ThiefHott Too much of everything

GazerRise Fantastic!

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

calvinnme In Voyager, Bette Davis plays repressed, over weight, middle aged spinster Charlotte Vale, still living with her mother, and slowly being driven mad by her mother's thinly veiled loathing. A kindly sister-in-law and a savvy doctor (Claude Rains as Dr. Jacquith) begin to put things right, and slowly she emerges out of the darkness, a renewed and remade woman. For the first time in her life, she "isn't afraid". She goes on a long sea voyage immediately after having left the doctor's sanitarium, partly for reflection given "the new you" makeover inside and out that she has had, partly as recreation.On that voyage, she meets and falls in love with an unhappily and permanently married man (Paul Henreid as Jerry). Now this film is based on a book, and you'd think the kiss the two share in the film might actually be more, but it isn't. It actually is just a kiss, so the production code did not interfere in this one. Jerry and Charlotte realize they cannot be together - they go their separate ways.Now recognize the difference in the times - Charlotte is all of about 34 when people keep calling her a spinster. Charlotte comes home, and at first has to battle mom who does not seem to like Charlotte's new look which echoes her new attitude. Mom wants the doormat back that she had before, but does not get her way. Charlotte, in good old Boston Back Bay tradition, is courted by a widower with two half grown sons ...The film never says what that means. Age 11 and 13? Does this mean they are part time CPAs and engineers versus full time? I'm not quite sure why that part is there other than to perhaps insinuate that they have their own lives "sort of". Thus Charlotte would be free to marry and have a child at the tail end of her fertility with this likable respectable available man that she does not love. But that's the thing - she does not love him. Her breakup with this man is followed - most predictably - by her mother's searing criticism. Maybe not so predictably by mom's sudden death of heart failure. Charlotte feels responsible for killing her mom, for killing off her last chance of having a man and a child of her own, and she retreats to the place where she first felt safe in her life - to Dr. Jacquith and his sanitarium. While there she comes across a plain frightened and completely unconfident girl, approximately twelve, who is terrified of having to play ping pong with the other kids. Charlotte sees herself in this girl and makes it her business to win her trust, and allow her the respect that she was never afforded. She gives this girl both a friend and the mother that she herself never had. And then a surprise when she finds out exactly who the girl is. I'll let you watch and find out how this all works out. This film has a lot going for it such as the whole idea of a woman who is transformed and her self-actualization. She finds freedom from convention, and while its convenient she is wealthy, Charlotte's character grows in ways we don't expect. She does make an effort to be conventional, but she comes to the conclusion that she must remain true to herself, and so she takes the road less traveled. And the story is written so terrifically, I found myself cheering for Charlotte in the end. It is a story to open your eyes about people and how they see themselves inside. Don't let Charlotte's transformed outward beauty and allure fool you. It's just the outward manifestation of the way she changing on the inside.Just a few words about other major players in the film. First Claude Rains - as the psychiatrist he glides through his role effortlessly. In his polished depiction of the sympathetic therapist with an engaging bedside manner, he also engages us to the point that we are riveted on him whenever he is on screen. Next there is Max Steiner's score. It fits perfectly with every scene of the film. In fact, it seems that there were times when Queen Bette, in other films, found Max's scores to be an unwanted competitor of hers and actually complained! I'd highly recommend this one. Besides being a terrifically and well acted tale, it has so much to say about human dignity.

Paul255378 It seems like over the past 20 years, every time I have seen a documentary on the golden age of Hollywood, they play the last scene from this movie where Paul Henreid lights two cigarettes at once and hands one to Bette Davis.I have always wanted to see the movie and recently I watched it. Bette Davis is superb in the role of Charlotte Vale, a woman under the thumb of an overbearing mother. Equally impressive are Claude Rains, as her doctor, Dr. Jaquith and Paul Henreid, as Jerry Durrance, a man who befriends her on an ocean voyage.The movie takes you along on her journey from an insecure spinster to that of a woman who has everything.If you are a fan of film, this is an essential.

