PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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

mark.waltz Two years before Bette Davis refused to ask for the moon since she already had the stars, she thanked heaven for saving her from scandal's wrath in this riveting tear-jerker based upon a Rachel Crothers story of a wronged nanny and teacher who must defend herself from an unjustly notorious past from the giggling school girls who haven't a foggiest notion of the truth. Ms. Davis played many heroines in her day in addition to the scheming bitches, and padded her film work in 1940 with this classic as well as "The Letter" where she played an amoral murderess.In this film, her scandal involves supposed murder, and she is wrongly suspected of not only being an accomplice but the accused man's lover as well. She is working as nanny and teacher to the children of the unhappily married Charles Boyer and Barbara O'Neill, extremely wealthy European aristocrats whose marriage has turned into bitterness because of her jealous suspicions and obvious insanity. Rude instantly to Davis, she becomes more tyrannical as she realizes that her children have come to love Davis more than her and that Boyer has made her a confidante. In one horrific scene, O'Neill takes her ailing son out on a carriage ride to try and establish her authority which further threatens the boy's health. Young Richard Nichols is sweet in the part, ironic considering that the same year, he would play Hoan Crawford's ward in "A Woman's Face".Davis is at her most noble here, suffering gallantly in period costumes and deserving a four handkerchief salute for her sincere performance. Boyer is a combination of imperiousness and compassion, turning in a most praise-worthy performance. A year after playing Scarlett O'Hara's mother in "Gone With the Wind", Ms. O'Neill took motherhood to a whole different dimension, reminding us that she had also played the gracious society matron who agreed to take in Anne Shirley in "Stella Dallas". But there's not a one dimensionalism in her character. In spite of her dislikability, you really understand why she is the way she is.Outstanding production design and great character performances also highlight this "Triple A" Warner Brothers production which was beautifully directed by Anatole Litvak and features a magnificent musical score by Max Steiner and beautiful photography by Ernest Haller. For some reason, this Best Picture nominee isn't as well known as many of Davis's classics from this era, and deserves to move up in status to being one of the all-time greats.

madeline-167-157358 I have read the book and seen this movie many times. Potentially, Bette Davis was an inspired choice for the mademoiselle. Much is being made that Bette is playing against type, a "quiet gentle" character, but she's gone there before. I love this movie cause it gives me lots of Charles Boyer who practically shimmers in his romantic longing.Boyer being such a natural on screen only brings out the mannered and almost lazy approach of B. Davis. I've seen her speak naturally before without the clipping she developed and the hand which appears glued to her torso and folded in the most unappealing prissy way. Why oh why couldn't the director or Davis herself direct her properly for this role. The sour facial expressions (like she just drank a gallon of grapefruit juice) are annoying as heck.Despite these issues the potential was there. When she lets go of her acting ticks her luminous eyes and common sense manner work well as the intelligent governess. As it is, I overlook much of her and concentrate on the brilliant Charles Boyer and wonderful Barbara O'Neil who is right on target as the hysterical wife. In the book, Fanny De Praslin is even worse.

b-mooney This was a long one, but it wasn't all for nothing. I thought that the acting was spot on, except for the children. Their acting sort of made it seem like a musical. The interactions between Betty and the children were definitely dramatized but it was to emphasize the fact that they came from a broken home and she would do anything for them. The antagonist was the wife and what an antagonist she was. I absolutely hated her by the end of the film and I wasn't the least bit sad when she died. The protagonist was Betty and she did a great job playing a tame, respectful, and well-mannered governess. The design of the movie contributed significantly to the verisimilitude along with the acting. The house and the dress was magnificent. I don't think that the camera-work was anything spectacular, and I feel the same way about the lighting. However, there is one scene that stands out and that is right before the husband kills the wife and you see him from her point of view. He looks absolutely mad and he is coming right at the camera. That was pretty cool. Other than that, the film was meant to seem ordinary in order to seem believable. All in all, it was a wonderful story and definitely called for tears.

james-m-donohue How do you give a character charisma? Make her go through a preexisting scandal, but don't reveal anything about it other than it being bad and compare it to gossipers who show no tolerance towards the person because of it. This movie has one of the most emotional introductions I have ever seen in a movie. If there was any scene where Bette Davis shined as an actress, it was in the first 10 minutes. I knew nothing about her by that point and I was ready to cry. You can tell that this is a tragedy because it starts out after something bad apparently happened, but what sets this above tragedies like Grave Of The Fireflies and Romeo And Juliet is that it doesn't say that they die or it doesn't say what happens other than something bad happened. It builds suspense, but once it becomes clear how it happens the viewer waits for it to happen with no more surprises. All This And Heaven Too only says something really really bad happened, which can really mean anything. So it can get to a point where you think it couldn't get any worse and you assume that there is only resolutions left. Then something happens to make things even worse. It's brilliant how the movie creates such great plot twists that are as quick as they are comfortable with good lead-ins which start with a great introduction that makes you love Bette Davis's character almost instantly.One of the best things besides the plot points is the dialog. It's one of the most interesting screenplays I have heard from the 1940's. The dialog feels structured, but not too structured like a free verse poem. It falls somewhere between William Shakespeare and Joss Whedon with its cookie cutter dialog that draws the viewer in by believing that every bit of dialog is as important as the rest. With so many small details in movies, it is nice to feel compelled to focus on them. It also makes anyone look like a good actor, no matter how good or bad that actor truly is.Another good thing about the movie was great us of fade-ins and fade-outs. It also did a great job of using lighting. There was one specific shot where Bette Davis was trying to help a sick child and the light shined on her brightly in contrast to the background which was completely black making the scene feel like it was her being an angel protecting the child from the bad scenario surrounding them.The framing also focused on people by zooming in or zooming out to get the viewer ready to feel like they are seeing things from one person's perspective.There was so much I loved about the movie, there couldn't be anything wrong with it. Right? I didn't give it a 10. It has two flaws I can think about.1-The movie felt like it was too much. It needed to be 2.5 hours, but I felt like there was so much movie I was experiencing in each minute that I was getting tired by the end. I still loved it, but I would've been very satisfied with 1.5 hours.2-The biggest flaw in the whole movie was the sound editing. It was bad! I know in 1940, it wasn't easy for people to edit sound exactly to one frame, but there were at least 20 times when dialog was off by 1 second. It was like watching a kung fu movie. I was waiting for Bette Davis to beat up the Duchess with some Chinese Boxing moves. It was disappointing because I found so much to love about the movie, but the sound editing became distracting.I still would recommend this movie to a lot of people. It's rare I find a movie with this good of a narrative and story as well. The end was good too.