Berkeley Square (1933) User Reviews

Through the Past, Darkly

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 23 March 2015]

How many of us have wished that we might escape from the dull reality of the present into the glamor and romance of yesterday? But if we could journey back into the mystery of the past, should we find contentment - or unhappiness?"

On a stormy night in 1784, new American noble Leslie Howard (as Peter Standish) arrives in London's "Berkeley Square" to seek a distant cousin's hand in marriage. After exiting his coach, Mr. Howard seems to vanish. Meanwhile, in the present (1933), his direct descendant and namesake "Peter Standish" (Howard, in a dual role) has inherited the same house. The modern Howard troubles his fiancée and friends due to his preoccupation with the past, especially the September 1784 day when his namesake arrived. Transported to the past, Howard invites suspicion when his "modern" manners and knowledge surface. Howard talks too much. More significantly, he becomes attracted to the wrong woman, beautiful but melancholy Heather Angel (as Helen Pettigrew)...

This intriguing "time travel" film was unavailable for decades, but the story was revived often on stage and screen. It was based on an unfinished Henry James novel and inspired memorable imitations from horror mythos-makers H. P. Lovecraft ("The Shadow out of Time") and Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows"). Howard recreates his performance from the stage well, but director Frank Lloyd and Fox don't take full advantage of cinema potential. Early examples are Howard's trip to the past. He could have appeared outside the door, wet, as both arrivals occurred in the rain. Howard also immediately knows how to sit in his 1784 costume, betraying a familiar comfort. Later, the film would have benefited from Howard visiting the actual grave mentioned in a letter...

Solid impressions are made by lustful Colin Keith-Johnston (as Thomas "Tom" Pettigrew) and sensible sister Valerie Taylor (as Kate). Matriarchal Irene Browne (as Ann) played her role again in the 1941 re-make starring Tyrone Power.

******* Berkeley Square (9/15/33) Frank Lloyd ~ Leslie Howard, Heather Angel, Colin Keith-Johnston, Valerie Taylor

Handsomely filmed romantic fantasy of time travel and unending love...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 24 July 2012]

Leslie Howard proves once again that he was the matinée idol women adored long before he was unwillingly cast as Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind," a role he hated to play.

He gives a very forceful performance here as a young man who is fascinated by his ancestry and somehow transports himself to an earlier era, with unhappy consequences he couldn't have expected when events turn against him.

Heather Angel makes a good impression (she and Howard both starred in the Broadway stage version), but the tale itself is much too talky for the screen and would have benefited from a wider use of outdoor scenes to take away some of the stage-bound feeling. An unusual feature is the almost constant flow of background music in an era when most soundtracks were only punctuated by dialog without musical effects. This affects the quality of the spoken words, of which there are far too many for my taste and, in this case, because it's based on a stage play taken from an unfinished Henry James novel called "A Sense of Time." It takes a willingness to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the fantasy aspects of the story, but it's done in an interesting way and directed in stylish fashion by Frank Lloyd.

Summing up: One of Howard's better film performances, he was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Remade by Fox in 1951 as a film for Tyrone Power and Ann Blyth called "I'll Never Forget You."

Creaky Yet Strangely Haunting Version of a Theatrical Classic

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 3 July 2013]

BERKELEY SQUARE was a success d'estime of the late Twenties and early Thirties. Based on a short story - THE SENSE OF THE PAST - by Henry James, it tells the story of how Peter Standish (Leslie Howard) travels back in time from the contemporary world into the late eighteenth century, and discovers to his cost that life isn't quite as idyllic as the history books might suggest. John L. Balderston's script isn't without its sentimental moments, but generally takes a hard-nosed look at the ways in which individuals remain as self-centered in the past as they might have been over a century ago. Leslie Howard, who created the past of Standish on the Broadway stage, here recreates his part; he doesn't have to do much other than to look bewildered, which he achieves very competently. Valerie Taylor makes an ideal romantic interest. Director Frank Lloyd was one of Twentieth Century-Fox's most competent contract directors; his version of Noel Coward's CAVALCADE (1933), based on another theatrical hit, is particularly memorable. In BERKELEY SQUARE he creates a brisk narrative, containing a memorable series of transitions between past and present. Definitely worth a look if a copy of the film can be found.

Fine film which is hard to find

[clementj · 17 August 2011]

This is a very amusing love story with a good dash of humor. Much of the humor centers around the culture clash between Standish and the 18th century family. Standish uses modern terms and slips when he reveals things that happen in the future. The culture clash is a cautionary tale for would be travelers. This film appealed to many women because Leslie Howard was a heart throb for many of them. My mother loved this film and could watch it over and over. She was so disappointed when late in her life it disappeared from the old movies shown on TV.

It is currently not commercially available, but a number of vendors have poor quality CDs or tapes for sale. All of these were probably made from a VHS tape from a TV showing. The tape was deteriorated and possibly copied several times so there is a lot of instability and wiggling of the image. The original broadcast used extreme compression of the video and sound. As a result the noise level rises to become very loud until dialog causes the gain to be cut. As a result the dialog is sometimes very indistinct. The music which was originally soft also rises to match the level of the dialog. Once this is restored by hand, the film is fairly listenable. The complaint of another reviewer about the music being too loud may stem from watching a copy with similarly compressed sound. In addition the broadcast severely cropped the film and did not stabilize the jitter.

