User reviews

Sadly, a lot of modern film watchers can't appreciate a comedy like this that isn't over-the-top, ribald, or in your face. "The Late George Apley" is a refreshing throwback from a long-gone era when subtlety in a comedy and understated performances like Ronald Colman's were more valued and appreciated. Thank heavens there are networks like TCM where you can catch some of these forgotten gems from time to time.

Don't pay attention to reviewers who claim "nothing happens" in this movie, although I imagine those with attention deficit disorder may have trouble with a film like this. For everyone else, there is plenty going on beside the humor, including a lot of charm as well as some surprising depth and unpredictability in the various characters.

This is a different sort of Ronald Colman movie. In an odd move, he plays the central character in the film but is also a very flawed man--not the sort of likable guy you'd expect him to be. This was quite a risk, though with this film and A DOUBLE LIFE (both 1947), Colman took on some darker characters. Now I am not saying that Colman is evil in THE LATE GEORGE APLEY, but he certainly is as far from the guy you'd see him play in THE PRISONER OF ZENDA or LOST HORIZON as you could get!

Colman plays George Apley--the head of a distinguished but way too self-important family of quality in Boston circa 1912. He is the blue-bloodest blue blood in town and a man completely wrapped up in traditions. And, according to traditions, his two grown children should marry within their ranks--and not for love but for family honor. The problem is that the son does not want to marry the cousin who was always designated to be his wife and the daughter is in love with a Yale man (uggh, for shame that he didn't go to Harvard!). So the heart of the story is will Apley get with the times or will he remain stuck and duty-boud forever? Fortunately, his brother-in-law (Percy Waram) was there to gently nudge George in the right direction and although Waram is NOT a well-known actor, his smaller role was probably the most interesting and pivotal in the film. He easily upstaged other supporting actors in the film such as Richard Haydn and Midred Natwick.

The film is funny, but in a very, very subtle way. If you are looking for belly laughs, this is not your film. However, it is a nice film about social satire and it is well made form start to finish as well as very different---something I value considering how many films I have watched over the years. Well worth seeing.

I doubt this film could have been pulled off without Ronald Colman in the title role as a descendant of the prominent Apley family of Boston. His entire life is taken up with people of similar background, and he considers anything outside of the Back Bay of Boston to be a foreign country. The film is set in the years prior to WWI and horse drawn forms of transportation are still the norm. He believes in his own form of noblesse oblige, and is very satisfied with his ways of giving back to the community - Tuesday Night Club on Tuesday, Wednesday Night Club on Wednesday - need I say more?

In this rarefied museum piece of a life, George's children are about to turn everything upside down. His daughter is in love with a Harvard professor - so far so good - who is a Yale man! And the young man is teaching that Emerson is a rebel! Even worse, his son is in love with a young lady from Worcester whose father is president of a tool and die works! "A foreigner" as George himself says. To top things off a flashing electric sign advertising Grapenuts has been put within sight of his front door.

Like I said before, if the part of George was played by anybody else but the dapper and charming Colman, this guy would probably come across as insufferable. As it turns out, George really has a generous soul, a point that is driven home by Colman's portrayal, but his point of view is crowded with traditions that are centuries old whose origin he doesn't really understand himself, and to step away from them - or to see any member of his family step away from them - leads to a sense of discomfort that makes him feel that he perceives a wrong that must be righted.

I'll let you watch and see how this all works out, but it really is a delightful comedy of manners with real heart and delightful character actors in the supporting roles. Highly recommended.

Ronald Colman is "The Late George Apley" in this 1947 film based on a Philip Barry play, also starring Richard Ney, Peggy Cummins, Edna Best, Richard Haydn, Vanessa Brown, and Mildred Natwick. Apley is a stuffed shirt whose well-ordered family is suddenly not so well-ordered. His son (Richard Ney) is dating a girl from Worcester, which is seen by Apley as being someplace like the Black Hole of Calcutta, and his daughter (Cummins) loves a Yale man who lectures that Emerson was a radical. At first, George takes a firm stand, then relents at the behest of his understanding friend, who saw George give up the woman he loved 30 years earlier. When the Worcester girl's father actually rejects the Apley family, George rethinks his position. His daughter is sent to Europe to get away from her boyfriend, and his son is betrothed to his cousin (Brown).

Imagine going to Broadway shows in the '20s and '30s and attending one class-conscious play after another. Before the Depression, the sets were drawing rooms, the clothing was formal, everyone had British accents, and the plots had to do with the crossing of the classes. Frankly, I'm glad they finally intermingled.

