Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

MartinHafer I have long loved Claudette Colbert in films and am a bit surprised that she isn't more well known for her part in this terrific film. While naturally people tend to think of her from IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (two terrific films), it's a shame more people haven't seen REMEMBER THE DAY, as it offered a side to her that wasn't seen so often in films. Here, Colbert is both more sexual and less motherly than she usually seemed in films. Part of this is because her usual asexual hairstyle is gone and she seems to be more of a real woman with real needs and desires. Frankly, apart from her role in SIGN OF THE CROSS, it might just be the sexiest part she ever played. Now this does NOT mean that she was a slut or a loose woman--far from it. But she just seemed more approachable and warmer than in other films in which she appeared.REMEMBER THE DAY is also a highly sentimental film about a beloved teacher who makes her mark on students. However, unlike films like GOODBYE MR. CHIPS and THREE CHEERS FOR MISS BISHOP, the focus in this movie is on the effect she had on one particular student--one who grew up to be nominated for President of the US. The sentimentality is strong but thanks to an excellent script, direction and acting, the film seemed more believable, less maudlin and more authentic than most films of the style.In addition to wonderful work by Colbert, John Payne had one of his better performances and this is a film everyone involved should have been proud of making. A sweet old film that seems to be rather timeless--it's well worth a look.

Faye-9 The depiction of the characters being dramatically more "aged" than we'd expect today is not an error. In those days people DID age more... but more importantly, they looked older than our "seniors" of today. The thinking in those days was once you are an adult you act and look like one. It was an outdated attitude, true, but none the less, it is how they "thought". I remember my own mother at age 38 in the 60s acted like a woman of 70 would act today...and also the way she "looked" as well. I remember my older relatives of the 60s wouldn't get on a bicycle because it was for "kids". That was an ignorant way of thinking, but it was how they thought. This movie was right on for the times. Sometimes you have to be more open to "others" views of things before you draw a conclusion and form an opinion that you state on this website.

roxie3 This was a sweet film about romance during WW I, and I happened to see on a movie channel while staying at a hotel recently. The acting was good, but I am surprised at the accolades of other reviewers. The plot was sort of simple, but my main problem was the ending. So I guess this is a spoiler, although other reviewers have mentioned how it ends.The story begins in 1916, when Colbert is a very young school teacher, probably early 20s. Her student who is going to be the presidential candidate is about 10 or 12. Now at the end, they say that a quarter of a century has passed. That's 25 years. The movie was made in 1941, so that would be just about right. However, Colbert is now an elderly woman, complete with these awful glasses and gray hair in a bun. Her student, who is now the presidential candidate, is a middle aged man with graying hair. His wife, who was also Colbert's student, is an overweight middled aged woman who looks about 50.Uh, excuse me, but if Colber was about 23 at the start, let's do the math. Now she is 48 years old--hardly a dottering old bag who looks like she's ready for a nursing home. Her students were not that much younger than her, and both of them would still be quite young at age 35.What were the producer and director thinking? Didn't anyone else notice this? It's also a little hard to imagine that by age 35, especially in that time period, that the former student would be running for president.

theowinthrop This is a very nice little movie that showed Claudette Colbert and John Payne to great advantage as two young teachers who, in 1916, meet in a small mid-western town, teaching at a high school. They fall in love, and we watch the romance blossom into a marriage - the entire effect helped by the nostalgia of a by-gone, simpler era. Parallelling the story we have the story of a young boy that goes to the school and is taught by both Colbert and Payne.The film is set up with it's heart (the romance) surrounded by a more recent story set in 1940, at the Republican Presidential Convention (a fictional version of the convention). Colbert is there to see the young boy student, who has now grown up. It is not until the film ends that we understand who she is visiting with. And it is not until the conclusion of the film that we get the bittersweet portion of the romance.The film is very simple, and it's final element for success is that Payne and Colbert had terrific chemistry together. Ironically enough it would be their only film together (one wishes they had done a second film but that was not in the cards for some reason). Also ironically, it's total success should be compared with the comparative failure of TOMORROW IS FOREVER, wherein Orson Welles and Colbert both perform their roles well (in characters very like Payne's and Colbert's here) but lack the spark to make that trickier story more believable.