This is a film that deserves restoration from the existing prints, but when and if this happens is unknown. Until then buying one of the existing CDs may be the only way to view this fine film.

a sublime pre-code that holds up remarkably well

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 19 August 2021]

Leslie Howard plays an American who takes possession of a bequeathed estate in London's Berkeley Square quarter. While at the house, Howard magically connects to the past, and makes the stunning discovery that time happens all at once. (A topic explored by Christopher Nolan in 2014's Interstellar).

A thunder storm serves as the device that transports Howard from 1933 back to 1784, and in the same Berkeley Square house he would one day inherit. Posing as the recently-arrived American cousin his hosts were expecting, Howard frightens those in his presence by the ability to predict the future, and by his odd phrases. They think he's the devil. But Heather Angel's character, the sister of the woman Howard was slated to marry, sees the truth.

Berkeley Square has a lovely staginess to it, and the air of a drawing room comedy of manners, with sumptuous period costumes. (The film is based on a play by the same name). Howard and Angel capture the loneliness and despair of lovers trapped in different worlds. Historical figures like the painter Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Georgina the Duchess of Devonshire make appearances.

There's a scene in which Angel stares into Howard's eyes, and sees the future: the great Industrial Revolution, with automobiles, trains, airplanes, electricity, tall buildings. She also sees war and destruction. And rather than being in awe of the modern world, she's horrified that God would condemn mankind to such a monstrous future. It's quite prescient. If someone back in 1933 could have had a peak into the future they, like Heather Angel's character, would probably look past the digital gadgets and be horrified, too.

Peter Ibbetson meets "Goodnight Sweetheart".

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 7/10 · 29 December 2007]

In adapting his own stage play 'Berkeley Square' for the screen, playwright John L Balderston made numerous changes. One change is significant in hindsight: during Act One of the stage play, the dialogue makes several references to a war hero named Bill Clinton! (A hero on the side fighting AGAINST the United States.) In the film, this British officer is merely identified as Major Clinton, and there are no mentions of his heroics.

Leslie Howard, everyone's definitive Englishman, was actually English only by a fluke: his parents were Hungarian Jews who moved to London shortly before his birth. In the film version of 'Berkeley Square', Howard portrays two Americans -- one from the 18th century, one from the present -- but his accent and demeanour in both roles are quintessentially English. Howard had previously starred on Broadway in this story, but in the stage play he portrayed only the modern-day Peter Standish who journeys into the past; his namesake ancestor (swapping places with him in the present) remained offstage.

Here we have the fantasy about a modern American who contrives to switch places in time with his 18th-century ancestor: both men are named Peter Standish, and are physically identical. (This is unlikely: the medical, dental and nutritional standards in 1784 would have kept that century's Standish looking very different from his descendant.) Apart from failing to convince me that he's American, Howard gives an excellent performance in both roles. Soon enough, Peter Standish acquires a touch of Peter Ibbetson as he falls in love with a woman who will die in 1787, more than a century before his own birth.

The ever-reliable Samuel S. Hinds (wearing a bizarre moustache here) plays straight man to Howard in one fascinating scene, in which Standish explains the difference between linear time and non-linear time: in the latter, all the events in the universe are occurring simultaneously.

Also quite excellent is Betty Lawford in an unsympathetic role. She wears some very chic gloves but also sports a bizarre fur collar that seems to be intended for a female impersonator. A transvestite linebacker could hide his shoulders inside there!

As the doomed young lady of 18th-century England, Heather Angel has one memorable scene opposite the 18th-century Standish's body possessed by his modern descendant. Staring into Standish's eyes, she glimpses an amazing stock-footage montage of the chaos and mayhem of modern times. Her reaction is memorable.

A story like this will have intentional anachronisms, but I looked for unintentional errors. Here's one: a string ensemble in 1784 perform Gossec's 'Gavotte' two years before he wrote it. Have another: in the opening scene, set in September 1784, Lionel Belmore reports that a French aeronaut has just flown from Dover to Calais (Belmore mispronounces this name) in a balloon. Actually, that didn't happen until January 1785: the flight was in the opposite direction, and there were two men (one of them Anglo-American) in the balloon. In a later scene, some English gentlemen give the word 'bathed' the wrong pronunciation (yes, I'm quite certain). The art direction is generally excellent, except for a dodgy thunderstorm. And it's weird to encounter the term 'crux ansata' applied to what modern viewers know better as the Egyptian ankh.

This film gets very much right a detail that many other period stories get wrong: 'Berkeley Square' acknowledges that the past is a dirtier, not cleaner, place than the present.

The single worst thing about 'Berkeley Square' is the overscored soundtrack: practically every scene assaults the ears with loud background music, when so much of this gentle fantasy would have worked better with no music at all. I was delighted that the character actress Beryl Mercer is much less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) she's been given no maudlin material. My rating for this gentle, stately fantasy is 7 out of 10. For a much more romantic treatment of this premise with a different set of time-travel paradoxes, I recommend a better movie: 'Somewhere in Time'.

Why So Bleak the Future?

[GeoPierpont · 6/10 · 25 March 2015]

Now I know why the chemistry of Leslie Howard worked so well in GWTW. He was most dashing! The attempt to portray time travel and it's fearful interpretations was impressive and laid the groundwork for "Back to the Future" and others as well.

I enjoyed the peculiar moments of slip ups in modern, for 1933, language and mannerisms in 1784 London. The actual transitions from one time to another was awkward but having limited expectations this presented no problem from an otherwise exciting plot.

