Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosreparto y equipo completostrivialidadesofficial sitesfrases célebresOverview
información principalinformación combinadareparto y equipo completoscréditos de compañíastv schedulePremios y críticas
comentarios de los usuarioscríticas externascríticas de grupos de usuariosawardsCalificacionesparents guiderecomendacionesmessage boardArgumento y citas
argumentoplot synopsispalabras clave del argumentosinopsis Amazon.comfrases célebresCosas divertidas
trivialidadespifiastemas musicalescréditos extravagantesotras versionesenlaces entre películaspreguntas frecuentesOtro tipo de información
enlaces a productosbox office/businessfechas de estrenolugares de rodajeespecificaciones técnicasLaserdiscDVDlecturas relacionadasNewsDeskMaterial promocional
frases comerciales trailers and videos carteles y enlaces photo galleryEnlaces externos
enlaces a cinesofficial sitesmisceláneosfotografíassound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Of Human Bondage (1964)
13 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
EXCELLENT AND SUPERIOR, 17 septiembre 2004
Author: Scoval71 de New York, NY
Those are the words to describe this movie. And that honor belongs mostly to Kim Novak who brings absolute realism to the role as Mildred Rogers. The music is great and Kim Novak is so beautiful and completely believable as Maugham's character. Just a movie not to miss. I loved it and have seen it many times and I have the same opinion over and over. The other players are adequate and just as believable but the real reason for this movie is Kim Novak. She is excellent and superior in this movie. And did I say beautiful.....and she still is today as well. A movie not to be missed. A story that will hold your attention as the character of Mildred Rogers evolves.
9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Kim Novak is the Best Mildred, 10 enero 2008
Author: krdement de United States
I do not think this is a movie about love. It is a movie that compares and contrasts MANY human emotions that hold us in bondage - most notably, love and obsession. I pity people who think that what Philip (Harvey) feels for Mildred (Novak) is LOVE! However, of the 3 portrayals of Mildred in this Somerset Maugham tale, this one is the strongest. Maugham, himself, thought so. When you see Novak's Mildred, you will know why.
Bette Davis' performance in the original may have been groundbreaking, but neither the film nor her performance is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; it earns my respect and admiration. However, it is not very nuanced; she is nothing but a shrew. Also, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Philip Carey's obsession with Mildred. The original film and the portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.
For my money, both of the remakes are better movies. Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak both portray a Mildred who is prettier and less shrewish - and consequently more believable. Mildred becomes both more understandable and more pathetic. Also, because they are both prettier than Davis, obsession with either one of them is a great deal more conceivable.
Kim Novak's talent was almost as great as her beauty. She really has a chance to shine in this role. Her Mildred is easily the best portrayal. She delivers an incredibly nuanced performance that renders Mildred much more accessible and sympathetic and less despicable. She truly is human, and in bondage to her obsessions. Bette Davis' one-dimensional portrayal of Mildred absolute pales by comparison with Novak's.
Consequently, this film is also better, for providing a central character that is far more complex and human. Only through the Mildred portrayed with the beauty and complex humanity of Kim Novak does the character of Philip ever make any sense.
Regardless of what you may have heard about Kim Novak or this version of Somerset Maugham's story, give them a shot. I think you'll appreciate this unjustly maligned movie.
10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Not Bette Davis, but sometimes that's a *good* thing!, 29 agosto 2002
Author: MissGirlFriday de Los Angeles, California
It is unfortunate that the 1934 version of this film has become the precedent by which all following adaptations seemed to be judged. This version does not try to imitate the "classic" and is an entirely different animal (making up for many of the flaws in the original).
Whereas Bette Davis portrayed Mildred as an over-the-top shrew, Kim Novak gave her an almost childlike naivety. It is not that Mildred wants purposely to hurt men but rather that she simply does not know how to behave better. Novak's interpretation gives Mildred the much needed humanity that was absent in the first version. Since Mildred now has genuine moments of kindness, it is much easier to see how Philip (Laurence Harvey) becomes obsessed with her.
Harvey, however, is greatly miscast in this film. As a crippled young man who likes art and helping people through medicine, Philip has a great deal of sensitivity (as seen through Leslie Howard's performance in the original). But Harvey, the actor who relished in being unlikable, is completely unable to deliver this. He fared much better in grimy roles ("Walk on the Wild Side," "Darling") and so he is only convincing in the scenes where he yells and slaps Mildred. (Given the reports that Harvey and Novak loathed each other, it is easy to see why these scenes are the most convincing). He is terrible, however, at looking smitten.
