Many other reviewers inexplicably focus on how the 1935 adaptation of Enchanted April isn't faithful to the 1922 source novel by Elizabeth von Arnim or is somehow inferior to the longer 1991 version. Sadly for them, they're missing the point. Firstly, this is a work complete in and of itself, and neither enhanced nor diminished by specious comparison to a related work. Secondly, it isn't actually based directly on the novel, but the successful 1925 Broadway play that the novel inspired, hence this being a US as opposed to European-made film. A single viewing makes this fact abundantly clear. What's more, at a mere but adequate 95 minutes, the excellent 1991 version is not – and could not – be faithful to the novel either.What we do have here is an utterly charming and concise little film that, despite its US studio-bound production, effectively establishes both mood and mise-en-scène, especially by clever use of rear projection, matte paintings and spacious, well-appointed sets. Even within the necessarily limited characterisations and plot development dictated to by its abbreviated running time of 66 minutes, it manages to squeeze in much humour, both subtle and slapstick, wry, witty dialogue and an unexpectedly powerful and poignant ending. Lastly, and perhaps most of all, it leaves you wanting more; what more could one ask of any film? Enchanted April is a masterclass in brevity and economy in its storytelling and filmmaking, and is highly recommended to all fans of early talkies.As for actually seeing it, aside from infrequent TV airings, as of 2017 is via the only authorised home video release: a 2005 region 2 French DVD on the Editions Montparnasse label, titled Avril enchanté. It features a very clean print from an unconverted NTSC- PAL master, hence its unaltered running time, and optional French subtitles in a small yellow font. Additionally, there is an informative 2½ minute intro – in French, sans sous-titres – by film historian and restorer Serge Bromberg of Lobster Films. Just be careful to avoid the lesser- quality counterfeit Spanish DVD, titled Un Abril Encantado, on the Vértice Cine label.You're in for a rare treat – enjoy!

I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.

The 1935 version of "Enchanted April" manages to be simultaneously tediousand perfunctory. It is difficult to show the transformative magic of Italy shooting in a studio with only stereotypical Italian behavior to belabor. The transformation of the four strangers fleeing London is instantaneous in the cut from the first day to a week later. Rather than develop, the screenplay flips a switch and thecharacters are different.The husbands are boring enough in flashbacks without turning up, even if their presence does not drive the four women back into their shells and/or hostilities.Jessie Ralph has the most fun (moving instead of entirely chewing up thescenery) and Katharine Alexander has some poignant charm out of herhusband's shadow (and away from his hideous droning). Ann Harding isunremarkable here (with the Production Code being enforced). She had anappropriate line in an earlier (pre-Code) movie, "When Ladies Meet": "You'renot worth a minute of one anxious hour that either one of us has given you," but in "Enchanted April" can only look hurt, rush out, and proclaim fealty to her errant husband.

This version of "Enchanted April" isn't as ethereal or delightful as the 1992 version, but it does has a certain charm. Mainly conceived as a vehicle for Ann Harding (who was a big star in the mid-thirties, but not well-remembered today), the pacing is somewhat slow and almost appears to be a filmed stage play. We don't "see" and "feel" the changes everyone undergoes as a result of staying in the Italian villa (as we do in the remake), but Ann Harding does her best to get that point across. She is ethereal and pretty, and her "hothouse flower" talent would seem well-suited to the part. It's interesting to compare the two versions and see how the 1992 version managed to successfully capture the flavor of the period without sacrificing anything to a modern movie-going audience's baser expectations for entertainment. See both versions!