My biggest issue was the glimpse of our future with the wars, speed, violence, and loud noise complimented with a grand finale fireworks display. Who would want to be part of that mess? Well, a plot device to prevent anyone switching places, I assume the trap had to be set.

God's timeframe seemed to provide little satisfaction unless one passes at 23. However, it was a romantic interlude that is seldom created even in today's films. Interesting to note this may have been the first film mention of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, who was portrayed in 2008 "The Duchess".

High recommend for Howard fans, time travel, British vs Colonials, and eternal love.

"Such Feats As This Are Common In Scotland"

[davidcarniglia · 7/10 · 8 April 2019]

A beautiful movie. The attention to period detail is incredible; it literally is 1784. At least, when it's not 1933. The elegant transitions, via a dark and stormy evening, a doorway, and a particular curtain, require less suspension of disbelief than comparable time-warp devices in most sci-fi films. Leslie Howard, as Peter Standish, finding himself in the shoes of his ancestor, does a great job as a sort of bemused but startled time-traveler. Other than his obsession with his family history, it seems the purpose of his mission is to court the cousin his ancestor didn't, but maybe should've married. His 1784 incarnation is betrothed to Kate (Valerie Taylor), but obviously prefers her sister Helen (Heather Angel). in fact, he and Helen are soul-mates as well as lovers.

Helen figures out his identity early on; and unlike Kate and the rest of her 18th-century clan, isn't frightened by him. His problem is there's not much he can do about Helen. He can't stay with her in 1784, and he can't take Helen back to 1933. Aside from all the freaky and somewhat humorous predicaments and faux pas that Peter finds himself stumbling into in Georgian times, the most captivating bit is Helen's ability to experience the modern world by looking into his eyes. She sees a dizzy montage--starting with a cubistic array of skyscrapers, and exploding into jagged imagery of technology, speed, war, and crime.

On the other hand, once Peter's found out to be an imposter and/or the devil, the past doesn't look so rosy either. What's confusing is what all this has to do with his 'real' relationship with Marjorie (Betty Lawford) in 1933. By obsessing about the past, Peter more or less spaces out on Marjorie; so nothing is resolved. He ought to just face up to what the cards have dealt him and get on with his actual life, no matter how beguiling the past. Or, more romantically, he does ditch Marjorie, but runs into and falls in love with a reincarnation of Helen; not necessarily the Helen of 1784, but seemingly the same person, a doppelganger.

So, for me, Berkeley Square, while unique and very entertaining, is still a bit disappointing. The premise delivers on the substance of living in the past, but without integrating the two eras thematically. Maybe it would be better to spend more time in 1933; as it is, 1784 is treated like a very long dream, with a few short breaks. Had there been more balance in the plot, a modern-era Helen character could've been slipped in and developed in time for something of a resolution. The simplest way to achieve this have Marjorie as the reincarnation of Helen.

Recommended for the brilliant period atmosphere and Leslie Howard's nuanced performance. 7/10.

A Stranger in a Strange Land

[kidboots · 9/10 · 7 November 2010]

For me, Heather Angel's name conjures up the image of delicate, wistful loveliness as the girl beloved by Leslie Howard, when he travels back to Regency times in "Berkeley Square". She seemed to come along at the right time to be a successor to Janet Gaynor but Fox didn't bother much about her after a role in a forgotten Charlie Chan movie, "Charlie Chan's Greatest Case" (1933). She did have some interesting moments in "Springtime for Henry" and "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" but after that her career just ambled along until she found a place as Phyllis Clavering in the Bulldog Drummond series.

Peter Standish (Leslie Howard) is a wealthy American traveler who, unbeknownst to him, is about to be "hooked" into matrimony by an impoverished Regency family, the Pettigrews, whose son has spent the family fortune on wine, women and cards. Just as he arrives a fearful storm breaks out and .......................

Marjorie Frant (Betty Lawford, who looked a lot older than 23!) is very concerned about her fiancé, Peter Standish - he keeps to his room and is obsessed by his ancestor Peter Standish. He has inherited the house in Berkeley Square that the original Peter Standish owned and spends his time pouring over a diary that tells him all the little details about the family and London life in the 1780s - especially Helen, who seems to have a "secret sorrow" and never marries. Walking back to his house during a storm and arriving at exactly 5.30 he is suddenly whisked back in time to 1785 and the intrigue that is going on at the Pettigrews!! He is so determined to do the right thing, to let events take their course without changing the course of history but he bumbles from the start. Almost proposing to Kate on their first meeting (he knows from the diary that Peter marries Kate) to revealing Helen's birthday gift, a beautiful shawl before the box is opened!!!

Peter feels like a stranger in a strange land but also senses a kindred spirit in Helen who seems to understand he is not in his own time. I thought it was a touching, romantic fantasy with many scenes that bought tears to my eyes. When Helen looks into Peter's eyes and sees the future of the world, she is instantly repelled and cannot be coaxed by him to return to the future with him. She convinces him to go back and wait until they can both be reunited in the hereafter. Her speech is very eloquent. The original play by John L. Balderstone, who also wrote the screen play, was much more grittier - Standish was very disillusioned with the past, he was appalled by the squalor and poverty, by the horror of public hangings. In the movie John astounds everyone by insisting on a daily bath!!! So Helen's "seeing the future through John's eyes", which couldn't have worked on the stage, was a way to give the movie an added dimension.

