Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Copyright 1957. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 17 January 1957 (ran two weeks). U.S. release: 1 February 1957. U.K. release: 1 April 1957. Australian release: 27 May 1957. 9,453 feet; 105 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Tyrannical Victorian father keeps his grown-up daughter a virtual prisoner in his Wimpole Street (London) home.NOTES: The stage play opened on Broadway at the Empire on 9 February 1931 and ran 372 performances. Katharine Cornell and Brian Aherne starred. The 1934 film starred Norma Shearer, Charles Laughton and Fredric March, and, like this version, was directed by Sidney Franklin. COMMENT: Originally designed as a vehicle for Grace Kelly, this lifeless re-make, filmed entirely in England, was the first movie Franklin had directed since "The Good Earth" (1937). He produced twelve features in the intervening years. This version of Barretts was also the second last film with which Franklin was associated in any capacity. It is a sad farewell to an often distinguished career, dating way back to 1914.Fortunately the movie is redeemed in part by Sir John Gielgud who makes his Barrett such a monster incarnate, he acts everyone else – except Susan Stephen (in the small but important part of Bella Hedley – right off the screen. No wonder Jennifer Jones makes such a pallid Elizabeth. But at least she is watchable. Bill Travers, on the other hand is an absolute disaster. Although he tries hard to make his dull, slow voice move impetuously, his "exuberance" takes the form of repeating everything twice. True, he does seem to have more than his fair share of stilted dialogue, but repeating it does not make it sing, it only makes it worse. Franklin's 1934 version had a force and intensity, this monotonously routine, watered-down, slow, overly mannered, and – aside from Gielgud and Stephen – totally insipid version signally lacks.

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) tells the story of the romance of real-life poets Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning, despite many odds. In 1840's London, the Barrett household is one of fear and unhappiness. Elizabeth, (Jennifer Jones) the oldest child of the family, has been sick and forced to stay in her bedroom for the last several years. Also in the household are her two sisters and five brothers, all of whom are under the thumb of their tyrannical father, Edward (John Gielgud) a widower who found that since he lost the love of his life, he would not allow any of his children to marry either, in particular, Elizabeth, the one daughter who he claims to love. Elizabeth has been corresponding with a young poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), however, and finds that the more she falls in love with him, the healthier she gets, but the healthier she gets, the more desperate and tyrannical her father gets.The story as I told it sounds like it could be kind of interesting and fun in a high-drama type way, which is what I was expecting, but it actually was pretty boring. And when it wasn't boring, it was creepy. Gielgud is a great actor of course, and was great as Robert Browning, a man who needed to look up Freud in a couple of decades. His devotion and stranglehold on Elizabeth was actually pretty disturbing, particularly when his desperation grew to a fever pitch at the end of the film. I have never liked Jennifer Jones, and I didn't like her in this movie. I'm not sure what it is about her exactly, other than the fact that I consider her a mediocre actress – perhaps it is because she always has this look on her face that is a weird cross between anguish and when you feel a sneeze coming on. With a story as bizarre as this one, so much more could have been done to make this film a good one, but unfortunately it just turned out mediocre at best. 4/10 --Shelly

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of Director Wm. Wyler's adaptation of Henry James's novel, with Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress." What made that a better movie? was it the casting? the directing? the actor chemistry? or all of the above? Previous reviewers of "Barretts" all praised Gielgud's acting, but I wondered why he accepted the role, or could stand himself in it. I could barely view him on screen, so wooden, so inhuman was his incarnation of Moulton Barrett: this was not a person, it was a caricature. Compare, instead, Ralph Richardson's interpretation of a similar emotion-starved and pathologically driven father in his love for his daughter.As for the casting of Bill Travers as Robert Browning, I felt he lacked any subtlety, any "poetry" in his manner, any semblance of an understanding of female psychology or charm, most of all, lacked any chemistry with Jones as Elizabeth. He seemed to be barking all of his lines as if he were on the football field. Can you imagine his role cast instead with, say David Farrar, or one of the Ealing Studio regulars? Fans of Jennifer Jones may still want to sit through this movie to see her conception of the poetess. But when we compare this role with her performance in, say, "Wild at Heart [Driven to Earth]," the great Powell-Pressburger film, or even "Madame Bovary," it falls far short of full realization. In those films, she revealed passion, coyness, charm and geniune fear, gripping us with the emotions of her predicament. As noted by another reviewer, here she appears far too healthy, even too mature (although that would be an accurate estimation of her actual age when she met Browning, according to her biography) to be believable. Of course we can accept some cinematic license -- we don't have to expect that Mimi should actually be consumptive in "La Boheme"--but Jones's conception confused strength of character with bodily health -- her fainting on the stairs was almost a joke, more a sign of her rare weakness as an actress. In fact, one actually felt more pity for her sister, as portrayed by Virginia McKenna, in a lively,deeply felt role, in which we feared for Henrietta's emotional health and future in that stifling household.So, shall we lay the blame at the foot of the hapless director Sidney Franklin? All the settings, the costumes, even the lovely tune, beautifully sung by Jones at the piano should have offered the right support. The clumsiness of the production is almost encapsulated in that little scene around the piano: when Jennifer sings it (whether or not she herself indeed voiced it), there is lyricism and musicality, and one longs for her to continue, but everyone, namely her brothers, is urged to join in. None of them can really sing, they shout out the melody, drowning Elizabeth's soprano, and the whole scene, at least for this viewer, is ruined. Just like the movie.Of a possible four ****, I give it my lowest rating one star*.

Although not as engaging as the original play, This film adaptation of BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE ST is a very well made film. John Gielgud gives one of his finest screen performances as Edward Barrett, he is despicable yet worthy of pity. Jennifer Jones is strong as Elizabeth and her character unfolds beautifully before your eyes. The actors who play the clan of brothers nicely delineate each role so they are individuals and not a unit. this film does suffer a bit from the over emphasis on the elizabeth/browning relationship as opposed to the father/daughter one but I suppose this was the hollywood trend toward romance at the time.