Ronald Colman is marvelous as George, and one sees his confusion, pain, and remembrance of the past on his face. He's a very sympathetic character. Peggy Cummins is very pretty and Richard Ney is nice-looking. Vanessa Brown, as the dowdy cousin, gives a sweet performance, and her story arc is very satisfying.

If you're a fan of Ronald Colman, as I am, this is a good movie to see. Also, if you know Boston at all, you'll find hearing the street names interesting. Otherwise, it's a mildly interesting period piece that most people will find relating to difficult.

THE LATE GEORGE APLEY is the sort of comedy of manners that audiences could appreciate in the '40s and '50s before more explosive entertainment took center stage. It's performed with great charm and skill by a talented cast--and especially by Ronald Colman (in the sort of stuffy role he was born to play) and by the charming British actress Peggy Cummins. Viewing her here, one can understand why Zanuck found her unsuitable to play Amber St. Claire in FOREVER AMBER--charming but immature in stature and looks.

The cast seems to be relishing their roles in this tale of Boston bluebloods striving to uphold the family's social status. Vanessa Brown and Richard Ney, unfortunately, are the least appealing aspects of the supporting cast in rather colorless roles. Richard Haydn shines, as he always does in these sort of things.

Only fans of Ronald Colman can truly appreciate this sort of period piece. It flows smoothly but with little ventilation seeping into the musty households and other interiors and seems more like a stage play soon to be seen on Masterpiece Theatre.

The Late George Apley provides Ronald Colman in one of the best roles of his career as the proper Bostonian George Apley in those pre-World War I years. It's funny, but even then Boston had slipped away from the grasp of his kind. Those immigrants, starting with the ones from Ireland had been running the government there for about a generation when this play on which the film is based is set. But don't tell that to George, his kind if they don't outrightly rule, they do set the standards of proper conduct for America. When the Apleys gather for Thanksgiving, they're most mindful of the fact that some of their ancestors originated it.

But even Colman and his insular Boston world can't escape generational problems. Both his son Richard Ney and his daughter Peggy Cummins are having problems with their respective choices as life partners, especially Cummins who wants to marry a man who graduated from of all places, Yale.

Colman, maybe the most civilized leading man ever in screen history captures the essence of the decent, but somewhat fatuous George Apley. A man who thinks all the answers to life's problems can be found in a volume of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Even Emerson didn't think that.

The Late George Apley is based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel by John P. Marquand who also collaborated with George S. Kaufman on the play. Their creation ran for 384 performances in the 1944-45 season and starred Leo G. Carroll and Janet Beecher on stage. Edna Best takes Beecher's role on screen as the patient wife of Colman.

Some really fine players populate the cast. Richard Haydn plays his usual fuss budget busybody of a cousin, always eager to help Colman maintain the high Apley standards. Mildred Natwick is Colman's even snootier sister and Percy Waram who was the only player to repeat his role from the stage plays her patient husband who talks to Colman like a Dutch uncle, not a brother-in-law.

The Late George Apley is a good American answer to those British comedy of manners even though a lot of this cast is of British origin. Would we had someone of the wit of George S. Kaufman today to write them and an actor with elegant prose of Ronald Colman to speak the lines.

Rather obviously based on a play. The central character - unfortunately not dead, as the title suggests - is a snob and a bore whose charm resides solely in the fact that he's played by Ronald Colman; although his amusement rather than shock at the book by Freud he discovers in his daughter's possession is rather endearing.

I watched this last night. I'd never even heard of it before so read the reviews here, which led me to expect it to be slightly dull but worth watching because of Ronald Coleman.

I didn't expect it to be so funny! Within the first ten minutes I was laughing out loud and I found it funny, sweet and charming all the way through.

The humor is very subtle, almost what I would call "British" humor, wry, sly and dry. The opposite of slapstick. Such great actors who can convey so much with a pause, a glance, wonderful to watch.

The movie is 60 years old, takes place nearly 100 years ago and thousands of miles away from where I live but I know people who are exactly like that. Which is probably why I found it so funny.

Perhaps the ending is a bit predictable but there were some nice plot twists in getting there. A quiet movie, yes, but not at all dull. I would definitely watch it again.