Alan Mowbray had a small role as Peter's friend and Beryl Mercer played what she played best, sweet little cockneys.I just loved this movie but can only give it 9 out of 10 because the soundtrack was very scratchy and the picture quality was very grainy. The play "Berkeley Square" opened on Broadway in 1929 and ran for a respectable 229 performances. The plot was suggested by a Henry James short story "The Sense of the Past".

Highly, Highly Recommended.

Man of two worlds

[MegaSuperstar · 6/10 · 23 August 2021]

First movie version of the play Berkeley square, by John L. Balderston, that was a huge success in Broadway in 1929 also played and co-directed by Leslie Howard and Howard Miller. Had a remake filmed in 1951 The house in the square (aka I'll never forget you) with Tyrone Power in the leading role that in my opinion was better than this one.

Although Leslie Howard plays the role properly - in fact he was Oscar nominated - it lacks of passion and interest. All the cast seems too theatrically affected and although all of them play their roles convincingly their performances are mainly plain and bland, too emotionless, a common fact in British acting.

Another problem with this movie is that, on the contrary to the 1951 version, it is quite stagey we never watch any of what supposedly attracted the main character to the XVIII century: intellectuals, way of leaving in that era, social changes. Not even a glimpse of it. Only a ball at their residence. Nothing that lets us understand why this man would want to travel past. This causes the film being rather dull and dated, since the film gets centered in the love story only. In the 1951 version the main character travels to past to discover a supposedly nicer era - he was a scientific. But in this one one wonders why he wants to travel to past only to find a romance he can find in his own era. Any historical character appears here excepting Joshua Reynolds and the duchess of Devonshire, no visit to historic places or learning something about XVIII century way of living (we learn he has gone to meet the king and feeling disgustingly disappointed by watching him mock his nose with his fingers) so it ends being quite bore movie.

That being said, the film has its values: scenography and fashion designer are excellent. It was a lost movie until a copy was found in 1970s, restored and shown in 2011 H. P. Lovecraft film festival.

Dated and dour time travel fantasy still remains an interesting historical curio

[Turfseer · 5/10 · 5 October 2020]

Admittedly I'm a sucker for time travel stories but Berkeley Square wins more points for being a historical curio rather than as a truly good film. Based on an incomplete novel by Henry James, it was subsequently developed as a stage play in the 1920s and later as a vehicle for Leslie Howard, a big British star at the time who ten years later met a tragic end when a commercial flight he was on was shot down by the Germans during World War II.

Howard plays American Peter Standish who inherits an old house dating back to the 18th century in London, owned by his ancestor of the same name. We're actually introduced to the 18th century counterparts during the opening expository scene. The Pettigrew family, led by elderly mom, Lady Ann, her two daughters, the older Kate and younger Helen, along with her rather sarcastic son, Tom, are all eagerly awaiting the arrival of their cousin Peter from America.

1933 Peter has become obsessed with his ancestors and comes to believe he can will himself back to that very time, much to the consternation of his fiancée, Marjorie Frant, who seeks counsel from the American Ambassador regarding Peter's unhinged behavior. Sure enough, Peter rushes home and is able to transport himself back to 1784 where he inhabits the body of the Peter Standish of that time.

At this juncture, it might be instructive to compare Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, a comparable time travel tale which was made into a light-hearted musical film, approximately a decade and a half later. In that film, the protagonist uses his knowledge of 19th century technology to gain advantage over his medieval rivals. In Berkeley Square, there is no such satisfactory advantage gained by Peter. Despite having had access to his ancestor's diary, giving him prior knowledge of all events to come in 1784, he ends up continually revealing that he's privy to future events in the Pettigrew household as well as to various friends in the community, causing said inhabitants to be quite fearful of him.

The initial expectation was that the wealthy Peter would end up betrothed to Kate but once he starts predicting future events, she comes to believe he's some kind of devil. In one instance, Peter, while getting his portrait painted by a well-known artist, Sir Joshua Reynolds, speaks of another painting by Reynolds as if it had already been completed long ago. Reynolds pulls a cloth covering a canvas, revealing that he had just begun painting this particular painting.

While everyone is eventually alienated by Peter who has great trouble tolerating 18th century customs (they're all shocked that Peter insists on washing himself everyday), only the younger Helen comes to love Peter unconditionally and this love is notably reciprocated by Peter. In the best scene of the film, after Peter reveals the truth that he's a time traveler, he allows Helen to gaze into his eyes where she sees a montage of horrors in the upcoming 19th and 20th century, including the horrors of the first World War. For 1933, it's a very advanced scene technically speaking, with many images edited in such a way to remind the viewer that the worlds of both Peters, have their down side.

The well known British actress Heather Angel plays Helen with an ardent intensity, and the love scenes between Peter and her feel genuine. Nonetheless, the denouement is just as dour as the unlikable crew of cousins we meet in Act Two. Indeed, Helen urges Peter to return to his own time but makes him promise he'll visit her grave. After Peter returns to the 20th century, he does indeed visit Helen's grave but then decides to live as a recluse for the rest of his life, pining away for his long lost love. If you believe that, I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge!

Berkeley Square does a good job of recreating the customs and manners of 18th century London denizens. The plot ultimately disappoints but it's worth taking a look at due to some decent acting and production design (despite its largely claustrophobic stage play origins). One spooky footnote: the last remaining extant print of Berkeley Square was lost for many years and only rediscovered in the 1970s. I guess some ghosts got a hold of the last copy and enjoyed watching it every Halloween before some intrepid film collector was able to save it from oblivion.

