HeadlinesExotic Boring

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

kijii Based on an H.G. Wells novel, this film has a familiar look to it for those who have seen Lean's brilliant masterpiece, A Brief Encounter. Both films were directed by David Lean; both star Trevor Howard; both are about extramarital love affairs; both are narrated—in flashback--by the unfaithful wives, Celia Johnson in A Brief Encounter and Ann Todd in The Passionate Friends; and both were released in the late 40s. But after that, the two films start to diverge a bit. This movie is a masterpiece, no doubt about it, but not in the same way as A Brief Encounter!! While A Brief Encounter takes place over a few days and seems plausible, The Passionate Friends occurs over years and seems almost impossible. In addition, in A Brief Encounter, the flow of Celia Johnson's thoughts--linked by the Rachmaninoff theme that runs throughout the movie—is a stroke of genius that has no parallel in The Passionate Friends. So, while Celia Johnson's character seems temporarily confused, Ann Todd's seems selfish and immature. Another word you could use for Todd's character is 'stuck.' I mean, anyone who can't get over an old love affair after nine years is really 'stuck.' As the movie begins, Mary Justin (Ann Todd) is on holiday in Switzerland where she will later be met by her husband, Howard Justin (Claud Rains). Howard is an international banking executive, more geared towards realism than romance. When Mary arrives at her Swiss hotel, she finds that the room adjoining hers belongs to her old romance, Steven Stratton (Trevor Howard). At this point, she starts remembering the last time she had seen Steven, nine years ago.Her memories are shown to us in flashback---In the flashback, she meets her old boyfriend, Steven, at the New Year's Eve party welcoming in 1939. Mary and Steven rekindle their old love while Howard is out of town on business. When Howard returns, he thinks that their friendship is innocent until he discovers, on his desk, the tickets for the play that they were supposed to be attending. When Howard goes to the theater and sees that those seats are empty and they aren't at the play, he and Steven openly confront each other. However, even though Mary had planned to divorce Howard to marry Steven, she relents and gives up Steven's romantic love to maintain the financial security of her marriage.As the movie returns from Mary's memories to the Swiss holiday (in the present), it appears that her faithfulness is again be tested. But, nine years have passed since her first affair with Steven. All three people had matured a bit. Steven is now married with two young children. Yet, as Steven and Mary go up into the Alps alone together, Mary still sees to imagine things as they were nine years ago, and acts accordingly...There are some fine moments in this movie, especially those with Claude Rains, who can be very cleaver and controlling. (At times, you hate him for his treachery; at other times, you feel sorry for him.) If you think about Claude Rains, he is one of the most talented actors of the 30s and 40s for portraying non-physical villains.) The movie also seems well directed, with different scenarios fitting together perfectly like a giant jigsaw puzzle. It also presents interesting dilemmas about idealism versus realism and the contrasting notions of romantic love affairs versus the loyalty and fidelity of marriage.

MartinHafer As I watched this film, I couldn't help but thinking that it looked an awful lot like BRIEF ENCOUNTER. Like this other film, Trevor Howard plays a man who is married (once again playing "the other man") but in love with someone else (Ann Todd). In addition, the music, cinematography and style all look like BRIEF ENCOUNTER. The big difference is that instead of two married strangers meeting and falling in love, this film concerns two people who were once in love and have since gone their separate ways. Now, they meet once again and the old love is rekindled--even though she is now married to another man (Claude Rains).The film is told through flashbacks. The first is when the two were both single and in love. Somehow, despite their love, they separated and went their own way. Several years later, Todd is married to Claude Rains and meets up with Howard again. They begin an affair but Rains soon finds out about it. Despite it looking like Todd will leave her husband and go with Howard, she stays. Now, almost a decade later, Todd and Howard meet by chance in Switzerland. She is still married to Rains and Howard has finally married as well. In an interesting daydream, you see Todd imagining that when they met again that Howard had told him he never married. Only if...Now in Switzerland, the two old lovers spend a lot of time together--boating, hiking and the like (though, like in the rest of the film they never get around to sleeping together). Unexpectedly, Rains arrives back at the hotel unexpectedly early to find that his wife, once again, has taken up where she left off a decade earlier. He is furious and is determined to not only divorce her once and for all, but name Howard as the co-respondent--thus ruining Howard's marriage as well.What happens next, is simply amazing and makes the film. Up until then, the film seemed to excuse or even glamorize adultery. However, in a splendid twist, Rains' character opens up emotionally AND the film's ending is simply terrific.Like BRIEF ENCOUNTER, I was at first irritated with the couple because of their selfishness. Rains seemed like a nice enough but perhaps too emotionally-controlled guy and Todd cheating on him just seemed tawdry. Had he been a monster or if the affair didn't damage others or if she had divorced Rains and later taken up with Howard, then the film would have resonated more with me. However, the last 20 minutes of the film really turned my opinion around.Exceptionally well-paced, interesting and worth seeing--I ended up liking this one much more than BRIEF ENCOUNTER. I'm glad I stuck with it.

