JohnHowardReid My chief problem with the picture is not that I think Cooper is woefully miscast, as do most of the movie's detractors. It's a most unusual role for Coop certainly, but, in my opinion, he makes quite a fair fist of it. I also liked Ida Lupino, but I felt the normally ultra-reliable Donald Meek made but a poor impression with his role-admittedly small, but important. On the other hand, Douglass Dumbrille is given an elaborate introduction as the colonel, but then completely disappears! As for the children - Dickie Moore and Virginia Weidler - they are both absolute horrors, though Master Moore is far the more obnoxious of the two.Admittedly, I hardly expected du Maurier's Mimsey to be accurately (or even half-heartedly) translated to film. But even so, Miss Weidler is surely the very opposite of the child du Maurier describes: "the reverse of beautiful, although she would have had fine eyes but for her red lashless lids. She wore her thick hair cropped short, like a boy, and was pasty and sallow in complexion, hollow-cheeked, thick-featured, and overgrown, with long thin hands and feet, and arms and legs of quite pathetic length and tennity; a silent and melancholy little girl, who sucked her thumb perpetually, and kept her own counsel." Fortunately, both Ann Harding and John Halliday are cast more in the du Maurier mold, and - what's more important - both display excellent presence and ability.The chief problem for me really comes down to Hathaway. He seemed to me to be a bit out of his element here. Three of the players were so embarrassingly bad, it's almost beyond belief that a skillful director could allow such ineptitude to slip by. Especially with such key support players. Admittedly, two were children, but Hathaway himself was a child actor. You could understand a bit-player or a minor actor gumming up a scene. He's on the set for a few days at most - and then gone forever. But actors that a director is supposed to be guiding, day in, day out, for weeks on end! Hathaway has stated, on more than one occasion, that actors are hired to act. It is not the director's job, he feels, to guide them with their interpretations, let alone help and succor actors who have been miscast or are out of their depth. On the other hand, Hathaway would know from his own personal experiences the particular requirements of child actors and one would expect him to rise to the challenge. But this was obviously not the case here.If Hathaway is not the man for the players, he is also not the man for this type of story. He's an action man, not a Lubitsch who can handle fantasy and Romance. That's "Romance" with a capital "R", not sex, or even just your everyday celluloid boy-meets-girl. The two or three action scenes and the tense confrontation at the dinner-table (masterfully shot from six or eight angles, and skilfully edited by Stuart Heisler) do come across with powerful effectiveness. But elsewhere, Hathaway is obviously laboring with difficulty with unfamiliar surroundings and trappings. The fantasy material lacks tight supervision. Its effects are too obvious, too heavy-handed.I can understand why many French critics love this movie. Sub-titles would not only disguise the inadequacies of Moore's and Weidler's performances, but allow freedom to interpret the visuals more imaginatively and romantically. In a foreign language, - and for those of us with more sensitive dispositions, - "Peter Ibbetson" would likely emerge as a profoundly moving experience.

MartinHafer While it's obvious that almost all the reviewers adored this film, I feel a voice of dissent is needed, as I have a different perspective. Although this is one of the loveliest looking films I can think of from the era, I was left cold by the film because I felt the plot didn't make much sense and because the characters were jerks---yes, jerks. To me, the film was NOT about true romance but blind infatuation and selfishness, but more about that later.The film begins with a prologue. Young Peter Ibbetson (played by Dickie Moore) looks to be about 5 and he is alternately playing with and arguing with the little girl who is his best friend. Unfortunately, soon his mother dies and he is taken to England to live out most of the rest of his life. However, the plot demands that this little infatuation with a little girl is not only NOT forgotten but so consumes Ibbetson that decades later he returns to France to try to find this girl. This is utterly ridiculous, as was his "accidentally" discovering this same girl, now grown, quite by mistake when he fell in love with her all over again (while not realizing it was the same person). Talk about straining credibility! But, it gets worse. The lady is already married--yet Ibbetson doesn't give a darn about the husband and demands that she run off with him!!!!!! So, they're basing this "love that will withstand the ages" mostly on the vague recollections of a guy thinking about life at age 5...and this doesn't seem illogical to anyone? Plus, now the lady is married to a wealthy titled man and yet this will somehow work out?!! When the husband finds out and tries to kill Ibettson (after all, this is a matter of honor and it is the early 19th century--a duel or simply shooting Ibbetson would have been the proper tactic), the husband is killed in the scuffle...and we are expected to feel bad only for Ibbetson and his lady love? I actually felt worse for the husband--up until then, he seemed like a decent enough sort. Sure, he shouldn't have tried to kill Peter, but can you blame him for trying to get rid of this shameless home-wrecker? Now, Ibbetson is in prison for the rest of his life. Now here it gets weird...very weird. Ibbetson spends the rest of his life meeting with and loving Mary in his mind--and she, too, can see and experience all these meetings along with him! There is no explanation for this odd symbiosis...it just happens as if by magic. And, when he finally dies, they meet in some external bliss together. Uggh--what hooey! These portions of the film are so sticky and tough to watch.So, the film is based on a love affair between two dumb and selfish people. Dumb, because loving somebody as a small child should NOT be the basis for uprooting and destroying lives. This movie is all emotion and no logic from start to finish. Cooper plays a selfish and mushy character who I had a hard time liking--not a rugged or manly sort of fellow, just a jerk.So why did I still give the movie a 4 even if I though I disliked the plot so much and felt it tried to justify adultery? Well, I gotta hand it to Henry Hathaway's direction--it was a truly lovely film to look at and it was very manipulative. Plus, the great sound track really pulled on your heartstrings (whatever a 'heartstring' is).