They're not all that reasonable in the age of reason

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 24 July 2012]

Although this version of Berkeley Square was little more than a photographed stage play it does have Leslie Howard portraying Peter Standish as he did on Broadway for 229 performances during the 1929-1930 season. No other member of the cast repeated their roles. I have to say that the Tyrone Power version from 1951 was and is more cinematically viable.

That being said Leslie Howard was doing a part that was tailor made for him. He's a jaded American scientist who is firmly convinced that he is at some point in time destined to change places with an ancestor also named Peter Standish from the 18th century post American Revolution Great Britain.

When he gets there he mixes and mingles with high and mighty of the day like the Prince Of Wales, Dr. Samuel Johnson, and Sir Joshua Reynolds. And he knows things that others don't and uses all kinds of modern in this case 1928 idioms that first amuse then frighten.

He's in fact pledged to one woman, but falls in love with her sister played by Heather Angel, something he did not count on. It's almost like a trip to Fantasy Island where Mr. Rourke has arranged a trip to the Age of Reason. Usually those trips to some idealized place in history involved a cruel dose of reality as well and in Berkeley Square Leslie Howard gets just such a dose.

Howard and Angel are a wonderfully matched pair of lovers who will meet some day in time and space and know it. Howard earned his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor, the second coming with Pygmalion. Had Berkeley Square been better cinematically it probably would be more revived. As it is it's a great performance by Leslie Howard, one his legion of fans should treasure.

Should've skipped the middle

[l-c-patka · 6/10 · 30 March 2019]

I saw it happenning with old movies quite frequently that they start out with an interesting concept, then go totally boring for an hour or so just to be interesting at the end again. Same here. This one had three things going for it: the montage about WWI, the scene where Standish tells everyone his honest opinion about them (including telling people that they're like characters from a Jane Austen novel), and the very last scene where a view of time borrowed from Boethius and other philosophers is coupled with an imafe of eternal love. In that scene, Standish reads Helen's epitath and it says that they shall be together eternally - in "God's time", in the timelessness of heaven. (As I gather, she committed suicide.) And he makes the bold step of breaking up with his fiancé. What a tear-jerking moment! The movie could've been better if it featured scenes about Captain Standish living in the 20th century juxtaposed with the scenes from the 18th century. We learn that the good Captain has been drinking a lot in the modern world and he wasn't quite himself - but that's it. I would've been really interested in learning more about him. Also, the movie could've easily have a happy ending with Helen returning in the body of Standish's fiancé and the fiancé's mind traveling back to marry that old guy. But that would've been a completely different movie. Furthermore, I would have liked to know more about how time travel worked here, how the ankh was involved, and how Standish knew that he's going to travel back in time. Bu everything is left mysterious, almost nothing is explained. Leslie Howard played the two characters nicely, but I was absolutely irritated with what Heather Angel did with her eyes - going into reptilian mode several times. At the end, it is hard to tell whether it was worth watching the whole movie or not, but after the last scene it really leaves the viewer moved and thinking at the same time. I am glad that even Lovecraft was impressed with this flick!

Only a somewhat interesting film

[leftistcritic · 5/10 · 24 February 2019]

While the version of this movie I watched online was low-quality, the plot of simple: a man lives in the same house as his ancestors and converses with them. He was not very good with time travel, from the present (1934) to the past (1784), making all sorts of mistakes. Even so when he gets back to the present apparently nothing has changed which seems faulty considering how much he messed with the timeline and co-founded people. Interestingly one character, Kate, was the only one who understood him and apparently could somehow see the future too, although this was not really explained. All in all, while this movie was enjoyable, it was not as good as other time travel movies I have seen and I would not recommend it.

You could say that this film is "filled with gentle humor and appealing pathos," or an "imaginative, beautiful and well-handled production" or even "artistically and handsomely produced and beautifully acted" as said at the time. But I would not say that at all, because I found this film a bit confusing compared to the later remake of this film in I'll Never Forget You (1951), which I thought was much stronger. Perhaps some day I will rewatch this film again, but likely it will not be anytime soon, as I would rather watch other films for my enjoyment as a sort of mental break from usual drugery. Danny, the movie critic of Pre-Code Hollyweird films, did review this film, and I have to agree with him that this film "feels very stagey and very proper," but also think that the idea that "that the future will revolt and isolate us no matter how wondrous its achievements" is something that can be related to, without a doubt. The Britishness of this movie is also annoying to say the least, which TCM admits in their review of the film as well.

With that, I end this review and say this film deserves a rating of 5 out of 10, if not lower.

Berkeley Square

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 24 August 2023]

I found Oscar-nominated Leslie Howard just a little too earnest in this tale of an American scientist "Peter Standish" who inherits a London house from a distance cousin. Upon arrival, he starts to feel a curious bond with the place and as he discovers more about the house, his ancestry and a diary detailing much of the 1780s London society in which it's writer lived, he becomes - somewhat inexplicably - convinced that he is going to travel back through time. Low and behold on the exact date and time expected, he walks into an 18th century home where he meets his soon to be fiancée "Kate" (Valerie Taylor) and her beautiful younger sister "Helen" (Heather Angel). He is an instant hit in society circles but struggles to contain his knowledge of the future and after a particularly uncomfortable conversation with the Duchess of Devonshire (Juliette Compton) finds himself in immediate need to get back to his own timeline. He confides his predicament to his new love "Helen" and his dilemmas begin to mount up... It's an intriguing concept, and there is plenty of subliminal social comment too. "Standish" is abhorred by the depravity, poverty and cruelty he sees when first in London - but it has also got quite a bit of a rather ungainly American superiority complex about it, too - the "Land of the Free" stuff as though 1780s Britain was some sort of demagogue's paradise. Howard was in the original 1928 stage play, so knows the part backwards and there are some nice cameos from Alan Mowbray and Beryl Mercer to help nudge it along but it runs too much to gloopy melodrama, and though not a bad film, I just think it couldn't quite decide what it wanted to be, or for whom, and I found it's romanticised moralising a bit annoying. Stylish though, looks good.

