When Tomorrow Comes (1939) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Sort of like "Jane Eyre"...but with a twist.
planktonrules17 August 2019
Helen (Irene Dunne) is a waitress and Philip (Charles Boyer) is one of her customers. Soon, he seems infatuated with her and follows her about town...which is a tad creepy, actually. Eventually they fall in love but he has a secret...and she soon learns that he is married and his wife is mentally ill. What's next? Well, it's NOT a remake of "Jane Eyre", so although it's similar, there is a big twist!

The acting is the best part of this film. Dunne and Boyer were magnificent in "Love Affair" and here they are also excellent. However, the script, though interesting, is a tad disappointing...see it and you'll likely see what I mean. Still, it is interesting and worth your time.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Pairing but Irene is too old for the part!
traceywilliamson-416987 November 2019
I love Dunne and Boyer and think they are a good match. However, I am constantly amazed at how long Irene Dunne was able to get away with 20-something roles. She is 41 here, and looks it. She is playing a waitress with a roommate who is about to strike for better pay. Her character at most would be 25. Yet producers continued to give Dunne these types of roles even after this movie. I don't really get it. When Lana Turner was in her early 40s, she was playing mothers of teenagers in "Imitation of Life" and "Portrait in Black" and Mary Astor had moved to these roles by the time she was 38. I don't understand why they weren't moving Dunne to more motherly roles by this time; she certainly does not look or act like an ingenue.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Doesn't know what it wants to be
xan-the-crawford-fan22 September 2021
After Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne had been paired together in the fabulous Love Affair (1939), someone decided to pair them together again (that's the other film of theirs- Together Again (1944)), and this was the result.

It starts as a drama about women going on strike for unfair wages and there's a lot of time devoted to a working people's union, then Dunne meets Boyer and the next part of the film is devoted to their acquaintance, then there is a hurricane and they're forced to take refuge in a church, then there's drama involving Boyer, his unstable wife (gee, it's Barbara O'Neill! What a shocker! 😏) and his love with Dunne, but this being a Hollywood movie, the good couple wins- moralistically, of course. This was made under the production code, after all.

It's not that the film needed a couple of cuts- in fact, with all the plot changes, it should have been half an hour longer, or even two Dunne-Boyer films. It's that it jumps around too much and it's boring.

Dunne's working woman fair wages campaign is pretty much forgotten about after she falls in love with Boyer. Not enough time is given to Barbara O'Neill's character, other than to develop her as a crazy psycho b*tch, and remind us that O'Neill was so much more effective as Boyer's crazy psycho b*tch wife in All This, And Heaven Too (1940).

Dunne is no more or less annoying than usual- she sings a song while Boyer plays the piano, so her fans will like that. Me, I'm not overly fond of her singing, and so I just tuned out until she was done.

She and Boyer have chemistry that was just as good as what they had in Love Affair, and this film has a moralistic ending too, but what the ending of Love Affair is sweet and will bring a tear to your eye, the ending of this one is like "Well, now it's over and you can do something else now." The acting is pretty good, O'Neill is very over-the-top, but if you've seen AT,AHT, you know what to expect from her in a role like this.

Overall, not as good as Love Affair, but not quite as bad as Together Again. It won't kill you if yoy watch it, but it's disappointing.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
...It will be "back street"
dbdumonteil12 October 2001
This is not one of Stahl's best works.The movie lacks a center of gravity. Melodrama interferes with social topics(unions,strikes,meetings)and even a deluge,complete with a night in a temple.Besides,the Madeleine character appears too late and is hardly credible.She suffers from mental illness since she lost her child.And the unfortunate heroine tells her so:"you win because you're helpless". Charles Boyer plays the usual Latin lover,and Irene Dunne,the impossible love ,as she did in Fannie Hurst's famous tear-jerker. The ending is ambiguous:in his 1957 remake,the by now usual Sirk remake has ,it seems -I haven't seen it yet- ,a more definitive conclusion. All in all,watchable,because of the cast ,but ,not a great Stahl.

NB:I saw Sirk's remake yesterday (7/12/09).Stick with Stahl.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
American Cheese Without Apple Pie
boblipton20 August 2019
Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne couldn't catch a break in 1939. First LOVE AFFAIR turns out badly for the body of the movie, then here we have Miss Dunne, a waitress, in love with Boyer, a concert pianist-prince with Barbara O'Neil as his mad wife. He loves her too, but Miss O'Neil has bouts of sanity, during which she comes to Miss Dunne's apartment.

