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

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

totalwonder Lillian Hellman is an American Icon. A woman ahead of her time, in every department. Her women are never easy to read but they are real. From the icy Regina in "The Little Foxes" to the sisters of "Toys In The Attic" - Jane Fonda played her, brilliantly, in "Julia", Here, her women walked a slightly edgier plane."The Children's Hours" was a big Broadway success and William Wyler, one of the best, directed the film version as "These Three" in the 1930's, washing away any reference to homosexuality. I think that may be one of the reasons why he remade it in 1961 under its original title "The Children's Hour" Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner, Fay Bainter and Miriam Hopkins who also was in the original in Shirley MacLaine's part. The film is compelling and looks wonderful and I think it's more a document of its day by one of the most courageous writers of her day. The strange thing here is that the women are the ones who remain firmly in their day, they show us the outrage from their perspective and that's why it feels "dated" They would behave very differently today but not the rich southerners. I believe, they would also remove their children from the school. just like they did then. The oppressed have move on but the oppressors, have diminished in numbers, but they havent changed much. A fascinating film.

meadever It took me a while to come to this film, as it's really not well-known or extensively talked about. I love old movies, and have for years, but my first exposure to this work didn't come until college, when I saw a scene from it performed in an acting class. I found the scene mesmerising, but didn't know that the play had been turned into a movie until a few years later, when I read about it in a biography of Audrey Hepburn. I was able to find it on a streaming service and immediately settled in to watch it. My thought having finally seen it is simply this; I cannot believe how little notice this movie seems to get. It's progressive, it's affecting, it's haunting. It's everything that makes a movie memorable. Audrey Hepburn, one of the most ethereal and chic actresses in history, is totally believable as the rather dowdy, down to earth, content co-headmistress at the boarding school where the story takes place. She's truly convincing as an every-woman. Just someone who is swept up in the gossip of a small town, but who, aside from that, would have a very ordinary life. Shirley MacLaine is just as believable as Martha, the more abrasive, restless of the two friends. She is able to subtly convey emotions like jealousy and anger, emotions that are all too easy to overplay on screen and stage. Both of them play their characters so well that it makes the relationship between them seem all the more authentic. You really do start to feel that these are two women who have been friends for years and have a close and comfortable repartee with one another. Of course, let's not overlook the supporting cast. The child actresses are all wonderful, not seeming to try too hard. Karen Balkin makes Mary, the girl who starts the rumours that drive the plot, all too easy to despise. The older actresses who play Martha's aunt and Mary's grandmother, also present a wonderful portrait of women from another generation, who are dealing with the issue at hand in the only ways they know how to. But the major standout in the supporting cast is James Garner as Karen's fiancé, Joe. I've seen his emotional depth in things like "The Notebook", but this role takes it to the next level. He really commits to what he is doing, and he just breaks your heart as you see him lose his veneer of calm collectedness when he realises that there are some things he simply can't control. The camera work is simple and basic, befitting a story like this one, and it's really the performers and story that make this a classic. It's a plot that isn't afraid to deal with a taboo issue in what was, for that time, a very frank way. It's one of those films that transports you, and it takes a couple of viewings of "Irma la Douce" or "Sabrina" afterward to remind you that these were characters, not real people. To me, the best films are the ones that create the world for you and flesh it out so well that it feels real, whether that be a fantastical world, or another version of the one we know. This film is a prime example of that being done right. It is still beautiful and relevant today, and should be counted as among the best performances of all involved.

GholamSlayer It would be so much easier to write this movie off as a dated movie, that things like that wouldn't happen anymore, but there are still far too many documented cases like what happened to Shirley Maclaine's character to write this movie off in that way. Everyone's reaction came across as "the homosexuals corrupt children", that they are insidious in nature, leading back to homosexuality being a choice. The main characters fought that, if passively, in the implication that Shirley Maclaine had no choice in the matter, as to who she loved. I hold very strongly that the mentality that society pushed at that time, and some still hold onto now, leads to the outcome of the movie. All I've been trying to say is that the movie is still incredibly pertinent after over 50 years, and I would love to see a time when this movie could be written off as just an historical piece.

vincentlynch-moonoi I have never been a fan of Audrey Hepburn. Not saying I disliked her work...more I could take it or leave it, depending on the film. Not an actress that would lead me to the theater just because she was in a film.I generally dislike almost any performance by Miriam Hopkins. The one possible exception was when she starred with Bette Davis.I never cared for James Garner, either in the films or on television.Three strikes like that would typically make me simply not attend a film, or turn off the television. But I have watched this film several times, and am always fascinated with it.Audrey Hepburn is brilliant here; mostly an understated performance, and just perfect. Shirley MacLaine is not in a league with Hepburn here, but her performance is very good. James Garner is nigh on perfect in his part as the doctor and fiancé. Miriam Hopkins turns in a dead-on portrayal of a washed up actress and relative whose bitchiness precipitates the crisis.And special mention should be made of the performance by the wonderful Fay Bainter. Sometimes when this film is on TCM, I'll record it and just flip through her scenes. Possibly the best of her career, though certainly not the most lovable. Are you considering going to acting school. Don't bother. Just watch the pro steal every scene she's in...in fact, watch her steal the whole film! A lot has been made of the performances by the two key children actors here. I agree with those who feel that young Karen Balkin's performance was over the top. But, she was a young child. I'll have to criticize Willim Wyler (director) for that. On the other hand, Veronica Cartwright, was perfect as the child-victim.I don't want one to think that based on my last paragraph that William Wyler didn't direct a good film here. One error in judgment shouldn't be taken as an overall criticism. I can count an even 10 films of his that I personally revere (including this one), including his finest -- "Ben Hur".We shouldn't finish without almost praising author Lillian Hellman. Just another of Hellman's brilliant, though dark, masterpieces.This is a movie no serious film-goer should miss.