Well-Acted but Flawed Story

[ldeangelis-75708 · 6/10 · 18 February 2023]

Being a fan of time travel stories as well as the 18th century, I couldn't help enjoying this film, and since Leslie Howard's another of my fav classic actors, this made the movie more enjoyable. I can't fault Leslie's performance as Peter Standish, the American in 1930's London, living in his ancestors' Georgian home, who transposes with his 18thc namesake/lookalike and ends up in the same house a century and a half earlier, taking his place, courting his distant cousin, Kate, and falling for her younger sister, Helen (Heather Angel, who sometimes appears angelic.) However, he's not supposed to change history, and history states Peter and Kate married and had a family. Can his head rule over his heart?

Where this movie flawed was in having Peter make one mistake too many, when he slipped up and said something he shouldn't have. It was inevitable that would happen and to be expected when it came to letting slip a modern expression, or not following expected social customs (using his being from America as an excuse). But when he foolishly talks to Joshua Reynolds about a painting he hasn't even finished and mentions the name of it before the artist decided what that would be, that was just careless! He should have realized that, unless he knew exactly when the painting was first displayed to the public, it would be too risky to mention.

Then, toward the end (at a time when he was actually considering staying in that time to be with Helen), he throws caution to the wind, starts deliberately speaking of things he shouldn't know and that wouldn't make sense, and insults everybody to boot! It's a wonder he wasn't challenged to a duel!

The whole my time vs. Your time vs. God's time was a bit on the hokey side.

He wasn't much better in his own time either, as he didn't treat his fiancée, Marjorie (Betty Lawford) very well, pretty much ignoring her before the time travel, then dismissing her afterward, despite her having wanted to help him all along.

This script needed some fine tuning.

Modest But Charming

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 14 February 2024]

A modest but charming little time travel fantasy story that stars Leslie Howard in an Oscar nominated performance. It was based on a play and never manages, or even tries really, to shake off its stage origins. But it's well acted, a bit haunting, and rather poignant.

Howard was up against Charles Laughton in "The Private Life of Henry VIII" and Paul Muni in "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" at the 1932-33 Oscars. Howard's performance is understated and effective, but the Oscar went to Laughton. Really it was Muni who should have won over both, giving one of the greatest performances in one of the greatest films to come out of the 1930s.

Grade: B+

beautiful film

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 19 February 2013]

Leslie Howard stars in "Berkeley Square," also starring Heather Angel.

Howard plays Peter Standish, who is fascinated by all the material he finds in his house from his 18th century ancestors, 146 years earlier. He believes that if he wants to, he can go back to that time. This film is the predecessor to many time travel films, including Somewhere in Time.

His ancestor, also Peter Standish, visited his house from America on a particular date. Peter changes places with him on that date in the present.

At first, all is well; then he starts slipping and speaking of things in the future to the extent that people begin to believe he is possessed b the devil. The only person who senses the real Peter is Helen Pettigrew (Heather Angel) a Standish cousin. He and Helen fall in love, and she is able to see the future through his eyes -- war, weapons of destruction, neon lights, cars - it all terrifies her. This is the best sequence in the film.

Helen cannot go into the future with him -- and doesn't want to, given what she's seen -- and he's a pariah, and will make her one, if he stays.

This is a charming film badly in need of restoration. Leslie Howard is perfect as Peter -- handsome, ethereal, and well-suited to the period aspects. Heather Angel, whom I've just gotten to know in the Bulldog Drummond series, is delightful, petite and pretty with a soothing voice and a fragility that lends itself well to the role.

Berkeley Square was remade in 1951 as "I'll Never Forget You," starring Tyrone Power, which has a less sober ending - before it was released on DVD, it was in the TCM website's top ten of most requested films to be released as a DVD. There's something appealing about time travel - otherwise, there wouldn't be so many films about it. But there's also something appealing and modern about the premise of Berkeley Square - that all time runs parallel and is all happening at once. Quantum physics would agree that this is so.

The interesting plot is marred by a stilted and overly mannered set of characters.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 16 March 2014]

"Berkeley Square" is a frustrating old film to watch. It has a really neat story idea about time travel--something very exciting for 1933. But it also has incredibly stilted language and the characters are too mannered to be interesting.

When the film begins, you see Peter Standish (Leslie Howard) in both a 19th century setting and then in the present time. How is this possible? Well, it seems that he's inherited a magical old mansion--one that allows him to travel to 1784! Here he is a newly arrived Yankee arriving within polite British society. However, Peter's language is a bit odd and he seems to know too much--mostly because he knows what folks will do because he's read up on the history of the family. He knows who he will marry and how his life SHOULD go--but will this now happen since his intended fiancée is afraid of him?!