I watched this film because of Ronald Colman, an excellent actor in my humble opinion. But within the first twenty minutes or so I became overwhelmed by a feeling of incredulity that people such as those on the screen actually existed. Glum, self-satisfied, living in the past, calcified, incapable of novel thought, etc, etc... And then I remembered why I sat to watch the film and I must say Colman did not disappoint. He was as usual thoroughly enjoyable. So on that level the film succeeds. But it also succeeded in reminding me that such as the Apleys exist among us today. True, they are more modern in their speech and dress but no different in their attitudes and prejudices. If for no other reason it is worth seeing as a social commentary and a reminder that there are dinosaurs among us!

what a treat - what a delight! i'd never heard of this movie, but hung in for the opening scenes and was hooked within 20 minutes - so much subtle comedy, i found myself waiting for and wanting more laughs and was always rewarded with clever, witty lines, especially from the brother-in-law.

Ronald Coleman is picture perfect as the father and you can literally see the times a'changing before their eyes and catch the change in the children. you might think that the story is a bit predictable, but it has surprising plot turns. an unexpected gem - those here who trash this movie just don't understand classic and good cinema!

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. But after reading the other IMDb reviews, including the original NYTimes review, I now realize that the next book on my list will be Marquand's Pulitzer Prize winning novel. Apparently that will foment a proper perspective of this viewing.

It's interesting how films based on books or plays are judged. "Jaws" being one of the most successful adaptations, going back to the 1930s-40s will be quite a trip.

In the same year that he won the Academy Award for the great "A Double Life," Ronald Colman starred in this colossal stuffy bomb about an idealistic Boston family of 1912. They're a wealthy bunch although the film never tells us where they got their money from.

Colman was an outstanding actor and he is able to rise above the boring film and give a splendid performance as a man devoted to his social mores of the time. The problem is that he is about to wreck the lives of his son and daughter by his obstinate ways. In reality, he is nothing more than a snob who quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson to justify his ways.

You know that he will eventually come to his senses but you don't care as this film just moves along at a dull pace.

As his sister, Mildred Natwick (Amelia) has some funny lines but that's about it.

You would think that being born in Boston to wealth meant that you remained there for good and acted in an outlandish way.

It is only when The Bird Society denies him the presidency, Apley begins to come to his senses. This film is certainly for the birds. This might have worked in 19th century Europe but forget it here.

The "Apley" family have been part of the Bostonian establishment since God was a boy, and the head of the household "George" (Ronald Colman) is keen to ensure that with his wife "Catherine" (Edna Best) his son and daughter follow firmly in their establishment footsteps. Thing is, his daughter "Eleanor" (Peggy Cummins) and his son "Richard" (Richard Ney) are rather more independently spirited than that, and their definition of conformity is not quite that of their father! What now ensues is a rather nicely paced comedy that offers us the principle of coming of age - but in this case it's the grown ups who have to come to an age in which their traditions are important, but not all-so. It's based on John Marquand's original, quite satirical, story that casts gentle aspersions on snobbery and elitism, but also acknowledges some of the values those eschewed as a bedrock for a solid and decently evolving society. Colman is on good form in a role I imagined might have suited George Arliss too, and there is the always reliable Mildred Natwick amongst a supporting cast of the sympathetic and not so amongst this family that simply has to adapt to survive. This is an enjoyable ninety minutes of social observation and is well worth a watch.

Ronald Coleman has a resemblance to Errol Flynn but far exceeds him in gentility,suavity and urbanity. His voice is mellifluous and unlike any male actor of his time, even to this day.His portrayal of George Apley is really entertaining and very realistic as anyone would know by reading novels written at the time about Boston "brahmins". The character he plays is the quintessential Boston blue blood. He could portray outrage in a controlled manner expected of the character of George Apley and also profound sadness at the discovery of the drawbacks of Bostonian upbringing.The humor in the whole story is also genteel and yet manages to make some in the audience laugh out loud. I did as I watched this gem of a movie. This movie is a treat to watch for those who view a movie in all its dimensions. His character eclipses all the rest in the story including that portrayed by the great Mildred Natwick.

I found this a flat movie. Bob Osborne compared it to Life with Father, and that brought out the differences. In the latter, William Powell exaggerated "Father's" character to make it funny. In Apley, Ronald Coleman brings a humanity and understatedness to George Aply that, while perhaps more "realistic," undermined any possible humor. The same was true of most of the other performances. They were all well-acted - Coleman was always a fine actor - but if these characters aren't exaggerated, they aren't funny. And since they aren't interesting, that left them just flat and mildly boring.

Which describes the script.

