Morning Glory (1993)

the audience applauded

Lack of good storyline.

Excellent but underrated film

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far too old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.Lastly, the musical score is excellent.

After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.

This is a very sweet little movie, and a good adaptation of the book. (Not a GREAT adaptation, but a good one.) Christopher Reeve's portrayal of this character was excellent.The movie could have been improved with a few flashbacks, to give the characters a bit more back story. Both the widow and the ex-convict were people who had been damaged by the cruelty of others. Both of them wanted something better for the children in their lives. Both of them wanted to believe in dignity, kindness, and respect--and therefore gave those gifts, hoping to get the same things in return.I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to think positively about hope and healing.

This movie would have been OK if it hadn't been so horribly cast. I enjoyed the book but this movie falls short of believability. Deborah Raffin was 40 years old and should not have been cast in the role of a woman that was 24 years old in the book. Elly was supposed to be a young woman and aged from 24 to 26 or so in the book. Christopher Reeve was also too old. Will Parker was at least 10 years younger than Reeve's age at the time of the book. Deborah was more believable in her other Lavyrle Spencer role in Homesong where she was playing a woman her own age. 40 just isn't 24 no matter how you cut it. Deborah is a close personal friend of the author but even so it was ridiculous.