As I mentioned above, the story idea involving time travel is pretty amazing for the 1930s. Plus, even now it is an interesting plot element. But I just wished Peter and the rest were less rigid and dull- -this plot should NEVER be dull. And, although it didn't bother me, my wife felt frustrated that so much of the film was never explained--such as how the woman could magically see the future by staring into Peter's eyes!! Worth seeing but it just missed the mark in too many ways to be anything other than an unusual curio.

Unending love in time

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 13 March 2019]

Saw 'Berkeley Square' as a big fan of classic film, and seeing a film about time travel very early on in film history immediately had me sold. Also have liked to loved what has been seen of the performances of Leslie Howard (especially in 'Pygmalion), which hasn't admittedly been enough and there is plenty more to see. That is the same for the rest of the cast, the most familiar names to me being Heather Angel and Alan Mowbray.

'Berkeley Square', adapted from a stage play by John Balderston which also happened to be inspired by a Henry James story, had its really interesting premise going for it. Also wanted to see how the role and performance of Peter Standish Howard created on stage would fare on film, being too young to see him for myself. There was a slight worry with it being adapted from a stage play, and not all plays have translated well to film with traps of being too talky, stage bound and compact. Found 'Berkeley Square' a very good film and deserving of more credit despite it being fondly remembered, the same goes for its remake 'The House in the Square' (or 'I Will Never Forget You'). It deserves to be more wildly available, with it still not being the easiest film to find, and although what is available makes do it is in need of a restoration.

The film doesn't quite overcome the potential problem of being too talky and wordy. The dialogue is actually very intelligently written and maintains interest throughout, but there could have been a little less of it (some of it was also somewhat muffled), which would have tightened some of the pacing, which is mostly not a problem at all but occasionally creaks.

Do agree that the music, although beautifully lush music in its own right, is on the over-scored and somewhat intrusive side. That said, this is most likely due to the audio/sound which is not very balanced and can favour the music over the dialogue.

However, 'Berkeley Square' is a very handsome film on a visual level. It is immaculately photographed and the opulent period detail is also a delight, never does the setting feel compact. The music and dialogue quality by themselves, as said above, are fine, it's just the matter of them being better used and balanced. The story is charmingly quaint, always cohesive, with the time travel never suffering from choppy transitions (pretty smooth) and emotionally it can be quite moving. Especially at the end. Regarding how it translates on screen from the play, surprisingly it fares very well compared to a fair few stage to film adaptations around the same time. It is not static and the drama is opened up enough to not make it stage-bound.

Frank Lloyd's direction is suitably distinguished and he gets fine performances from the cast. In particular Howard in one of his best performances (deservedly Oscar-nominated), it is a very elegant and forceful performance that is equally poised and subtly nuanced in a way that is always riveting to watch. Angel is very charming and the two have a more than amiable chemistry together, likewise with Valerie Taylor. Mowbray and Beryl Mercer are strong support, as is an enjoyably arch Juliette Compton.

In conclusion, very good. 8/10

Bury this Relic

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 4/10 · 18 August 2019]

Maybe in 1933 it was amusing to see a contemporary American get dropped into England shortly after Independence, dropping goofy American expressions into conversations and ''predicting'' the future. But in 2019? By gawd this is tedious. It's like watching a Shakespeare comedy where all the jokes are from 1601. Except the only thing this movie has in common is indecipherable English accents (most of them Hollywood fakes, no doubt). It's just not cleverly written to stand the test of time. And the acting - I mean the physical movement - is so stiff it's like they're still trying to figure out how to capture the dialogue without also recording the swishing of costumes.

Great enthusiasm for a 66-year old film.

[Grady-8 · 10 June 1999]

"Berkeley Square" is similar in theme to Jack Finney's "Time and Again." A present day American is transported back to the home of his ancestors in London, during the American Revolution. He knows, of course, what will hap- pen and even falls in love with one of his female ancestors. An old film but a terrific one, with Leslie Howard and Heather Angel.

A hugely enjoyable romantic fantasy

[GusF · 9/10 · 28 June 2015]

One of the earliest time travel films, it concerns two men named Peter Standish, both of whom are played by Leslie Howard. One lives in 1784 and the other, his distant relative, lives in 1933. The elder Peter longs to see the technological advances which will come after his death while the younger Peter seeks to escape the hustle and bustle of 1933 and experience the joys of a supposedly simpler time. The two men switch places and, while in 1784, the younger Peter falls in law with Helen Pettigrew, played by Heather Angel, who is destined to be the elder Peter's sister-in-law. Having had access to the elder Peter's diary in 1933, the younger Peter knows many little details of the Pettigrews' lives that the elder Peter did not yet know in 1784 and, on several occasions, makes the mistake of the mentioning them. He does the same when it comes to revealing his knowledge of more general events that have not happened yet and uses expressions like "cockeyed" and "see you later" that did not exist in the 18th Century. This leads people to fear him and the elder Peter's would-be wife Kate to break off the engagement as he believes that he has been possessed by a demon.

Based on a 1929 Broadway play of the same name, Howard reprised his roles as the two Peters and gave a wonderful performance as a temporal fish out of water whose experiences of the 18th Century lead him to view it as a "filthy little pigsty of a world" rather than romanticise it as he had done before his sojourn into the past. The elder Peter's experiences of the 20th Century are left unseen but the descriptions would seem to indicate that they were equally unpleasant, not least because he was considered insane for claiming to be from 1784. Howard, whom I had never seen in a film before, and Heather Angel have wonderful chemistry and the younger Peter and Helen's gentle romance is certainly the highlight of the film. It has a very good cast overall, including Valerie Taylor as Kate (who likewise appeared in the Broadway play), Irene Browne as her mother Lady Ann Pettigrew, Colin Keith-Johnston as her layabout brother Tom, Ferdinand Gottschalk as Helen's far older suitor Mr. Throstle and Betty Lawford (Peter's cousin) as the younger Peter's fiancée Marjorie Frant. The film is very well directed by Frank Lloyd, probably best known for directing the 1935 version of "The Mutiny on the Bounty".

