Morning Glory

I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for "a Husband". Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better "relationship" stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't "get it" but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in "Somewhere in Time" you'll like him in this one also.

A simple movie in the beginning, a simple movie in the end. It does have that un-ending and pretending cliche, but, most tv movies have that any ways.

Christopher Reeve does a good job as being an ex-con/drifter. The marriage between her and the woman he works for, I feel is a bit queer, but, I believe for the time period it is set in, that it is believable none-the-less.

Now, I saw the edited 'tv' version, even tho the movie was made and showed on 'tv', I find that a bit queer as well. But, I feel if I saw the entirety of the piece, I would give it more-in-likely the same rating.

J.T. Walsh does a nice job, not his best role, but, still....a nice job.

7/10

Having read the Spencer novel, I was very disappointed in the film. The main characters are excellent. Christopher Reeve, Deborah Raffin, Nina Foch, Lloyd Bochner, and Helen Shaver are a pleasure to watch, even in this rather slow film.

The problem is the screenplay by Charles Jarrott and Deborah Raffin, which was unquestionably poor. Much of the character development was lost, and WWII, which figured prominently in the novel and provided context for those stupid jars of honey, was barely noted.

The book's villain was barely a footnote and the conflict was shifted in a move that did not work at all. With a runtime of 1 hour 36 minutes, they could have kept the main villain and the original ending intact without going over two hours. They rushed important elements and left others out, making the movie weaker for their efforts.

The LaVyrle Spencer novel from which the movie was made, however, was excellent.

This movie would have been OK if it hadn't been so horribly cast. I enjoyed the book but this movie falls short of believability. Deborah Raffin was 40 years old and should not have been cast in the role of a woman that was 24 years old in the book. Elly was supposed to be a young woman and aged from 24 to 26 or so in the book. Christopher Reeve was also too old. Will Parker was at least 10 years younger than Reeve's age at the time of the book. Deborah was more believable in her other Lavyrle Spencer role in Homesong where she was playing a woman her own age. 40 just isn't 24 no matter how you cut it. Deborah is a close personal friend of the author but even so it was ridiculous.

Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.

I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.

This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far too old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.

Lastly, the musical score is excellent.