Rex Harrison | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Rex Harrison’

It’s Hard To Explain, But You Can Be Much More Alone With Other People Than You Are By Yourself

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Bernard Herrmann, Captain Daniel Gregg, Charles Lang, Edna Best, Gene Tierney, General Comments, George Sanders, Gull Cottage, Hollywood, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Lucy Muir, Martha Huggins, Miles Fairley, Movie Reviews, Natalie Wood, R.A. Dick, Reviews, Rex Harrison, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947) — movie review, Vanessa Brown, Very Strong Movie Recommendation on May 15, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” (1947) — movie review
Today’s review is for the romantic‑fantasy drama “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir”, directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and starring Gene Tierney as Lucy Muir, a young widow trying to build an independent life for herself; Rex Harrison as Captain Daniel Gregg, the salty sea‑captain whose ghost still occupies the seaside cottage she rents; George Sanders as Miles Fairley, the smooth‑talking author who takes an interest in her; Natalie Wood as young Anna, Lucy’s daughter; Vanessa Brown as the adult Anna, now grown and trying to find her own path; and Edna Best as Martha Huggins, the loyal housekeeper who helps Lucy settle into Gull Cottage. The film blends quiet romance, light humor, and a surprisingly realistic look at loneliness, independence, and the ways people try to build a life after loss.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film in well over fifty years. I’ve known of it for years (mostly as “that old sailor-ghost romance”) but never had the opportunity to watch it (again). I also watched the two-year run of the TV series with the same title and overall plot device from the mid-1960s. Released in 1947, this film didn’t win any Academy Awards, but it has grown in reputation and is now considered a classic of the “romantic fantasy” genre. It’s also historically significant for its cinematography (beautiful black‑and‑white work by Charles Lang) and for Bernard Herrmann’s score, which (I’ve read) is considered one of his best. The film is based on the 1945 novel by R.A. Dick (a pseudonym), which I haven’t read.

Plot: Lucy Muir, recently widowed and tired of being managed by her in‑laws, moves with her daughter to a seaside cottage called Gull Cottage. The house is charming but supposedly haunted by its former owner, Captain Daniel Gregg. Lucy quickly discovers the rumors are true — Gregg’s ghost appears, gruff and annoyed that a tenant has moved in. Instead of fleeing, Lucy stands her ground, and the two develop an odd but respectful friendship. Gregg helps her find financial independence by “dictating” his memoirs, which she publishes under her own name. As Lucy tries to build a new life, she becomes involved with Miles Fairley, a popular author who seems charming but turns out to be already married and unreliable (carrying on multiple affairs). Over time, Gregg withdraws from Lucy’s life so she can pursue happiness among the living. The film follows Lucy through the rest of her life — raising her daughter, growing old, and never quite finding a love that matches the one she shared with a man who wasn’t alive. The ending brings the story full circle in a quiet, bittersweet way.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; beautiful and atmospheric; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” is a gentle, steady film that works because it doesn’t oversell its premise. It’s not a “true” comedy, nor thriller, nor heavy romance. It’s more of a character piece about a woman trying to live on her own terms. The ghost element is handled plainly, almost matter‑of‑factly, which makes the relationship feel more grounded than you’d expect. The story is simple, but it’s told with enough sincerity that it lands emotionally. It’s also a surprisingly modern film in how it treats Lucy’s desire for independence.

Acting: Gene Tierney carries the film. She plays Lucy with a mix of determination, vulnerability, and quiet humor. Rex Harrison is excellent as Captain Gregg — gruff, stubborn, and oddly warm. Their chemistry works even though they never touch. George Sanders is perfectly cast as Miles Fairley: smooth, charming, and ultimately a disappointing cadd. Natalie Wood (as young Anna) is good in her small role. The supporting cast is fine, though most of them exist to push Lucy toward or away from certain choices. The film belongs to Tierney and Harrison, and they make it work.

Filming / FX: The cinematography is beautiful. The seaside setting, the fog, the interiors of Gull Cottage — everything looks crisp and atmospheric. The ghost effects are minimal (mostly lighting and simple fades), but they’re effective because the film doesn’t try to be flashy. Bernard Herrmann’s score deserves special mention. It’s lush, emotional, and gives the film a sense of longing that carries the quieter scenes. The production design is simple but convincing, and the whole film has a clean, timeless look.

Problems: A few. The middle stretch slows down when the Miles Fairley subplot takes over, and some of those scenes feel predictable. The film also leans a little heavily on the “romantic loneliness” theme, which may feel melodramatic to some viewers. A couple of supporting characters are one‑note (particularly Lucy’s in‑laws). And while the ending is touching, it’s also abrupt — the film doesn’t linger on its final emotional beat. None of these issues spoil the movie.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a quiet, steady film that’s easy to watch and surprisingly moving. I appreciated how it handled the ghost relationship without turning it into a gimmick. The film has a calm, reflective tone that works well, and the performances (especially Tierney’s) give it emotional weight. It’s a movie I’d re‑watch every so often, because Harrison is so “Harrison” in this role. It’s also one of those films that sneaks up on you — simple on the surface, but with more going on underneath.