As the younger Peter scuppered his ancestor's chances of marrying Kate in 1784, it may be the first film in which time travel is used to alter the past - it was never stated outright that the younger Peter was a direct descendant of the elder one - but this is not made clear. The film was believed lost for many years until it was rediscovered in the 1970s, which I am very happy about as I would obviously not have been able to see it otherwise. Incidentally, I recently watched the excellent 1971 film "Quest for Love" which concerns a man who falls in love with a woman whom he meets in a parallel universe. One of the differences in that universe is that Leslie Howard is still alive and still acting. It may be only a coincidence but, given the subject matter, it could very well have been an oblique reference to this film.

Overall, this is a hugely enjoyable romantic fantasy film which reminds me of my tenth favourite film of all time "Somewhere in Time" due to its similar premise and bittersweet ending.

Far too much incongruity, even for a fantasy

[SimonJack · 5/10 · 12 May 2023]

Leslie Howard was a great actor whose life and career were cut short by World War II. But, "Berkely Square" is not one of his great or even very good performances. While some modern reviewers seem to relish it as a romance, I couldn't get past the fantasy, and the glaring incongruities in it and the screenplay. The story is built around the fantasy. And that's where I think Howard's character and portrayal are off. It's where his character in the past doesn't ring with his character in the present at the film's start.

Here is a descendant of Peter Standish, of colonial America, with the same name and living in the early 20th century. He has become mesmerized with living in the British home and learning of his ancestral cousins whom his namesake had traveled from America to visit more than a century and a third before. He gets all this from a diary kept by namesake Standish, and by papers and other documents and things he has found in the home. He is fascinated by it, and looks forward to going back to that time, which he tells his fiancé is imminent.

Then at the certain 5:30 hour on a certain day, with rain and a thunderstorm outdoors, modern Peter is transported to the time in the past when ancestor Peter is to arrive in London from America. Only, the scenes open with the Pettigrew family in a tither and anticipating his arrival. He didn't get that out of his ancestor's diary. So, the first incongruity is that the modern Peter takes the place of his ancestor. They looked exactly alike, as established in the start, and no one in England had seen him before anyway. But, now the modern Peter appears in place of the ancestor. So where's the ancestor, if this was going back in history? He came over on a ship with some other people who would be here later, and they would sense that he's not the same person. Well, the audience knows he's not, but what happened to the ancestor after the ship arrived and before the modern Peter takes his place at the door of the Pettigrew home? This is not one of those sci-fi or fantasies when someone takes over another person's body, and actually replaces that person in his or her time.

Now, so far, there is nothing that would seem to infatuate anyone about a love story here. But remember the serious and anticipating Peter Standish who so looked forward to living in the grand old past. So, when he's there, does he relish going through the things he had read about and knew were to happen? Does he quietly become part of the story and scenes to enjoy them? No, he changes completely. Now he becomes friendly, open and very talkative - blurting out all the things he had read about before they take place in the past to which he has been transported. So, this is a big incongruity in the character. Then, the modern Standish in the place of the ancestral Standish, becomes morose, as the cousins and others become afraid of him because of his strange vocabulary and seeming ability to see into the future.

The latter is somewhat different from the genre of time-travel fantasy and sci-fi films. In most, people are amused and interested in different language, and wonder about it. I realize that all of this is the story and film as it was made. But the incongruities of the story and screenplay make it hard to get past that and into a fabricated love story or romance for which there is no other accounting. Peter's ancestor married Kate and they had three children. Yet, Kate calls off their engagement out of fear for him. He and Helen fall in love and she believes that he has transported back in time, so she won't marry anyone else when he goes back to the future. So, when Peter returns to the present he has not lived the story as he read in his ancestor's diary. Yet, the ancestor must then have appeared to the family and gone through the whole thing again - perhaps with their memories erased? And, then Kate marries him and they live happily ever after.

Only now, back in the present, the modern Peter Standish can't marry his fiancé, but must always love Helen, who's grave he has visited at the nearby church. If there aren't enough incongruities to detract from an imagined and/or hoped for romance and love story here, then it must have been a dream. I was waiting and suspecting an ending that would really wrap it all up and make sense. That Peter Standish had become so overwrought with his addictive infatuation with his family's history, that he had gone mad. Too bad, because that would have been the perfect ending, instead of a melodramatic soap opera finish.

Not that many people have seen this Fox Film of 1933 in modern times. I suspect that most won't find it to be more than average, or a little strange; but not a big romance or love story. It wasn't a big box office hit in its day, during the Great Depression. But, it didn't appear to be a flop either. My guess is that film history buffs and fans who know about and appreciate Leslie Howard's acting will want to see "Berkely Square." Heather Angel, who plays Helen, is little known even to cinephiles. Ditto for all of the leads who play members of the Pettigrew family. Some of the supporting cast are well-known from the period - Alan Mowbray, Samuel Hinds, Dave Terrence and Ferdinand Gottschalk.