martindonovanitaly I don't know why, sometimes I think it may have to do with previous lives, otherwise why do I feel so comfortable within the discomforts of this English seaside hotel. But the fact is that, often, I want to put it on and sit at one of the tables myself. I believe that Terence Rattigan is the main reason. What a wonderful writer. Then, Gladys Cooper of course, how can such a perfidious mother be such a pleasure to watch? Maybe is that explosive combination of Rattigan/Cooper. Wendy Hiller in one of her few meaty roles in movies, she won an Oscar for it and every nuance, every look is worth pages and pages of exposition. Exquisite. Cathleen Nesbitt is a joy to behold. Deborah Kerr, David Niven who also won the Oscar for his sad impostor, Burt Lancaster and Rita Hayworth bring a dash of Hollywood to the grayness of Bournemouth. Okay, now, dinner is served. Don't let it get cold.

urbisoler-1 Actually, I would rate this film a bit higher than 8 if I knew how to do so. You wouldn't think that a film where the action takes place in virtually one room would qualify for greatness but the character studies alone make this film outstanding. One of the best ever. Fortunately, there is sufficient variety in character to keep one's interest at a high level. You don't have time for your mind to question why one behaves thus before the story is already involved with another character's dilemma. And, you don't have time to critique how well a character displays an emotion before the impact is felt elsewhere. If you are a collector of fine films, this one belongs in your collection.

Movie Critic What surprised me in this movie is how much things have changed since 1958. It is hard to believe I was alive at the time. However, I remember well how a divorced person was something hushed like having cancer---or being dear God! an alcoholic---so yes this movie is believable. What an uptight nightmare. My second surprise is that 2 of the actors won Oscars--David Niven and Wendy Hiller--Niven best leading actor and Hiller supporting. But Niven's role was tiny! Just proves my feeling that Oscars mean absolutely nothing except who has connections or what new PC theme is being covered. (in this case frigidity)That said I found this talky movie a provenance of later talky boring adult themed intense about nothing movies with famous stars. It reminded me of Who is afraid of Virginia Wolf.This is an actors movies where the actors think they are finally being used for serious topics.The story is about a dozen guests in a hotel over a period of a couple days as various sub plots circle around a center plot of a man who inappropriately elbows women in movie theaters and what to do about such a guest. Topics include frigid wives--vicious gossips--losers who make up their pasts and an alcoholic writer. It is filmed in about 2 rooms.I would avoid it unless nothing else is available. It is not terrible in the way other movies are terrible it is just dull.

Holdjerhorses Having recently watched "You Were Never Lovelier" with Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth, it's interesting to notice how she was largely shot and directed throughout her career.Her dancing in "Lovelier" was fun and fine in "The Shorty George," where she's relaxed and clearly having a ball -- and appears to be keeping up with Astaire. "Appears" is the operative word. Astaire (who choreographed) carefully kept their routines within Hayworth's range, never challenging her beyond her capacities. But Hayworth completely lacked Ginger Rogers' lithe body fluidity and on screen electricity.Hayworth was stunningly beautiful, of course. But even in "Lovelier" there are moments when, not carefully lit, the forehead lines that were so apparent in later years (unless also carefully lit) were already apparent and fleetingly distracting.More to the point was how she was directed and photographed in "Lovelier." She actually has very few lines. What she does have are usually brief and delivered in a relatively quick take before cutting away.She never makes emotional transitions in a scene. Rather, the camera cuts to a new angle when she's called on to register a different emotion. The primary goal at all times is to maintain her seemingly flawless facial beauty. Fine in a fluff piece like "Lovelier."Cut to "Separate Tables" 16 years later.Hayworth is still beautiful if more "mature." AGAIN she is never shown making an emotional transition in one shot: cutaways are instead employed. The technique (to disguise her limited acting abilities) is particularly jarring in her dramatic scene in her bedroom with Burt Lancaster. On closer inspection, she "poses" from cut to cut rather than displaying her character's emotional arcs.Sure, she was supposed to be an aging model, all self-possessed poise. But not in that dramatic scene.Still, it's a fascinating lesson in how skilled film making disguises limited range. (For a heartbreaking account of the making of her last film, read Frank Langella's "Dropped Names.")Terence Rattigan's play was forced to disguise the homosexual "scandal" of the Major's (David Niven) being arrested for soliciting men in dark movie houses, though the implication is fairly clear.Knowing the repression of homosexuality at that time makes Niven's performance even more involving; especially once the scandal is revealed to the boarders at the Beauregard.Niven's amazing performance (in only 16 minutes of screen time) is disarmingly deep. He goes from an almost comical figure to an exposed fraud with a dark secret since childhood, to a lost late-middle-aged man with no future, to the final hope of redemption.Niven shows all his character's subtle emotional transitions in sustained takes (unlike Hayworth).Deborah Kerr is fine and completely convincing, as always.Burt Lancaster gives another version of Burt Lancaster in not his finest hour. "Sweet Smell of Success," "The Rose Tattoo," "Come Back, Little Sheba," "Birdman of Alcatraz" and "Judgment at Nuremberg" -- even "Trapeze" -- are better records of his talents. But he's always believable.The remaining cast, especially the nuanced Wendy Hiller, are terrific.Still, it's Hayworth's impression -- not her character's -- who lingers as something not quite real, not untalented, but unrealized and somewhat vacant. It's not her mental deterioration. It was there on screen from the beginning. She tried gamely throughout her career, and looked magnificent thanks to careful costuming, lighting and cinematography. But even with careful cutaway direction she seems little more than a paper doll -- and finally, tragically, just as fragile.