i must have seen a different film!!

From my favorite movies..

A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

When hearing of 'When Ladies Meet', it is hard not to feel excited and have good expectations for it. There are many talented people involved here, and with a cast featuring Joan Crawford, Greer Garson, Robert Taylor, Herbert Marshall and Spring Byington and seeing them in the same film who can't resist. Also have a love for films of the classic/golden era of Hollywood.Seeing 'When Ladies Meet', it is definitely an above average and very watchable film. It also could have been better and was a little disappointing considering how good on paper the cast were and how interesting the concept was. Haven't seen the earlier 'When Ladies Meet' for a while, but do remember it being a better film with a superior cast and a much sharper and meatier script. Here's to hoping that that remains the same re-watching it, generally re-watches tend to be pretty much the same opinions wise, there are instances where a film is better on re-watch or one where it is hard to figure out what made me like it in the first place but not an awful lot.A lot of great things. 'When Ladies Meet' was clearly made with elegance and polish, it looks very handsome in the costumes and sets and the film's beautifully shot. It's scored in a way that doesn't intrude yet makes its presence known when needed. The second half is better than the first, with the pacing tighter, the interaction sparkling more and the script more thought-provoking and sharper. The direction feels more assured too. Greer Garson steals the show in 'When Ladies Meet', her natural charm truly shines and she and Joan Crawford, also very good, work very well together towards the end. Robert Taylor looks relaxed and confident, which to me has not always been the case and Spring Byington is delightfully funny in ditzy mode. Unfortunately, Herbert Marshall, in a boorish role with underwritten dialogue and in no way suitable for a love interest (as you don't understand what can be seen in him), looks like he didn't want to be there and takes it too seriously without the light touch that the others had.Also found the first half a bit lacking, with too much of a staid and taking-a-little-too-long-to-get-going approach to the storytelling, which wasn't as fresh or as interesting. The script is much sharper later and can be too lightweight and coarse in the early stages and not saying an awful lot illuminating. The direction didn't feel as natural as it did later, competent certainly but could have done with more spark. In conclusion, decent and above average but was expecting more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The comparisons to Crawford's previous other women role in 1939's "The Women" will be many, but her character of Mary is as far from Crystal Allen as Green Garson's Claire is from Norma Shearer's overly noble Mary Haines. Novelist Crawford is in love with her publisher (Herbert Marshall) who is married to Garson, a witty woman who doesn't give any indication of why any man would cheat on her. Delightfully pleasant without being overly grand, Garson is an ideal wife, while Crawford incorrectly believes the wife she's never met (and knows nothing about) isn't exciting enough to care about. Thanks to Crawford's nosy admirer (Robert Taylor in a performance I found truly annoying), everybody ends up together at the country home of their dizzy friend, Spring Byington, where a friendly conversation between the two women brings everything out even though they have no idea of who the other one really is.It is the long conversation between Crawford and Garson that stands out in this light-hearted romantic drama with definite comic overtones where wife and girlfriend (Crawford is certainly more important to Marshall than just a mistress) bond, discover the truth and come to some conclusions. The men too learn a thing or two about the women they love, loathe or cheat on, so everybody manages to grow up a little.Rather dicey in the exploration of Byington's seemingly live-in relationship with a man she isn't married to. This is a rare example of how writers managed to get away with certain details that were overlooked by the very tough production code. Byington's dizzy Dora can be quite annoying at times, but ultimately you like her as well because she means well. Taylor, though, plays a truly meddlesome Lothario and the result, at least for me, was that I didn't want to see his character end up with anyone when everything comes out. It is Crawford and Garson who shine the most, their pairing obviously more congenial off-screen than Crawford's was with Shearer during the making of "The Women". The respect their characters have for each other during their introductory scenes shines through their admiration for each other personally.A bit livelier than the original 1933 version, it focuses more on the light-heartedness here than the Ann Harding/Myrna Loy pairing did with that version's Noel Coward like drawing room comedy. That version featured a more memorable performance by the hostess character (Faye Bainter) who didn't play her like a dumbbell. The country setting of Byington's old barn turned into a country home is the visual highlight of the film, with a huge waterwheel churning water into the man-made pool, shrubbery surrounding the house and pond, and a quaint interior which is truly a delight to explore. This weekend in the country would be a delight just for that.