Performances aside, this version is refreshingly modern. Rather than glaze over the seedier bits to appease the censors, you will actually hear words like `whore' and `syphilis.' The final scenes are quite touching too, thanks in part to Novak's humility (she truly looks decrepit towards the end). The score cascades a little too loud and often though in all the pivotal scenes and this version would have benefited greatly from a more realistic approach.
This is a must see if you are a fan of the story and Kim Novak. Somerset Maugham supposedly adored Novak's interpretation of Mildred and it truly is a refreshing take on Of Human Bondage.
6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
I Waited Years To See This Version, 5 octubre 2007
Author: Sam Sloan de Richmond, Virginia
I read the book many years ago and it has remained one of my favorite novels. For many years since I read the book, whenever the film was shown on television, it was always the 1934 version with Bette Davis. Don't get me wrong, Bette Davis was a great actress, but for me she failed to come across as the writer Somerset Maugham had intended Mildred to be. The first time I caught the Davis version, I could only watch a few minutes of it before I gave up and could watch no longer, lest it ruin the impression of Mildred the book provided for me. Finally after many years of waiting, I caught the 1964 version and I wasn't disappointed. Someone on the message board mentioned that Somerset Maugham was most pleased with the way Kim Novak played the role and I could understand why. Immediately when I began watching Kim Novak, I was transfixed by her and felt that I had at last found Mildred as the writer intended her to be - not some shrill shrew, but an emotionally damaged beauty, still a child that had somehow made it to adulthood. It was easy to see how Philip, played perfectly by Laurence Harvey could have fallen in love with her - vulnerable, lovable, innocent, unsophisticated, always forgiving yet at the same time mean, selfish hateful, irresponsible, helpless, ignorant and vindictive. Aren't those the same characteristics we find in children? Some might question describing Mildred as innocent. Because of her promiscuous flirtatious nature, some might understandably dismiss her as a whore as Philip's best friend Griffiss continually tries to remind him. But this film is set in England of the Victorian era and some allowances can be made for that. And with Novak's great acting skills we see that Mildred was very complicated and we can't easily condemn her on the basis of her sexual misbehavior. This is what makes Novak's adaptation so appealing, that she can take this role and actually make us empathize with Mildred, if not actually see ourselves, like Philip, falling into the abyss by falling in love with her ourselves. This is what Kim Novak succeeded in doing and Bette Davis never even attempted. Bette Davis never developed the character to the degree that Novak did where we could see if she could pull it off. We could never feel much for the character Davis portrayed, but we could with Novak's - in spite of those same flaws that each of the actresses had to work with in the character of Mildred. Philip did in this saga come across other women with the best of qualities, and without those flaws found in Mildred though certainly not her beauty. But it was Mildred that would always be his great love -whether it destroyed him, as it nearly does, or finally her, as it does in the end. Only by her death could he ever escape the hold she had upon him. Kim Novak captured Mildred perfectly. Don't be put off by the IMDb's low rating for this movie relative to the Davis version. Read the book and you'll see right away that this was Mildred as the writer intended.
This film was set in Victorian England and it was perfectly suited for black and white format. It would have made as much sense to have made this movie in color as to have made the movie The Elephant Man in color. By using black and white, the film had the look and quality of that same movie, also set in Victorian England. Indeed, the story lines were similar in a sense - one of a good and gentle man trapped in a hideously deformed body that ultimately kills him. And in this, we have a cripple, and as Mildred herself often refers to him, a gentleman, who is also trapped, but unlike John Merek of the Elephant Man, in a relationship from hell that nearly destroys him as well. Philip as he confides to a friend when asked to describe his relationship with the now dead Mildred: "It is like a disease has burned through me. But not like one that one can see." Some might see parallels between the Elephant Man and Philip Carey. They are there.
Particularly sad to watch was the end of this movie. People sometimes note movies for their tear jerker quality - movies like Madam X, Imitation of Life, The Elephant Man and others. But this movie, because of the ending especially should be rated up there with any of those. In this movie, trains and train stations figured prominently in the most happiest of times in the relationship between Philip and Mildred. The final scene where Mildred is being lowered into her grave, a train passes, on a berm above this sad scene, probably the same train they had once ridden together happily in life and in love. The train seems to be saying good bye to her as we hear the rumble of train across the tracks and the mournful cry of the train's whistle. This happens as Philip turns his back on her for the last time to walk from her and to his new love waiting just outside the wrought iron gate of the cemetery. We can't but wonder if this new love he has found can ever release him from the grip that Mildred, if only her memory must still have upon him. This scene can't help but be emotionally emotionally wrenching for anyone who sees it. This is a great movie and a great credit to a great novel by Somerset Maugham and a great actress, Kim Novak who made it come alive for me. This film belongs way up there among the IMDb's 250 best movies of all time.