This is one of the prestige dramas that John Stahl directed every year or so for Universal during the 1930s. As in the other movie, the chemistry between the leads is marvelous. This movie is the lesser, which I attribute to the utter lack of humor of Stahl, as opposed to Leo McCarey. Of course, the fact that a reported 21 writers worked on this picture may have given the film maker so much material that any humor had to be cut. Once you get past the meet cute, in which Boyer tries to order apple pie with cheese, hold the pie, it's all a romantic heartbreaker with their unfulfilled love. And that it is.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Polished romantic melodrama, but it has some problems!
JohnHowardReid25 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Director: JOHN M. STAHL. Screenplay: Dwight Taylor. Based on the novel Modern Cinderella by James M. Cain. Photography: John Mescall. Film editor: Milton Carruth. Art directors: Martin Obzina, Jack Otterson. Set decorator: Russell A. Gausman. Costumes: Orry-Kelly. Music: Charles Previn, Frank Skinner. Assistant director: Joseph A. McDonough. Uncredited script contributors: Herbert J. Biberman, Aben Kandel, Charles Kaufman, John Larkin. Irene Dunne's gowns: Howard Greer. Gowns: Vera West. Music director: Charles Previn. Sound supervisor: Bernard B. Brown. Sound engineer: Joe Lapis. Producer: John M. Stahl.

Copyright 16 August 1939 by Universal Pictures Co., Inc. New York opening at the Rivoli, 16 August 1939. U.S. release: 11 August 1939. Australian release: 28 September 1939. 10 reels. 92 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: What Irene Dunne doesn't know is that concert pianist Boyer is married.

NOTES: Academy Award, Sound Recording (beating Balalaika, GWTW, Goodbye Mr Chips, The Great Victor Herbert, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Man of Conquest, Mr Smith Goes To Washington, Of Mice and Men, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex and The Rains Came).

Re-made as Interlude in 1957, and again as Interlude in 1968.

COMMENT: Lavishly produced romantic melodrama with some marvelous special effects and fascinating backgrounds that will keep male interest alive while the womenfolks weep into their lace-edged handkerchiefs.

The film's main drawback is Irene Dunne. Wearing ghastly costumes and unbecomingly groomed, Miss Dunne looks about as glamorous as an old dish-mop.

Fortunately, the rest of the cast is fine: Boyer charmingly elegant, and a fine study in madness from Barbara O'Neil.

A lesser defect is that the script starts us off with a militant union and strike background ("Solidarity forever/For the union makes us strong!") and then darts off at a tangent for the hurricane episodes and the mad wife. These occupy most of the film and when we finally get back to the strike, it is called off in a most perfunctory and dramatically unsatisfactory fashion!

John M. Stahl's direction has flair and other production credits are equally polished.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
lovely, bittersweet film
blanche-216 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne star in "When Tomorrow Comes," a 1939 film directed by John Stahl and based on a story by James Cain. Cain sued for copyright infringement, stating the scene in the church was stolen from his story "Serenade" but he lost.

Helen and Philip (Dunne and Boyer) meet when she waits on him in a restaurant. She learns later he's a famous concert pianist. The waitresses are planning to strike; Philip appears at the meeting and is impressed by her speech.

The two make a date to meet, and he takes her out on his boat, then to his Long Island home - where they meet the famous 1938 hurricane and wind up stranded in a church. When the hurricane passes, the two must face the tumult in their lives.

This is a sweet film. It does not have the scope of the Dunne/Boyer Love Affair, and the story is predictable (as was Love Affair). As they proved in their previous film, Boyer and Dunne have wonderful chemistry and warmth. Boyer must have been an interesting guy - the great screen lover who never, ever wore his toupee when he wasn't making a movie. Neither he nor the very private Dunne ever let Hollywood get the better of them.

Scarlett's mother, Barbara O'Neil, has a small but showy role.

Good movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A choice to make
bkoganbing17 August 2019
Love Affair proved so popular a film that Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne were reteamed in When Tomorrow Comes at Universal Pictures.

Dunne who is usually chic and stylish plays a cafe waitress who gets to wait on Charles Boyer. No one there including Dunne realizes he's a world famous concert pianist.

Dunne goes on strike as the waitresses get organized. Boyer courts her when she's not on the picket line. They have a nice romantic interlude on Long Island when a hurricane hits.

Boyer is keeping secrets from her like the fact he's already married to Barbara O'Neil who has some mental issues.

There's a choice to be made by both of them that's obvious. What they do is for you to watch the film for.

