Love Affair (1939)

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Boyer and Dunne make a thin story extremely watchable, virtually identical to its Fifties remake and completely different.For example, the radio commentators who open the movie are far more matter-of-fact than the remake, where TV seems to have made their 50's counterparts histrionic - bordering on hysteria, as though they're reporting the story of the Century. Boyer himself is much more convincing as a Provencal playboy than Grant and, thank god, there's no opening song screaming at you from the screen.Likewise, all the kids are far less intrusive in this version than the the 50's and the wardrobe is very much more subdued and realistic.As with the remake the best parts are those focusing on Boyer and Dunne. They're on-board banter and sophisticated soft-shoe almost match Grant and Kerr's.But this is where the two versions diverge seriously.The Boyer/Dunne dance plays like a ship board dalliance, not a sudden fall into love. Boyer, while more than willing to take advantage of an opportune coupling, never rises to the next level regardless of what the script wants. His energy level is identical in the final scene as the first, making the final scene fall somewhat flat. If this were the only version, that lack of intensity would likely have gone unnoticed.Compared to the Grant/Kerr version, there's no contest. Grant's performance in the final scene convincingly evolves from Hurt Schoolboy through Clueless Beau to Sudden Understanding in an organic progression that elevates the scene from mundane to iconic.This is not a criticism, simply an example of how the two versions diverge. On one hand, the Boyer/Dunne version is an eminently watchable and enjoyable film from a journeyman learning his trade.On the other-hand, the Grant/Kerr version is slightly flawed by emphasizing certain elements of the original but raises the story to the level of a classic love story. Kerr's performance shines with Grant keeping pace until the final scene where, almost led by the nose by Kerr, he gives a bravura performance.While the two are virtually identical they couldn't be more different.Odd, that, but fortunate. Two movies sharing so much yet each so unique to itself that both are worth as many watchings as you can handle.

This story was quite popular with movie goers when it was first released in 1939. And it's probably safe to say that it hasn't lost any of its sparkle in all of the years since then. It has been remade several times-- once as AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER and again as LOVE AFFAIR (1994), but nothing surpasses the original. Who else can better convey this poignant romance than Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer, both at the height of their Hollywood careers? They do such a marvelous job. I love the sequence where they visit Maria Ouspenskaya's character and pray at the church together. Exquisite, simple, lovely. What a classic love story! Dunne & Boyer made two other films together, but this is their finest.

This is a good movie, but compared to its remake -- "An Affair To Remember" -- it runs second. The difference? 18 years and Cary Grant.In terms of plot, both films are virtually the same. In fact, much of the dialog is the same. After all, it was the same director -- Leo McCarey. More often than not, I prefer the original over remakes, but in this case, I do feel "An Affair To Remember" is the better film. Cary Grant could clearly out Boyer Charles Boyer, but that's not to say that Boyer's performance here is not good. It is. And, although I really like Deborah Kerr and her "snappier" attitude in "An Affair To Remember", I think that Irene Dunne is better suited for the role, so in that sense, Dunne shines more brightly than Kerr. I could have also seen Claudette Colbert in the lead role.In terms of supporting cast, Cathleen Nesbitt in the remake was a better grandmother than Maria Ouspenskaya in the original, though the latter has certainly played a great many memorable roles in her career, and the former I was not familiar with at all until the remake. Ouspenskaya is very good here.Perhaps it may seem unfair to simply compare the two films, but after all, the director remade his original almost scene by scene, with close to the same dialog. How can one not make comparisons? Watching all three versions of this film is interesting, but the Grant-Kerr version is undoubtedly the classiest...and in color!Both this and the Grant-Kerr version are excellent films, but only the Grant-Kerr version is on my DVD shelf.

As someone who is a lover of romantic comedies I thought this film was excellent. I have seen films like Sleepless in Seattle and An Affair to Remember and this this blows those films out of the water. Charles Boyer is absolutely charming fitting the bill for French playboy. Irene Dunn's play her character to well and she is quite likable, she is not one to fall for Boyer's attempts to woo her and she has a great sense of humor. The two are the typical polar opposites that are necessary for a film like this. The chemistry between the two actors is quite believable and I found myself praying they would get together in the end. The sets for the film were quite elaborate, the scenes shot on the cruise ships and inside the passenger's cabins offer an element of verisimilitude although it quite clear it is all shot on movie sets and not on location. The softness of the lighting is quite telling of the era that this film was made but it works beautifully for this film and adds a more romantic element to the film. The camera-work and the acting make this film just stunning.