Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Lawbolisted Powerful

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

gkeith_1 Spoilers. Observations. Opinions.John Beal loses out. He gets third billing here. Elsewhere, he is Hepburn's main man (in The Little Minister). In this film he is best buds with Boyer, supposedly the suave leading man matinée idol.Boyer, here, is a cad; tons of women hangers-on. He loves 'em all, and has their pictures up everywhere. Hepburn is like, well, I might just be next in line.Boyer has women everywhere being bowled over by him, but his orchestra members are ticked off by his verbal cruelty.Boyer and Hepburn marry, and are off to a whirlwind European honeymoon. Beal is off stage.Boyer, later on, shows up very late to a concert performance, and I think that the orchestra members get their due in his inebriated attempts to be professional -- at which he fails.He loses Hepburn. He is such a jerk, and she finally sees right through him.Later, she has gone to Reno to end the marriage. Who else appears on the train with her on the way to NYC but The Little Minister himself. John Beal has an American accent here, and in the train scene almost a snappy 1930s gangster-like patter.Beal woos Hepburn with an instant sort-of marriage proposal. Hepburn, meanwhile, has gone back to be with drunken Boyer, and everything ends.I wanted her to end up with Beal, but alas, no.I am a degreed historian, actress, film critic and movie reviewer. I like Katharine Hepburn films, especially her early ones that get bad press. In these, she is young, lithe and demure. There is no S. Tracy. These films were made in the middle of the Great Depression, and they are uplifting.

vincentlynch-moonoi For me, this film just doesn't work.The reason -- the casting of Katharine Hepburn in the lead role. Don't misunderstand me -- I like most Hepburn films, and from what I have read, this film was written specifically for her. However, what we enjoy most are those Hepburn roles where she has "spunk" (for wont of a better term). Here, there's darn little spunk; perhaps in a scene or two. Otherwise, we're supposed to see Hepburn as a somewhat demure, love-struck woman. Well, that's what doesn't work...the demure part.Hepburn plays a woman with designs on composing music, although we never quite figure out how talented is is or isn't. She falls in love with a noted classical conductor (Charles Boyer). Although they are happily married, Boyer strays just a bit, taking an old flame out to dinner, where they are discovered accidentally by Hepburn. Hepburn ends the marriage and falls "in like" with John Beal, a pleasant though apparently shiftless young man. Meanwhile, Boyer's character falls apart, becoming a drunk, and is disgraced and withdraws from his career as a conductor. Of course, in the end they reconcile, though not before a twist or two.While the Hepburn role left much to be desired, Boyer does quite nicely here in one of his fairly early American films when he was in his mid-30s; he's quite young looking. John Beal gives a so-so performance as a friend to both Boyer and Hepburn, although I didn't find his voice very satisfying. The well-known actor Jean Hersholt is here as a music teacher, and does nicely, though the role isn't the most impressive (this film was 2 years before he played the beloved grandfather to Shirley Temple's "Heidi").Worth mentioning is the score here...by the great Max Steiner. Several of the orchestral pieces are excellent.Not a bad film concept, just bad casting in terms of Hepburn. The film never recovers from her insipid performance (and incidentally, the film didn't do much more than break even).

Sara Hardin This love story was actually good. Philip Moeller did not make this movie what it could have been. A better director such as George Cukor (who was familiar with Hepburn) would have made the scenes much more enjoyable. Katharine Hepburn does a good job of the aspiring composer and Charlie Boyer as the Great Franz Roberti, conductor. The two both have too much pride instead of talking things over, which is relatable. It's also surprising how Hepburn and Boyer got away with slamming each other with insults of their promiscuity. All in all, it was a good movie for Hepburn to do in her early career, and fans of her will enjoy it.

ndisabat I honestly went into this movie thinking it would be god awful like the critics said. I guess I'm prejudice when it comes to Katharine Hepburn.You might say that the way Waterloo Bridge photographed Vivien Leigh is similar to how Hepburn is photographed in Break of Hearts.Her face and her eyes are aglow in nearly every scene. I don't think she was over acting at all like some have said.Boyer does a decent job as the famous composer Franz Roberti.It really isn't a variation of "A Star is Born" like one reviewer has said.Sure the plot's basically mush, but I still enjoyed seeing Hepburn at the height of her youth.It's a good film for Hepburn fans at least.