I haven't read the novel. Perhaps it's funny. This movie was not.

I enjoyed the acting and felt the actors did an excellent job in roles that were written for them to illustrate an aspect of the story's theme.

The main theme was to illustrate how provincial, snobbish, and useless rich Bostonians were in the early 1900s. Okay... how is that relevant to me almost 100 years later? When the movie was over I thought, "Who cares?"

Other story aspects are dated. For example, the poet Emerson. He was used as an example how Bostonian attitudes had calcified. He was treated with reverence by Bostonians and considered a rebel by a non-Bostonian. That much I got as the movie said as much, but not being familiar with Emerson's history, this didn't resonate with me though I think the story expected me to know more about Emerson. The movie did not encourage me to learn more about Emerson.

Another example of how dated this movie is in its mention of Freud. Freud's theories today are generally discredited and ignored and the movie treats them, and his mention of s-e-x, as titillating and important. But remember the movie probably came out before the Kinsey Report.

"And this is good old Boston/ The home of the bean and the cod/ Where the Lowells talk to the Cabots/ And the Cabots talk only to God." This famous 1907 toast by John Collins Bossidy neatly sums up the world of the Boston Brahmins, the social elite of the city centered on Beacon Hill. These were seventeen or so families who upheld their exclusivity by attending certain schools, joining certain clubs and generally marrying only each other. This is the world of George Apley, who is quite comfortable within it and who would never think of questioning any of its values. He is supremely self-satisfied. But it's 1912 and the world is subtly changing. These changes catch up with his family and in time affect even him.

We first see him coming home, well dressed, wearing a homburg, carrying a cane and spotting a bird in the nearby park. He hopes to become the president of the bird-watching club to which he belongs. Arriving home, we quickly learn that he feels no gentleman should be seen in shirtsleeves in public. He also disapproves of the snapdragons in the Thanksgiving centerpiece because they never had snapdragons before and is aghast that there is an electric sign being set up within view of his door that will say "Grape Nuts". He frequently quotes Emerson and also wants to keep harmful literature out of the library. When he sees his daughter Eleanor and her beau, Howard (of whom he does not approve) throwing snowballs at each other playfully, he later takes her aside saying, "This is a very serious matter." George is a very particular man. He's quite rigid and a bit behind the times in his attitudes and manners and even his wife, Catherine sees this. George is also a good man, brought up with a sense of noblesse oblige who is proud of being a trustee of the Boston Waifs Society.

The film begins on Thanksgiving Day, with George's relatives coming over for dinner. His two brothers-in-law are day and night. Horatio (Richard Haydn) dresses just like George but is very snobbish and superficial and takes his social standing very seriously. Unlike George, this is almost all there is to him. Roger dresses in a businessman's suit, drinks and has a down to earth sensibility and doesn't care for the stuffy Horatio. The family decided long ago that Horatio's daughter, Agnes, and George's son, John will marry someday, though at the moment, John has other ideas, as he has been secretly going out with Myrtle Doe, a girl from Worcester, which to George might as well be Mars. Daughter Eleanor has been seeing a visiting lecturer, Howard Boulder, whom she introduces to the family. Again, his credentials do not fit George's expectations. Howard graduated from Yale, not Harvard and even worse, put himself through college by working.

This is the setup of "The Late George Apley" and through its various twists and turns George comes to the realization that he needs to change. The film explores social changes that occur in any society beyond anyone's individual control. Here we have a major shift in the development of individualism. George grew up in a manner bequeathed to him by his father and grandfather with a set of expectations and obligations which he must live up to. In his world, duty is the most important thing and one must do it for the welfare not just of the family but of the community in which they live. His children see things differently. To them personal happiness is more important than duty and obligation and the idea of marrying someone selected at birth by family members is absolutely bizarre. This was a very big change in the way societies operated. Until relatively recent historical times, planned marriages had been the norm and people didn't marry for love.

Ronald Colman was an excellent choice for this role, as he was matchless in portraying a perfect gentleman. With his quiet manner and soothing voice he also came across as warm and well-intended, something important that separates him from types like Horatio. The film is dialogue-driven with more going on inside George than in the plot. The screenplay was adapted from the Pulitzer Prize winning novel and subsequent play by John P. Marquand, who was born in Massachusetts and went to Harvard on a scholarship and thus was able to observe the sons of the Brahmins even though he was excluded from their clubs. It's a gentle satire with genuine respect for those he was satirizing and in never mean spirited. The screenplay was adapted by George S. Kaufman and the film was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and you can't do better than that. For Mankiewicz it's a minor film just before "A Letter To Three Wives" and "All About Eve", but he was just right for this kind of film with its emphasis on dialogue and acting.