Final Recommendation: Very strong recommendation. “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” is a well‑acted, beautifully filmed romantic‑fantasy that has earned and retained its place as a classic. It may not have won Academy Awards, but its historical significance is clear — strong performances, memorable music, and a story that treats loneliness and independence with honesty. If you’re interested in mid‑century Hollywood, quiet character dramas, or films that blend romance with a touch of the supernatural, this one is worth watching. It’s gentle, atmospheric, and surprisingly affecting.

.
Click here (15 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Painting Heaven On A Ceiling

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Charlton Heston, Europe, Fresco Painting, General Comments, Good to Strong Movie Recommendation, High Art, Hollywood, Irving Stone, Italy, Laurence of Arabia, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Movie Reviews, Pope Julius II, Reviews, Rex Harrison, Roman Catholic Church, Sistine Chapel, The Vatican on July 31, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical art-biopic: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) starring Charlton Heston as Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni and Rex Harrison as Pope Julius II and the “rough” dating is 1507AD to 1513AD.

Background: This is another older movie from the Hollywood “technicolor, epic movie era” I wanted to watch to increase my knowledge of “art” and general “high” culture. Heston and Harrison are (were) pretty good actors “back in the day,” so I thought it might be an interesting movie to sit through even though it’s fiction (historic novel) and not factual biography.

Basic Plot: Based on Irving Stone’s novel, the film dramatizes the tension-filled painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling in the Vatican — a story of ego, vision, theology, art, political and economic power. This movie is not an art history lesson, or simply a duel between genius and patron — it’s a film that paints faith and breathes human vulnerabilities into art. Michelangelo, who was a famed sculptor and a reluctant painter, is commanded by Pope Julius II to paint the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel ceiling. What follows is a spiritual and creative conflict which took four years to complete (1508AD to 1512AD). Pope Julius wanted glory for the Church (and his own legacy). Michelangelo wanted truth — transcendent and unfiltered. Their arguments move from verbal sparring to illness and near-collapse, as Michelangelo paints the ceiling not as saints and martyrs — but as a grand Biblical testament, from Creation to redemption. At its core, this is a story of two men wrestling with mortality, legacy, art and the act of divine creation (Biblical and in “Art”).

So… is this movie any good? The acting? The visuals / FX? Any problems? Did I like it? Short answers: Yes; Heston smolders (as usual), Harrison pontificates (as always); magnificent painted sequences; a touch 1950s-60s theatrical; yes, it (particularly the last few seconds where they show the finished work) stirs thought and awe.

Acting: Charlton Heston is a Michelangelo whose pain and defiance feels real to the viewer. He’s part artistic prophet, part obsessive craftsman, and yet Heston never lets the character dip too far into “excessive” melodrama despite the temptation of baggy clothes and thunderous speeches. Rex Harrison is a sharp autocrat with an iron will as Julius II — a Pope who is political, military and a strange combination of comedic and poetic. Their chemistry is what “makes” and keeps the film interesting – particularly if the modern viewer doesn’t know about or realize the history of the Church in the development of Italy or Europe.

Filming / FX: The ceiling sequences are filmed with almost reverence, and the stage recreation of the Sistine Chapel is astonishing in detail (to me – never having visited it). Panoramic shots, the physicality of scaffolding work (designed by Michelangelo), and dramatic lighting elevate the film from costume drama to (again) almost stunning reality. Film art as cinematic rapture – like viewing the Arizona plateaus in a Ford western or the Saudi dessert in “Laurence of Arabia“.

Problems: Two, and both minor in the scheme of things – dated language / dialogue is more theatrical / stagy 1950s-1960s than Renaissance Italy; and, what little we see of the Pope’s grand battle is just that – very little and really didn’t add much to the film (IMHO). I guess it was meant to establish the Pope’s other attempt to be a historic figure, but it didn’t really work for me.

Final Recommendation: Good to Strong (beautifully shot and well enough acted, but it feels dated) — especially for fans of classic historical cinema / epics, religious art, or character studies built on principle rather than plot twists. The casting of the two leads is spot on! I’d say you need to watch this with a cheese board and baguette, a glass of red wine and coffee-table picture book about the Sistine Chapel to really appreciate the art over the film.

Final Thought: Michelangelo’s hesitations to accept this commission were real. Back then, aspiring painters served an apprenticeship of 5-7 years just making paint color (mixtures) for their “masters” before they even had much chance to hold a brush let alone actually paint a commissioned work. Michelangelo was a fully trained sculptor, but not fully trained as a painter. In essence, he learned large fresco painting AND how to maintain correct proportions / perspectives on a curved surface as “on-the-job” work-training. LoL …And he had to do this on a self-designed scaffold almost 70 feet above the floor of the chapel!

.
Click here (31 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.