zetes I've never been a big fan of Cooper, but he's adequate here as an architect who is obsessed with his long lost female best friend from childhood. I actually thought the first section of the film, which takes place during childhood with the characters played by Dickie Moore and Virginia Weidler, was the strongest. It's always surprising to come along a competent child actor in Golden Age cinema, so it was nice to have two of them here. The second section of the film has Cooper meeting the girl again, this time played by the beautiful Ann Harding. Unfortunately, she's married to a Duke. The third chapter I won't ruin, but I have to say I wasn't too happy with the fantastical premise of the two characters sharing each other's dreams. It seemed too out there for what is otherwise a realistic film. Still, you'd have to be made of stone not to be moved by it all. Henry Hathaway's direction is fine, and the cinematography is often exquisite. The score, which is the only aspect of the film that received an Oscar nomination, is particularly beautiful. Ida Lupino gives a short but great supporting performance as an Englishwoman Cooper meets on his holiday in Paris.

FERNANDO SILVA Once again, like many other film's I've finally come to see, after reading so many about them and longing to have the opportunity of watching them (i.e. "Trouble in Paradise"), I was afraid this one was not going to meet my expectations, and I was wrong.First of all, Gary Cooper really impressed me so favorably; so early in his career he was able to handle such a difficult role and give a complex and sensitive performance, conveying Peter Ibbetson's ethereal aspects. Gary Cooper was really a fine actor (not only a charming personality and huge star), good at Drama, Adventure, Western, Romance, Comedy et al.Cooper portrays the idealistic Peter Ibbetson, a young man so deeply attached to his childhood memories, that he cannot feel fulfilled or happy, in spite that he's supposed to have everything a man would wish, to find happiness.Ann Harding, on the other hand, of whose performance regarding this film I've read that she wasn't ethereal enough to play this part (Peter Ibbetson's childhood sweetheart, Mary), I must say that I found her well suited to it, as always giving a sincere, sensitive, natural and restrained performance, looking perfect in period clothes.Both lead performers transmit truth into their characterizations, embodying the love that transcends all the obstacles or "L'amour fou" as French defined it, giving endearing performances. Beautiful Cinematography by the great Charles Lang and great sets by Hans Dreier.John Halliday plays expertly the stern Duke of Towers; Ida Lupino looks pretty and shows her great talent in a supporting role as a vulgar English woman Peter Ibbetson befriends in Paris and Douglass Drumbille is the "menacing at first sight", uncle of the Title character.Mention apart deserve lovely Virginia Weidler and Dickie Moore, who portray the leading stars as children, giving impressive, terrific performances. Their scenes together have been among the most heart-wrenching and sincere I've ever seen, featuring a couple of child actors (the 1949 film "The Secret Garden" featuring Dean Stockwell and Margaret O'Brien comes to my mind).If you liked such pictures as "Smilin' Through", "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir", "I'll Never Forget You", "Berkeley Square", "Somewhere in Time" or "Portrait of Jennie", you must see this one.The DVD transfer (released by Universal as part of the "Gary Cooper Collection") is of very good quality.