The Children's Hour


Action / Drama / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 86%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 84%
IMDb Rating 7.8 10 11887


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 18,172 times
August 04, 2014 at 03:13 AM



Audrey Hepburn as Karen Wright
Shirley MacLaine as Martha Dobie
James Garner as Dr. Joe Cardin
Veronica Cartwright as Rosalie Wells
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
810.45 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 48 min
P/S 1 / 11
1.64 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 48 min
P/S 4 / 9

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Richie-67-485852 8 / 10

Children NOT at Play

This is a well done tasteful movie about many issues starting with the rumor mill or gossip that plagues everyone yet all contribute to it one way or another. However, when it gets out of hand, it can destroy. Another issue is the believability of a child and when they say something. If they have never learned to lie then they are beyond reproach. If they did learn to lie what defense do adults have? We all visit with teachers who have to be fit and perfect if for the only reason that they are teaching kids verbally and by example too. There is rush to judgment, doubt and hidden bias at work in this film that when you mix it all together a fine must see movie is upon you. Watch the expressions on the old grandmas face when the kid is whispering in her ear. Priceless! Also watch the little brat kids face too as she acts out quite effectively "if looks could kill" on another little girl. Enjoy James Garner who is as handsome as ever. The film takes the viewer by surprise. You see it starts out rather mundane and slowly surfaces here and there until we are grabbed. Then, it doesn't let go. Stay with it through all this because your emotions will go full cycle and run toward the comeuppance part. Also consider the ending. Was there any truth to all these lies? Does it take one to know one? Enjoy

Reviewed by guy_in_oxford 1 / 10

The poster child for Hollywood's pandering to homophobes

Due to the various censorship codes that Hollywood adopted to please religious activists, it went from showing films with two men dancing to violin (one of the earliest American films), Tarzan swimming briefly with a naked man, and even the cheesy camp The Search for Beauty which showed men's bare backsides in a locker room briefly and the muscular protagonist (who undresses inside of a towel like one of today's New Prudery locker room wimps) being glanced at while showering (in a low stall) by a young man who smiles a lot after that. None of that is particularly offensive or egregious, in terms of sexual content. But, even hints at homoeroticism were far too much for the morally superior crusaders.

That Search of Beauty picture can, of course, hide behind the curtain of Eugenics (more popular in the US than in Europe, arguably, at the time). It has the big floor show that was a fad at the time, as seen in Stalin's favorite film, so it wasn't as cheesy to period audiences. However, the small amount of homoeroticism in this American film was enough to raise the ire of crusaders and Hollywood responded by preempting their attempt at pushing a censorship code by adopting their own. (Ironically, that Stalin favorite propagandizes in favor of the Soviets by opposing American racism. There was absolutely no trace of homoeroticism or appreciation of the male body anywhere in it. But, it has the elaborate '30s floor show.)

The point was that the common notion in the viewing public that Hollywood always had "a vendetta against them" as JL Mankiewicz put it, is not true in the big picture. Unfortunately, though, the early years where that vendetta was largely lacking (including in Russia where people like Eisenstein were tremendously influential, despite obvious homoerotic overtones in their films) turned into a very long history of heterosexism and homophobia.

That vendetta basically was throwing gays under the bus to grease the profit wheels of the industry.

In Russia, it was part of the Stalinist chilling effect on freedom, liberty, and all that — under the familiar guise of family friendliness. That chill has never left.

This film's loathsome over-the-top homophobia and heterosexism should be seen by film school students as a case study in how not to turn your film into a soap opera pretending to be depth. Sociology and Social Psychology students might be interested in the artificiality of the script, particularly the extremely over-the-top crying confessional scene between the two women. It's the film equivalent of putting a bar of soap into the viewer's mouth or dragging a puppy through its excrement. But, I suppose a heterosexual viewer might feel better about it. After all, they're not the ones being preached about — how it's necessary for society that they kill themselves over some brat and a bunch of bored and boring busybodies.

Pass on this one. You'll find out all you need to know about it if you watch The Celluloid Closet, which documents the corrosive effects of the Hayes Code and other semi-voluntary policies adopted by Hollywood. That film is much more worth one's time (as is the book).

Gays, as is so often true, are the canaries in the coal mine of politics. We're easy, soft, targets.

Reviewed by meadever 10 / 10


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.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment