It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Blistering performances.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I've never been a fan of Joan Crawford, so it's always a surprise to find a performance of hers that really wins me over. I liked her in Grand Hotel (as 'Flaemmchen,') and I liked her again, very much, as Anni, the cheap night-club singer masquerading as a lady. Often seen in hard and brittle roles, Crawford has a very different look in this film, and expresses a vulnerability that brings her character to life. (Billie Burke is also notable, in the small but juicy role of the acid-tongued Contessa. And Franchot Tone has never been more likable.)The Bride Wore Red is certainly built according to studio formula, but it also embodies all the earnest craftsmanship that characterized the studio system. The film at times seems clichéd, but it fully redeems itself through genuine empathy for the characters. And through its very strong premise: a 'scarlet' woman driven by hunger for the good life, who is given a slim chance of joining the upper class - provided she's cold and deceitful enough.Until the final act, I really felt that the film could have gone either way: warm-hearted romance or bitter tragedy. The delicate balancing act makes it hard to achieve a satisfying pay-off. But the ending does succeed, thanks to a couple of nicely orchestrated scenes, and to the talent and charisma of Ms Crawford. These do make us believe that Anni could only choose as she does.I was a bit sorry the film didn't delve just a little deeper into the moral and social dimensions. Anni's real problem is not what she wants, but rather what she may have to give up in order to get it. That distinction is not made entirely clear, leaving the film a bit too reliant on the old cliché that 'wealth doesn't bring true happiness.' But there's more going on here. Anni's 'tragic flaw' is not the hunger itself, but her willingness to give up honesty, morality and even true love. This distinction becomes almost subliminal, but it's there, and gives the film a slightly sharper edge. Anni is a character we can identify with and possibly admire, even when she's doing something despicable.If you're in the mood for a traditional, old-style Hollywood entertainment, you won't go wrong with The Bride Wore Red. This is one of the good ones, a film I'd gladly watch again any time.

This is a very well made film. The name Ferenc Molnar gives it credibility even though the scriptwriters probably changed everything about the great playwright's original story. It may not be "Liliom" but it has enough European styling and atmosphere - in great part due to Franz Waxman's music and some very easy on the eyes sets - that the viewer feels engaged. The cast of characters is top notch and the whole premise is intriguing. This is the kind of part Greta Garbo had done before ("As You Desire Me" anyone?) but was probably considered too old, too dignified and too un-Italian to play. In that role, the producer's first choice, Luise Rainer, would have been perfect, especially if the ending had been just a trifle more pathetic.What we get instead is Joan Crawford of the too-long, too-scary face, of the barrel chest and short stubby arms, too-low waist, too-wide shoulders, gorilla dentition, limp hair, decidedly ungirlish attitude and trowelled-on self-confidence. But what she can do with this part is give us an equally scary transformation from vulgar to vamp (and back again) that she is so familiar with, one has to admire its sheer technical acumen. She is fascinating to watch at all times. She could do this in her sleep (and probably did) and manages to strike the right note most of the time, even though she's in the wrong film. The dialogue is remarkably literate and Crawford's performance is certainly nuanced and theatrical enough to have been believable on a stage.The whole cast is excellent, with a special mention to Mary Philips as the maid and confidante Maria and Paul Porcasi as the irascible hotel manager. It's also touching to see Crawford emote with her husband of the time, Franchot Tone, who seems to be quietly directing her in such a way that she doesn't go overboard at least in their love scenes.One has the feeling that the original play must have had a lot more bite and satire of the upper classes as well as more profundity than what we're getting but it's still a pretty spectacular ensemble performance all around. With that limited script, director Dorothy Arzner does everything she can to make the story believable and engrossing, to work around her megastar's familiar tricks and to add poetic grace notes that are not lost on a European public but were probably overlooked by the American audience and critics of the time. Still, with all its disparate moments of brilliance, this film begs the question: What was Molnar's play really about?

In about 1980 I saw this film at the UCLA Film Archives in a series presenting Dorothy Arzner directed films. There was a guest speaker at the event who was a personal friend of Arzner's. I don't remember her name, but she was introduced as, among other things, the writer for the script of "Craig's Wife" (1936; starring Rosalind Russell). She said she was on the set for some of the shooting of "Bride Wore Red," and described how Joan Crawford was completely uncooperative with the director. Originally it was written for Luise Rainer but for some reason she was unavailable. "So they got Joan Crawford who wasn't anything like her," and was not suited for the film in this woman's opinion. While she was on the set she witnessed how Dorothy Arzner would gently make suggestions as to how to play a scene, "...and Joan would scream, 'You'll destroy me! You'll destroy me!' and she would run up to L.B. Mayer and he would say, 'There, there Joan, play it your way." So she did, "...and frankly, the film bombed. But when you have a star that is entirely uncooperative, you can't blame the director." I hope I have quoted this woman accurately. That is what has stuck in my memory. I am a big Crawford fan, but her flaws were apparently spectacular. I just thought it would be interesting to record this bit of info.

Despite the provocative title and the first few scenes, which suggest this might be an interesting variation on Shaw's "Pygmalion," we're actually back in Joan Crawford's MGM universe, where one suitor isn't enough if you can have two, and where Adrian can be counted on to provide a drop dead gown at regular intervals.This airless, relentlessly phony picture did Crawford no favors. For a major star she is remarkably inexpressive. Her face, so strong, angular and meticulously made up, is striking enough to get all our attention, but this curiosity is never repaid. We search Joan's face looking for fleeting expressions, varying moods, complex emotions but we get only a single mask of anxiety. Crawford in this period seems incapable of shaping a performance or giving a character flesh, blood and heart -- she just sleepwalks from scene to scene looking as perfect and lifeless as a mannequin (coincidentally the title of her next film).If glamor without rhyme, reason or variation is your idea of entertainment, you are welcome to it, but I thought THE BRIDE WORE RED was both strange and boring. By the way, the eponymous dress is kind of tacky but undeniably spectacular, and it sure looks red, even in black and white.