TheLittleSongbird Now, Voyager is a brilliant film in every area, one where I am still trying to figure out why it took me so long to see it as a fan of classic film and as someone who considers All About Eve as one of her all-time favourites and Bette Davis' performance in it one of the all-time greats. Now, Voyager is beautifully produced, with each scene lushly photographed and with the costumes and sets very sumptuous, particularly striking at the end which has a real magical touch. There is also Irving Rapper's grand direction, which shows a director in command of what he wants, and an intelligent script that is sharp and provides a good amount of emotional impact(Davis' final line really resonated with me) without resorting to soap-opera-quality. The story is never dull and very poignant with a subtly gritty edge, the ending being romance at its absolute finest, with two scenes that have rightly gone down in cinematic history. One being Paul Henreid's lighting of two cigarettes and the other being Davis' speech which is a genuine tear-jerker. The ugly-duckling-turned-into-a-swan theme is a potentially hackneyed one but Now, Voyager is one of those rarities that does something truly special with it. Henreid is the personification of suave, Gladys Cooper is outstandingly formidable as the annoying over-bearing mother figure and Claude Rains, one of those rare actors who I've never seen a bad performance from, is beautifully sympathetic. The two best things about Now, Voyager are Bette Davis and Max Steiner's score. Davis is just fantastic in one of her greatest performances, a very close second to her iconic performance in All About Eve, she's never looked lovelier too. And Steiner's score is haunting, swells with emotion and romance and sounds in places almost symphonic, it's quite possibly his best score and Steiner penned some great ones. To conclude, a brilliant classic film that has nothing ugly about it, not even Janis Wilson's oft-criticised performance as Tina(which while she does overdo it a little I didn't have a problem with personally, there was a lot of heart to her role). 10/10 Bethany Cox

Marcin Kukuczka Along with DECEPTION by Irving Rapper, NOW VOYAGER, the title of which is derived from Walt Whitman's poem "Leaves of grass," is clearly one of Bette Davis' most crucial films from the time of her contract with Warner Brothers Studio. However, "a highly narcotic, swoon inducing romance in the Bette Davis canon," as New York Times labeled the movie, brings out something widely known by the television generations: a daughter on the verge of nervous breakdown, desperate to find her independence, struggling to escape her monstrous, forbidding mother in order to, at last, seek and find a home of her own, a man of her own and a child of her own. Eager to find a way out, she receives help from a psychiatrist. Consequently, much to her mother's dismay, she comes to a moment when she is not afraid of being herself. Nothing new...indeed...because, as it has also been the case with DECEPTION, the backbone is pure soap opera. What makes us ignore the flaws derived from this very sort of the perceptions such content evokes is the artistry at multiple levels, Hollywood's most powerful tool of illusion and magnetism, the film is thoroughly supplied with.First and foremost, this artistry resides in the performances. Bette Davis convincingly portrays a character who undergoes, I can allow myself this word, metamorphosis. From being a person who is 'alone in all ways,' she depicts a change prompted and wonderfully motivated by Dr Jasquith (Claude Rains). Although this 'metamorphosis' may occur banal due to diminishing a human to mere looks, fashionable clothes and sentimental exclamation of being content with stars...not asking for the moon, her moments are played with ease and the desirable insight necessary in the role of that sort. She does not make her character laughable and, at the same time, instills sufficient amount of tear jerking euphoria. From the sentimental introduction of her character with the drops of rain behind the window to the moonlit moments of romance constitute a thoroughly convincing depiction.Her leading men, Claude Rains and Paul Henreid, differ considerably and, yet, create vibrant characters of lasting significance. The versatile actor, Claude Rains, skillfully portrays the psychological essence of the movie (1942 was too early to talk about psychoanalyzing characters and yet, we can find certain tendencies). He is, consequently, easily identified with and very likable. The romantic looking actor Paul Henreid, though not placed in sheer rivalry against Rains' character as it is the case of DECEPTION, is again provided with European flair. The much appraised scene of the two (Bette and Paul) lighting a cigarette echoes the never ending power of illusion within the same spirits but different methods of Hollywood.Among the supporting cast, a mention must be made of Gladys Cooper who portrays the villainous manipulative mother - someone who could equally display a powerful insight under Hitchcock's guidance. Nominated for the Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards, Ms Cooper delivers a tremendous portrayal of a domineering personality. In one scene, thanks to the gorgeous camera-work, we see the back of her hand encompassing the foreground of the screen frame while Bette Davis' character remains in the background. One of the milestone 'evil incarnates' on screen with the overtone of critical approach towards cruel family ties, of course.The artistry's triumph also lies in the entire visual subtlety of the movie – all is neat and elegant. Since some viewers consider this film to be a woman's picture or a 'weenie,' these interiors almost heaped with decorations of highest caliber. Apart from some public events' scenes, consider the Rio sequence which cleverly combines charm with humor and incorporates a variety of elements that result in truly aesthetic viewing experience.In that relation, there is a need to give full credit to Max Steiner for his fabulous music score filled with dynamic tensions and powerful parallels with characters' feelings. Reminiscing certain classical pieces moderated and adapted to the cinematic needs (just to name Tschaikovsky), he deservedly won the award.To sum up, it is undeniably one of the most 'artistic' novellas on screen where you not only have Bette Davis' eyes but display of powerful performances, stunning cinematography, memorable score and direction of great caliber. One of those precious products of old Hollywood that is no more. Worth seeking and finding.