SYNOPSIS: A married woman falls in love with a doctor. NOTES: Nominated for the following prestigious Hollywood awards: Best Actress, Celia Johnson (lost to Olivia de Havilland in To Each His Own), Best Screenplay (Adapted) (lost to The Best Years of Our Lives), Best Directing (won by William Wyler for The Best Years of Our Lives). Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter, Best Feminine Performance of 1946. – New York Film Critics Award. Brief Encounter, number four on the National Board of Review's Ten Best of 1946. Third to The Wicked Lady and Piccadilly Incident as the U.K.'s top box office attraction for 1946. COMMENT: Frankly, Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson are not my idea of romantic lovers. But then of course that is what Brief Encounter is all about. They are not supposed to be. That is why the film was so popular. Not only did it break with tradition but it presented a pair of lovers devoid of Hollywood glamour. Average people with whom many cinema-goers could identify. This of course is what is wrong with the remake with Richard Burton and Sophia Loren. Which is why said remake was not popular. But for my money "Brief Encounter" is just a bit too homely on the one hand, too upper-class on the other, too defiant of convention yet too conventional (which can be seen in the ending and the fact that the affair is not an affair, legally at any rate). I also find the low- life scenes in the railway refreshment room (which is the scene of the original play incidentally) obtrusive. A pity. I like Stanley Holloway, but I don't think he belongs in this film. To my mind, Coward has got the ingredients for his dramatic formula not only wrong but has mixed them incorrectly. But I am a lone voice. Most everyone thinks Brief Encounter is wonderful. Certainly there can be no disputing the wonderful effectiveness of the music score (cleverly drawn from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto, which popularized this work and catapulted Rachmaninoff into the big league of popularly acclaimed composers), or the atmospheric brilliance and absolute attractiveness of Robert Krasker's superlative cinematography. Some deft examples of effective film editing too reveal Lean's former skill as film editor. My 2017 VIEW: This expansion of Coward's one-act play was hailed as one of the all-time great masterpieces of the English cinema when first released. A contemporary viewing is apt to disappoint. True, Johnson and Howard play with great charm and sincerity. Their dialogue is restrained and realistic, and there is a wistful, poignant mood (reinforced by the choice of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto for background music) in their scenes. Unfortunately, a great deal of this mood is dissipated by the low-life scenes of laboriously stilted comedy relief involving Stanley Holloway and Joyce Carey — which both play in an extremely stagey, heavy-handed manner. They seem even more theatrical because Lean has filmed their scenes in exactly the same manner as he uses for the tender, romantic scenes between Johnson and Howard, viz. large close-ups.

First of all, I love Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto Number 2 and the sight of express trains rolling through empty stations in 1945, so what could possibly go wrong here? Unfortunately, at some point during this viewing, I realized that my interest in the relationship of the two lead characters, played by Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, two very capable actors, could not be sustained for very long. Caution, dear reader, because I am not much of a love story fan, but at least this one featured Rachmaninoff's beautiful music throughout and those speeding express trains.Just when the action was becoming rather dull, enter Joyce Carey and Stanley Holloway as two very amusing train station employees. Do you remember Stanley as Alfred P. Doolittle, Eliza's colorful father, in "My Fair Lady", who knocked our socks off during his unforgettable "Get Me to the Church on Time"? I've got to see more movies with this guy!The best part was that whenever I stream "tcm on demand", I can skip the likes of Alec Baldwin and that bearded wonder, Grandpa Dave Letterman, pontificating so self importantly about classic motion pictures, a subject in which they both somehow believe they have expertise. Really now.

It's not a surprise that the stupid catholic church here in Ireland back then made this film banned because of "promoting adultery". Seriously, they thought it's all about everyone involved when it wasn't, I'm sure lots of people who had unhappy marriages, couldn't get a divorce because them clowns would be telling them how to live their lives. Anyways what's unfortunately happened, has happened!Let's get talking about this movie, it's such a very sad tale that Laura and the Doctor had to face in society where cheating was a shame to anyone finding out. I'm sure they would be afraid that their kids will be taken from them if their partner's ever found out. I honestly thought at the end, I was going to see them run away together but unfortunately, they had to call it quits when he had to go to South Africa for his new doctor job. It's just heartbreaking like you honestly would shed a few tears to see that both of them have drifted apart.Very good movie but again, it's heartbreaking 💔

Yes, this is actually a very fine movie.But it's the dialogue, at least for an American, that drives you crazy.Not that there's really anything wrong with it.But you have heard a thousand parodies of this dialogue in American movies and TV. It is the ultra-controlled, almost emotionless, clipped dialogue with just the right sort of - what appears to Americans as - upper-class accents. Declarations of love that are always completely controlled. NO ONE loses control This movie is probably enjoyable for English audiences. But for American audiences who have heard these dialogues parodied a million times, it seems just SO stereo typically English, so very, very Noel Coward.