Igenlode Wordsmith It's easy to associate "The Passionate Friends" to its detriment with "Brief Encounter"; in its voice-over/flashback structure, in its themes of suicide and adultery, and of course in the casting of Trevor Howard. But in a sense -- although not, unfortunately, an entirely successful one -- in a sense, the later film is an attempt to do something very different with this source material. At the most basic level the two pictures have virtually nothing in common: "Brief Encounter" is a story of renunciation and unselfishness, of ordinary lives in an unromantic setting, of heartbreak from a painfully honest narrator. "The Passionate Friends" (a title never really explained) revolves ultimately around selfishness and self-deception, lavish trappings and a shallow surface gloss epitomised by the cheesy 'Swiss' tourist music that backs the initial establishing shots.Mary's swelling soft-focus memories of her grand passion are deflated by jarring little jabs from the director, in what I suspect is intended as an alert to the viewer that her romantic-seeming situation is not quite what it seems -- in effect, she is an unreliable narrator, and the pay-off comes when she perceives, finally and appallingly, what she really is and what she has done. It is a climax worth waiting for, but it is slow to arrive; and the subtle wrongness in the love affair, the self-dramatisation and lack of authenticity (whether or not these are deliberate attempts to undermine her presentation of events, as hindsight suggests they may be) until then tend to come across simply as unconvincing story-telling.It is never clear just what Mary means by her assertion that she wants to belong to herself and not to any lover. By the end, however, it is all too apparent that this mantra, reminiscent of the "Can't tie me down, babe" slogans of the (male) serial shaggers of the Sixties, is every bit as self-indulgent a female pose. She is in love with the idea of being in love: playing at it, day-dreaming transgressions. But when reality strikes, the whole game is exposed as a silly, hugely destructive fantasy.After the first showdown with her husband (which we are specifically, and with hindsight, significantly, not allowed to witness), she warns Steven that she is not truly a good person to love. We -- and he -- do not then either understand or believe her; but she is right. She is not prepared to give herself, in modern parlance to 'commit': but she will not let go either.The trouble for me is that for most of its running length the film seems to be simply a somewhat off-kilter account of an adulterous affair, over-ponderous, with clumsy use of music and heavily ironic dialogue. (The cinema audience, young and out for a good time, spent rather more time giggling than I assume the director intended.) The cinematic tricks that are present, such as the abrupt cuts in the taxi scene, the nested flashback structure, or the montage of advertisements in the Tube station reading "Keep Smiling", "Strength" and "Saved", too often seem awkward or labouring the obvious. If the idea was indeed to subtly undermine audience preconceptions, it doesn't really work -- there is no equivalent here to the stunning shift in perception that exists between the opening sequence of "Brief Encounter" and the final unwinding of the flashback. As the ambiguous Mary, Ann Todd is a strangely elusive presence. The character is at the heart of the plot and has the lion's share of screen time, and yet most of that time it's hard to get a grip on her beyond the superficial. I'm still not sure whether this is an intended result of the acting and/or direction, or a flaw in the film.Trevor Howard carries off the role of the unfortunate Steven with angular charm and provides the requisite sense of bewildered decency; but as others have rightly remarked, it is Claude Rains, in what might appear a largely peripheral role, who steals the show. Rich, older, physically unprepossessing, and mildly affectionate towards his wife when he can spare a moment from the financial markets, Howard Justin is the face of moneyed security versus the romantic passion promised by Mary's once-and-future lover, and as such represents the trappings of a marriage of convenience rather than an actual human being. But almost from the beginning we are made aware that he is neither unintelligent nor unobservant; later we discover that he is not as complaisant as the other couple have assumed, and finally, that he can be hurt -- and can love -- as deeply as any other man. Over a mere handful of scenes in the course of the film Claude Rains manages to convey more tension and real emotional presence than anyone else, and it is this contribution that makes the final twist both plausible and satisfying."The Passionate Friends" is not the great film that I feel it is perhaps trying to be; but it is certainly not an abortive carbon-copy of "Brief Encounter". The resolution of the film is starkly effective and is worth sitting through a glossy and rather uninspired beginning for: as a whole, it can be seen as an honourable failure.(Edit: for what it's worth, in the month since I saw this film I haven't been able to get it out of my head...)

