stanwyck,"Dynasty" '85 TV series, were just starting their careers along with Bette Davis, (Miss Dallas O'Mara),"The Old Maid",'33 and George Brent, (Roelf Pool),"The Spiral Staircase",'46. In this picture Stanwyck plays a woman who was very close to her dad, who was a gambler and once he died, she had no choice but to take on a teaching position in Kansas and wound up married to a farmer. This is a wonderful story of a woman who raises her children against all the set backs that life has to offer and how she deals with each problem that seems to face her, which she calls Velvet. Barbara Stanwyck and Bette Davis never got a long together when making a film and they both made very few. Stanwyck was always outgoing with the stage hands and crew and Bette Davis just did her acting job and no socializing with the regular people. I must say that Bette Davis looked fantastic in this picture and of course she was a great actress.

Sickeningly sweet. Yeah, that's the first phrase that comes to mind when I think about this film. And, while you might immediately assume I am a heartless soul for not particularly liking this film, I do occasionally like tear-jerkers and sentimental films. However, to me this film went way over the edge to the territory of "sappy".The scope of the film was not bad--showing the evolution and life of this character over time. And technically it was a very pretty film--the cinematographer did a wonderful job of filming the star and making her seem, at times, radiant. But, it was so heavy-handed and lacked subtlety when it came to her child. In some ways, for this very same reason, I am not a huge fan of another Stanwyck film, STELLA DALLAS--though it's MUCH better than SO BIG!. Sorry to be the dissenting voice, but the film just didn't do it for me.

Well acted by Barbara Stanwyck, and, in a lesser role, Bette Davis. Stanwyck's make-up to age her throughout the film is remarkable. I must mention one part of the film that, though unintentional I'm sure, to me was funnier than the campfire scene in "Blazing Saddles". In several scenes Stanwyck asks her small child, "How big is my boy? How big is my son?" The small boy stretches out his arms and says, "Sooooo big!". Thus the name of the film. But toward the end, Stanwyck, as an old woman is in bed, and she asks her now grown adult son who is standing at her bedside, as a way of remembering the past, "How big is my son?". And he replies by taking his two index fingers and expanding then about 10 inches apart, and say with a smile "So big!"