A forties Hollywood film notable for being one of the last acting appearances by reliable leading man Ronald Colman and one of the earliest directing assignments for future Oscar-winning director Joseph L Mankiewicz. It's a bit of a shame then that neither is really stretched much in what almost amounts to an American drawing-room comedy, based, pretty obviously as it turns out, on a play from the late 30's,

Colman is the title-named stuffed-shirt current patriarch of a dynastic, turn-of-the-century Bostonian family comprising his, if not quite long-suffering, certainly long-enduring wife, a mildly reactionary son groomed in his own image and set to be thrust into a loveless marriage with the plain but adoring daughter of another of the Boston set and a pretty, wholly-rebellious daughter representing modernity with her talk of Freud and attitude towards sex. It's certainly mildly shocking, in the context of the film, when she drops the word "virginity" into polite conversation amongst the family gentry and again later when Colman similarly starts a discussion about sex with his wife.

Unfortunately, the film doesn't really kick on from these ear-catching moments and blandly moves towards a not entirely satisfactory conclusion where one sibling seems to get what they want, although only after having to endure a six-month European exile with her aunt, Mildred Natwick, the epitome of starchiness, while the other is forced to conform to the status quo even if their new spouse does at least by then seem to have found their backbone and taken something of a lead in directing events. Hardly progressive stuff then, and you're left at the end thinking that Apley's conversion is neither far from conclusive or convincing. There's a little bit of social commentary in the ether too, especially when "old-money" Apley meets the new-money self-made businessman father of the real love of Apley junior, but there was never much chance of the twain meeting in this duo's closed-minds encounter.

Overall, I found the movie pretty dull and uninspiring viewing with little to really commend it. The action is static and set-bound and the mise-en-scene and dialogue weren't remotely inspired enough to compensate for the film's other deficiencies. In support, Peggy Cummins adds a spark of life as daughter Ellie, Percy Waram is fine as the sage conscience of the film in the guise of Natwick's very much long-suffering husband and Edna Best is solid as Colman's crutch, his devoted but blindly-so wife Catherine. As for Mankiewicz and Colman let's just say that one had better things ahead of him and one had better days behind him.

George Apley is the head of an upper-class Boston family and a man true to Victorian values and behavior. Fans of Ronald Colman's voice are treated to an almost excessive amount of it in the beginning as his character is established. He quotes Emerson and seems truly delighted to have seen a certain bird so late in the year. You get to hear him say "sap-sucker" repeatedly. He feels his privilege comes with certain duties, and those must come before all else. The story opens on Thanksgiving Day, so we meet the extended family. Here is where things turn ugly. His two adult children have both decided to rebel against the path their father feels is right. The daughter has taken up with a young lecturer from New York who calls Emerson a radical, much to George Apley's horror, and smokes cigarettes instead of cigars. Suddenly his daughter is talking about Freud and badmouthing coming out parties. The son has long been expected to marry a certain cousin, but now he is lying to his father that he has to study. Instead, he's off to see a new girlfriend from the wrong side of the tracks.

At this point, I expected the father to reel his children in. However, the story goes against George Apley and all that he stands for. His close friend and his wife both tell tales of George's own younger days concerning love, marriage, and the role his father had played in his son's actions. Suddenly George does a 180. He has a whole different outlook. He even sneakily reads his daughter's Freud book. Here's your chance to hear the Ronald Colman voice spout the word "sex" multiple times.

Is George Apley abandoning his inherited sense of what's proper for his family so that his children can pursue romantic love? Or is this a portrayal of upper class Victorian values being mocked and shattered for the writer's own satisfaction? At one point, another character claims the Apley fortune came from the triangular trade of rum, slaves, and molasses. Although this film is from the 40s, its condemnation of George Apley's values seem to reflect fully modern disdain for the past.

The viewer is left to see how long George's 180 turn will last and to what extent. How much will he compromise and capitulate? Will the son and daughter marry their romantic loves or respect their father's Apley family Bostonian traditions?

I know I am in a small minority, but I found the film insulting and distasteful. I thought it was like watching a classy older man be pushed into the gutter by a gang of young punks. Ronald Colman is always wonderful, but the scathing attack the original writer was making on the upper class of Boston seems very ugly on the screen.