6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Captures the true essence of people, 30 mayo 2005
Author: mxvigil de Los Angeles
One of the best films I have yet seen. (Then again it helps if you have lived a life in strong coincidence with the lives portrayed; and not merely a commentator, a mere critic of film)
This film was my first introduction to Ms. Novak, and yes I admit I was, am, smitten. Ms. Novak brings great depth to her role, a woman seemingly comprised of true grit, this only serving to hide her truths, truth which she never admits to herself.
Love will always be an ever-spring subject, and morality tales their best method to ambitiously telling the nature of human pain and suffering, of which there is much of in this film. The tale of a woman always lost, a woman whose redemption lies solely with the only man that would ever truly Love her.
Love can be a grand thing, though so often, Love disposes of people with nary a backwards glance.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Laurence Harvey, to me, does an excellent job., 4 octubre 2002
Author: sallybrown58@aol.com de Dallas, TX USA
This is one of those films that has given me a lasting memory. The set design was especially appealing and made me dust off my History of London textbook and take a moment to read a little more. I was impressed by Harvey's performance. He played a melancholy personality extremely well not overplaying with melodrama. I am coming from a point of view where he was unknown to me and I had no frame of reference of him or the previously made movie of the same name. ...a movie I would like to view again after I watch the original from the 30's.
8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A valentine to Kim Novak's fans, 2 octubre 2001
Author: moonspinner55 de redlands, ca
Not-bad third version of Somerset Maugham's depressing story about a sluttish waitress in London who uses and abuses a doctor obsessed with her. Ravaged by critics upon its release (and thought bannable for a time for Novak's sultry scenes), this remake isn't a classic, nor does it improve on the Bette Davis version, but it does have something. Kim Novak is just fine in the lead; Laurence Harvey also good as the smitten medico. The biggest problem is the screenplay's faithfulness to Maugham's plot, which by 1964 standards was pretty creaky and dated. Why couldn't they have updated it just a bit? For all the talk about this version being "too shocking", the movie disappoints by not shocking at all, by playing it too safe. Overall, another soap opera, though certainly a well-made, well-acted one. Novak diehards will love the film, and her. **1/2 from ****
6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
I have epilepsy and relate to this film, 15 abril 2005
Author: warren70704 de United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I'm not really sure if what I say is a spoiler but I checked the box to be sure. I began having epileptic seizures at 16 and relate very much to Phillip Carey. Right at this time I had my first girlfriend. She was SO MUCH LIKE Mildred. Crazy, sensitive,sympathetic, and I might add, she was also "sympatheic" to others when she wasn't being sympathetic to me! Just like Mildred. She was considered by many to be a "whore" but I was nuts about her! To me, she was the greatest thing I'd ever experienced. In addition to seizures, I came from a terrible home. No love at all. My father never accepted me having seizures(he lived in another state since I was 11,so only heard about them)He was in denial and his only comment was "it didn't come from MY side of the family." My mom was always gone-"dating". I was so loved starved I literally "drank" everyone of "my Mildred's" kisses. As in the movie, she kissed me first, knowing I was too shy. I was devastated when she had to 'break-up" with me because she was PG by a former boyfriend. He called her a slut. I thought Harvey was Great, as was Novak. I LOVE the music and don't consider it over done at all! I love the movie but it does hurt to watch as it takes me back. I relate. Truly, "Of Human Bondage."
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A surprising gem, 9 octubre 2007
Author: samhill5215 de United States
As others have likewise commented, it is unfortunate this version will inevitably be compared to the 1934 film, but I think it stands up very well on its own. I'm not a great fan of either Novak or Harvey and I was astonished at their performances. Novak was surprisingly good, with a fresh interpretation of Mildred the slut. She captured her kind side unlike Bette Davis who seemed all bad, all of the time. Harvey also surprised me with his take on the sensitive Philip. There is one scene that is etched in my mind: after sex Mildred has just told Philip that she is getting married and as Philip pulls away the camera focuses on Mildred's profile on the pillow. Her eyes capture her essence better than any other scene. She is simultaneously calculating, bitchy and concerned. Watch for it, it's worth a second look.
4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Pleasantly surprised, 15 diciembre 2003
Author: Norma Rode de pennsylvania, usa
I was looking forward to seeing the Bette Davis version of this movie. But as usual the TV Guide messed up and I got this Kim Novak version.I must say Kim Novak played her part to the max. I was screaming and yelling at the TV. She really got me to hate her, so I know she really played her part well. I gave it a 10.
Add another comment
Related Links