Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

clanciai This is a delightfully ingenious comedy with Leslie Howard in one of his most spiritual roles, transmuting between 1784 and 1933. The conversation is enjoyably brilliant throughout like in all Leslie Howard's films, and so is the charming music. Frank Lloyd made some of the best films in the 1930s, and this is one of them although rather forgotten today and neglected while its wit transcends practically everything in the 30s. Particularly amusing is the play with confusions, and even Sir Joshua Reynolds is involved in it and is terrified. This is one of those many outstanding old films that are worth restoring and rediscovering indeed.

GusF One of the earliest time travel films, it concerns two men named Peter Standish, both of whom are played by Leslie Howard. One lives in 1784 and the other, his distant relative, lives in 1933. The elder Peter longs to see the technological advances which will come after his death while the younger Peter seeks to escape the hustle and bustle of 1933 and experience the joys of a supposedly simpler time. The two men switch places and, while in 1784, the younger Peter falls in law with Helen Pettigrew, played by Heather Angel, who is destined to be the elder Peter's sister-in-law. Having had access to the elder Peter's diary in 1933, the younger Peter knows many little details of the Pettigrews' lives that the elder Peter did not yet know in 1784 and, on several occasions, makes the mistake of the mentioning them. He does the same when it comes to revealing his knowledge of more general events that have not happened yet and uses expressions like "cockeyed" and "see you later" that did not exist in the 18th Century. This leads people to fear him and the elder Peter's would-be wife Kate to break off the engagement as he believes that he has been possessed by a demon.Based on a 1929 Broadway play of the same name, Howard reprised his roles as the two Peters and gave a wonderful performance as a temporal fish out of water whose experiences of the 18th Century lead him to view it as a "filthy little pigsty of a world" rather than romanticise it as he had done before his sojourn into the past. The elder Peter's experiences of the 20th Century are left unseen but the descriptions would seem to indicate that they were equally unpleasant, not least because he was considered insane for claiming to be from 1784. Howard, whom I had never seen in a film before, and Heather Angel have wonderful chemistry and the younger Peter and Helen's gentle romance is certainly the highlight of the film. It has a very good cast overall, including Valerie Taylor as Kate (who likewise appeared in the Broadway play), Irene Browne as her mother Lady Ann Pettigrew, Colin Keith-Johnston as her layabout brother Tom, Ferdinand Gottschalk as Helen's far older suitor Mr. Throstle and Betty Lawford (Peter's cousin) as the younger Peter's fiancée Marjorie Frant. The film is very well directed by Frank Lloyd, probably best known for directing the 1935 version of "The Mutiny on the Bounty".As the younger Peter scuppered his ancestor's chances of marrying Kate in 1784, it may be the first film in which time travel is used to alter the past - it was never stated outright that the younger Peter was a direct descendant of the elder one - but this is not made clear. The film was believed lost for many years until it was rediscovered in the 1970s, which I am very happy about as I would obviously not have been able to see it otherwise. Incidentally, I recently watched the excellent 1971 film "Quest for Love" which concerns a man who falls in love with a woman whom he meets in a parallel universe. One of the differences in that universe is that Leslie Howard is still alive and still acting. It may be only a coincidence but, given the subject matter, it could very well have been an oblique reference to this film.Overall, this is a hugely enjoyable romantic fantasy film which reminds me of my tenth favourite film of all time "Somewhere in Time" due to its similar premise and bittersweet ending.

wes-connors How many of us have wished that we might escape from the dull reality of the present into the glamor and romance of yesterday? But if we could journey back into the mystery of the past, should we find contentment - or unhappiness?" On a stormy night in 1784, new American noble Leslie Howard (as Peter Standish) arrives in London's "Berkeley Square" to seek a distant cousin's hand in marriage. After exiting his coach, Mr. Howard seems to vanish. Meanwhile, in the present (1933), his direct descendant and namesake "Peter Standish" (Howard, in a dual role) has inherited the same house. The modern Howard troubles his fiancée and friends due to his preoccupation with the past, especially the September 1784 day when his namesake arrived. Transported to the past, Howard invites suspicion when his "modern" manners and knowledge surface. Howard talks too much. More significantly, he becomes attracted to the wrong woman, beautiful but melancholy Heather Angel (as Helen Pettigrew)... This intriguing "time travel" film was unavailable for decades, but the story was revived often on stage and screen. It was based on an unfinished Henry James novel and inspired memorable imitations from horror mythos-makers H. P. Lovecraft ("The Shadow out of Time") and Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows"). Howard recreates his performance from the stage well, but director Frank Lloyd and Fox don't take full advantage of cinema potential. Early examples are Howard's trip to the past. He could have appeared outside the door, wet, as both arrivals occurred in the rain. Howard also immediately knows how to sit in his 1784 costume, betraying a familiar comfort. Later, the film would have benefited from Howard visiting the actual grave mentioned in a letter... Solid impressions are made by lustful Colin Keith-Johnston (as Thomas "Tom" Pettigrew) and sensible sister Valerie Taylor (as Kate). Matriarchal Irene Browne (as Ann) played her role again in the 1941 re-make starring Tyrone Power. ******* Berkeley Square (9/15/33) Frank Lloyd ~ Leslie Howard, Heather Angel, Colin Keith-Johnston, Valerie Taylor

l_rawjalaurence BERKELEY SQUARE was a success d'estime of the late Twenties and early Thirties. Based on a short story - THE SENSE OF THE PAST - by Henry James, it tells the story of how Peter Standish (Leslie Howard) travels back in time from the contemporary world into the late eighteenth century, and discovers to his cost that life isn't quite as idyllic as the history books might suggest. John L. Balderston's script isn't without its sentimental moments, but generally takes a hard-nosed look at the ways in which individuals remain as self-centered in the past as they might have been over a century ago. Leslie Howard, who created the past of Standish on the Broadway stage, here recreates his part; he doesn't have to do much other than to look bewildered, which he achieves very competently. Valerie Taylor makes an ideal romantic interest. Director Frank Lloyd was one of Twentieth Century-Fox's most competent contract directors; his version of Noel Coward's CAVALCADE (1933), based on another theatrical hit, is particularly memorable. In BERKELEY SQUARE he creates a brisk narrative, containing a memorable series of transitions between past and present. Definitely worth a look if a copy of the film can be found.