The Gift of Love (1958)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

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.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

OK, I've seen some sappy movies in my time, but none as saccharine as this. It's the story of preparing for the future of one's loved ones, facing the possibility of death with dignity and leaving a legacy of comfort for the survivors behind. In many aspects, it's not at all realistic, but to criticize it would be like beating your Valentine over the head with a Hallmark card. Therefore, it feels necessary to go into this with an extremely open mind, and the only way is to accept the fact that this is what life is like in some alternate universe, where like the song "Loveland" in the musical "Follies" explains that lovebirds cannot be separated, lest the survivor swoon and die.Upon meeting handsome scientist Robert Stack, doctor's assistant Lauren Bacall offers to soothing his sore back by giving him a rubdown. Within minutes, they are leaving to have a drink, and minutes later are coming out of a wedding chapel. She moves into his home downstairs from an observatory, and it seems like the nest is full, even five years after their marriage. But when fate intervenes, she decides to make sure that if the worst happens, he won't be alone, and brings the young and troubled Evelyn Rudie into their home. However, not everything goes as planned, and for swooning and dying lovebird Stack, it takes a major gift of love to bring him back to life.Coming out as Bacall recovered from the shock of husband Bogie's death, it seems a bit sentimental and even a little sappy at times. The two lovebirds are far too perfect together, yet there's a sense of darkness behind all of the pathos. Rudie is a natural, fine young actress, even when precocious and pretending that she's a horse. Bacall plays the ultimate heroine, not manipulative in any way, and is too good to be true. Stack gives a dark performance as he faces grief and confusion, going through the stages realistically and with intensity. Lorne Greene, Anne Seymour, Edward Platt and young Scatman Crothers are quite good in support. So take this for what it is, a message film with a huge heart, and leave the diabetic medicine for those who need it.

In this film, we have 70 minutes to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the lead character (Lauren Bacall) is going to die. If we've already seen the original version of this Fox melodrama, we know just how much of an eternity that hour and ten minutes may seem. For most of this time, however, our interest is sustained by Lauren Bacall's credible performance as a terminal woman who wants to adopt a little girl (Evelyn Rudie) and leave it behind to keep her husband (Robert Stack) company. The Freudian implications of such thoughtful generosity are not fully disclosed, but we are expected to accept this contrivance just the same. Beginning with the 71st minute of this motion picture, we are subjected to a series of painful scenes where Stack deals with death and the unlikelihood of raising Rudie without Bacall. There are countless moments where the characters mention talking to Bacall's spirit, presumably out of camera-range. This begs the question: why not just have Bacall hover over them, superimposed, to suggest some sort of present supernatural form? But the real reason the last thirty minutes without Miss Bacall are terribly difficult to watch is because the narrative at this point must rely strictly on Mr. Stack and Miss Rudie, who are just not able to hold our attention. Quite frankly, the young actress is not good enough to handle such a huge part; some of Rudie's line deliveries are so monotone and emotionless that all the hard work Bacall had done earlier in the picture is compromised. And when it becomes apparent that Rudie lacks the ability to bring some depth to the role, we feel sorry for Stack having to go through the paces with her, and we envy Bacall who took the last exit and got off at Heaven.

i remember it exactly as the reviewer above. I was about the same age when i first saw it and just recall being drawn in to the story from the little orphans point of view. Lauren Bacall has been my favourite actress ever since and im waiting to watch the film again and gain an adult perspective. Im not expecting i will feel the same and am concerned about maybe some of the magic being lost, but still, i need to do it to satisfy a 25 year long desire to see this film again. I haven't read any critic reviews and im sure it has been rubbished given a loose storyline, but cute and sweet and a little something to warm your heart.

I was quite young (around 14) when I saw this movie on TV. While I could not remember the cast very much at that time, the story and the way the actors/actresses had carried the story through made a lasting impression on me - what it means when any child can be your child - it takes only to show love and how it can fill the gaps in our lives. This story of this film helped me to help many of my friends who did not have their own children and that they can enjoy the gift if they open their minds and hearts to them - as the leading lady impresses upon the husband. The beginning of romance between the two and the moments they draw together and next when we see them as a couple are all well portrayed.