Overlooking the poor acting in everyone but Byington, the silly wardrobe and the slow plot, the screen writing adapted from the novel hits the nail on the head, coming to its climactic precision in the conversation between Garson and Crawford near the end. The writing in that scene from 1941, though I don't read romance novels, I would bet outshines any similar effort in any romance novel since. It's intricate, well-woven, and so comprehensible it resonates.The author of the novel, I learned here at IMDb, has many other works. That doesn't surprise me.There were snatches where both Garson and Crawford were good, but they were just moments. Taylor and Marshall left a lot to be desired, but Byington was adorable as usual, as the flibbertigibbet. Even when she overdoes it, you know better is coming fast.

I had a bit of hard time sticking with this movie to the end. I don't normally force myself to watch movies that are lugubrious, but I was curious on several fronts. Firstly, this movie has been out of release, and only recently available through Warner Archives/ Classic Flix, so I'm one of those completists curious to see it. I find as time goes by, that the artifice of the MGM glossy films circa 1940 to 1945 done in this exact high-style - lavish sets and costumes, arch dialogue, drawing-room sensibilities - are hard to take - and I'm someone who is forgiving of, and loves, old movies! I'm fascinated by the MGM pix of this period because of how many are quite bad - and while "Metro" was riding the wave of its success, these films were the beginning of their undoing, as well. This was generally a really bad period for Joan Crawford, as we all know, saddled with mostly bad material, and hampered by her aspiration to be "a great lady of cinema" a la Norma Shearer. Her personal upward mobility from humble roots tainted her work, because she had a personal need to assume the drawing- room enunciation and lady-of-the-manor mannerisms, both of which are so phony in this film - and a blatant contradiction to her natural street-smart roots. I find Joan painfully bad in this movie - so needing to be who she's not. As I watched, I ached for her to shake off her personal psychodrama, as she would 4 years later when she was pushed to authenticity with Mildred Pierce - probably the first time on-camera that there was real grit and edge in her performance, that something was scraped away and you could feel her rawness. The catalyst, for the breakthrough, as we know, was that her artistic and professional career were in jeopardy. As for Greer Garson, her natural charisma, grace and screen presence are quite astonishing - she just draws your eye, and radiates. It's so easy to see why she became a star so quickly, and why audiences (and Louis B. Mayer) loved her. Not the best actress, but very natural in front of a camera, and luminous. I am in conflict with other writers here about Herbert Marshall, who I have always been attracted to for his otherworldly calm and inner sense of goodness. I can see the attraction, even though he isn't overtly dazzling, like Robert Taylor. I find Taylor, like Crawford, is a "movie star" more than actor, and you see him trying to rise to the occasion here in a persona and style of acting that is not in sync with who he is. As I watched, I speculated that this role might have been written for Clark Gable circa 1941 - mischievous, winking, self-aware, dashing, irrascible - but Taylor's performance was forced, a carbon copy of Gable or Robert Montgomery, or even Ray Milland (though he was actually better than I would have expected.) I also found Spring Byington a copy of Alice Brady and Billie Burke - not bad, but a bit forced, like Robert Taylor and Joan Crawford. In fact, I could imagine this script written for Gable, Claudette Colbert and other stars - but they cast who was available. As for the costumes, they weren't as over the top as some MGM films, but, as someone else commented, that ludicrous gardening outfit that Joan Crawford wears - an enormous picture hat, a padded-shoulder dress with gingham inserts that carries through to a matching gingham trim on the hat, and the same fabrics on the elbow- length gardening gloves - is fabulously preposterous, and an embodiment of the total disconnect from reality that infuses this movie. As for the plot, it's dated drawing-room fare with a single mise-en-scene that worked for me -- when the two "ladies" finally realize their respective identities. There was genuine tension and emotion, and a certain authenticity in tone and feelings. Other than that, MGM cake frosting.