Jem Odewahn David Lean's criminally underseen THE PASSIONATE FRIENDS has often been hastily dismissed as a weak "sequel" to his earlier masterpiece BRIEF ENCOUNTER. It's not. While it isn't the classic BRIEF ENCOUNTER is (not many films are), it has much to recommend. And it's not a sequel at all. Yes, it does deal with the same central theme of BRIEF ENCOUNTER (a married woman having an affair), and is a follow-up in the sense that the couple meet again years later, but the characters are entirely different. The film is told in a non-linear fashion, with lots of flashing forwards and backwards (it works well, yet is occasionally distracting). The plot basically is this: beautiful Mary (cool blonde Ann Todd, who had scored a huge hit with THE SEVENTH VEIL four years later and had recently married Lean) is in love with a young student Stephen (Trevor Howard), yet marries Claude Rains. Stephen and Mary drift into an affair after her marriage, and they are found out by an enraged (yet off-camera) Claude Rains. Years pass, and Todd, still the dutiful, notably childless wife of Rains, runs into Howard while they are both holidaying. The encounter is entirely innocent, yet Rains again finds out and assumes the pair are re-starting something that is now dead (Howard has since married, and had children). All this almost ends in tragedy, as Rains discovers how much Todd really does mean to him. Todd's somewhat detached screen presence works well for her character. The film is adapted from a short story by H.G Wells that explores an emancipated, beautiful young woman who rejects passion in favour of security. A poignant and telling scene between Howard and Todd early in the picture displays this notion- Howard:If two people love each other, they want to belong to each other. Todd: I want to belong to myself Howard: Then your life will be a failure Todd's marriage to Rains is a union of convenience. She can have the finer things in life she is accustomed to, she has the freedom to do as she pleases, and she's secure. Rains seems happy with this arrangement, telling himself that his love for her is also without true passion, until the crucial, revealing final scenes. These scenes constitute some of Rain's finest emotional work on film, as he spits at Ann Todd that she has treated him with all the kindness "that she would treat a dog". Rains comes to realise that his love for Mary is indeed "of the romantic kind", the same love that he denounces to Howard earlier in the picture. However, Todd, trance-like and thinking she has ruined several lives (potentially breaking up Howard's marriage, and also her own), walks to the train station and tries to commit suicide, ANNA KARENINA-like (she gets her own Garbo moment!). Rains, having followed her, pulls her back and takes her back home with him. While not a comforting ending, it seems to fit the picture well . As I said earlier, Rains is excellent, and this is one of his best performances. Unfortunately audiences tend to take the wonderful Trevor Howard for granted, and he is always an assured presence. Todd's beauty seems to be worshiped by husband Lean who gives her plenty of exquisite close-ups. As with THE SEVENTH VEIL, Todd is asked to carry much of the narrative weight of the film (the flashbacks and so forth), yet she works well and is particularly effective in a painfully bittersweet scene in which she imagines Howard as her husband, taking her into her arms, instead of Rains.