Both keep up the same romantic standard set in Love Affair. When Tomorrow Comes won an Oscar for Sound Recording. Fans of the stars will approve
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Dunne and Boyer Star in "Small" Film
lbbrooks16 February 2017
While not as big and splashy as their pairing in "Love Affair" released the same year, Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer star in what is rather a "small" film. "When Tomorrow Comes" is a tale of unrequited love between two people who because of the man being bound to a mentally ill wife can never be together. Irene Dunne convincingly plays an underemployed ordinary working gal, one who aspires to be a singer but who is stuck toiling the days away as a waitress. Her character bonds with Boyer's character by disobeying her restaurant's "no substitutions" rule and fulfilling his request for French apple pie. This scene is endearing as she dares to simply place a piece of cheese on top of a slice of hot apple pie and cover the pie until the cheese melts--LOL, "it ain't nothing' but a thing" as Dunne goes the extra step to please the customer. From then on the two are friends and go off together to explore Manhattan and go sailing together. Their would be love affair is derailed by nothing less than a hurricane and the reappearance of Boyer's wife, played here by Barbara O'Neill. O'Neill steals the show as she portrays a woman who is mentally unbalanced, but not for the reason everyone suspects. While her illness is attributed to the death of her infant son, we soon discover that she is using this as an excuse to keep Boyer bound to her. In the scene where Dunne confronts her and pleads for her to release Boyer, we are chilled by O'Neill's psychopathic threat to do harm to Boyer should he leave her for Dunne. O'Neill is scary as hell and Dunne understands as the audience does that she is promising to do Boyer harm not merely threatening to. Because of this, Dunne knows that Boyer can never be hers and for this reason she must bid him farewell forever. The final scene where they part ways as she exits from the restaurant where they are having their last supper together is a tearjerker. No matter how many times she plays the poignant heroine who is called on to do the right thing, Dunne nails it. Her pain is our pain. Boyer's pain in losing her is also our own. Their love is lost and the pain is unbearable.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I really wanted to like this...
vincentlynch-moonoi19 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
...and I did like some aspects of the film. But overall, this film just seemed to stray off course a few times too often.

At the beginning of the film, an inordinate amount of time was spent on the wait staff's union business. It was an okay place to start, but it went on so long that it cheated us in terms of the real meat of the plot. Some dialog here and there actually made me stop and think, "Gee, that was dumb". And then the ending...I found it totally unsatisfactory (was that a code consideration?).

On other hand, I like Irene Dunne, although I didn't like her here as much as I usually do. To me, she doesn't come across as well as a lowly waitress as well as she came across in more somewhat upper class films such as "The Awful Truth" (with Cary Grant). Recently I've been taking a second look at Charles Boyer and I've gained more respect for his acting than I once had. He's really very good here.

I give the film high marks for the special effects. Special effects in a love story? Yes, the hurricane is done quite nicely for 1939, and the scene in the flooded church is nicely done.

I watched this film on TCM, and this was one of the worst prints I've ever seen them present. Of course, that's not the film's fault, but this is one picture that desperately needs to be restored.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A very happily romantic adventure ending up in a hopelessly tragic knot...
clanciai10 May 2019
This is a heart-rending story covered up in a romantic comedy of many wonderful and surprising turnings, and it is impossible to guess at the sad conclusion of this very entertaining and stimulating journey. It's a typical Irene Dunne film, it's like a twin shadow of "Love Affair" of the same year, but although this film is more hearty and gleeful in its romantic ways, it is more tragic than "Love Affair", which puts on a more sinister fateful aspect but nevertheless ends better. Here you are faced with a truly hopeless situation with no end to its abysmal tragedy, which no one can do anything about, and still Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne settle to make the best of it and hope for tomorrow anyway, and maybe, after all, it will come...
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hopefully then, there will be a conclusion.
mark.waltz29 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The star-crossed couple from "Love Affair" (Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne) are reunited in the same year's "When Tomorrow Comes", I know K women's picture that starts off with like comedy, switches into a disaster film and then ends on a soap opera note. The two meet when Boyer sits at a crowded lunch table in the cafe where Dunne works, preparing to lead her co-workers on strike for unfair treatment. After convincing done and fellow waitress Nydia Westman that he is not a company spy, Boyer sneaks into their union meeting then takes Dunne out on a trip to Long Island where a torrential storm leaves them stranded. When they returned to town, Dunne learns that boy has a mentally ill wife (Barbara O'Neill) who has no intention of letting her husband go. How will a woman of Dunne's high moral character deal with the possibility being a backstreet mistress? The same way she did in 1932? Or the same way that Margaret Sullivan would 2 years later in the remake of that 1930 to version of "Back Street", ironically co-starring opposite Boyer.

While enjoyable in the first half as a light comedy, the change in moods makes it a perplexing film and ultimately hard to fully recommend. Of course, Boyer and Dunne have outstanding chemistry, receiving a claim for the same years "Love Affair". Like that classic, this also had a 1950's remake, "Interlude", starring June Allyson and Rossano Brazzi. Like this film, it too is pretty much forgotten, while the original "Love Affair" and its remake ("An Affair to Remember") are considered classics and still popular today. The background score of this film is beautiful to look at with its lush sound and dramatic effect. Supporting performances are good, and it's interesting to see O'Neill, having played the understanding second wife in "Stella Dallas", Scarlett O'Hara's mother in "Gone With the Wind", and of course her Oscar-nominated performance as Boyer's even more bitter wife in "All This and Heaven Too". It's unfortunate that the script never knows what it wants to be, so I must refer to it as "The Three Faces of Love" due to its obvious split personality.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A muffled cry in front of an unbreakable wall
remixam22 August 2018
The final sequence haunts me (obviously above reason). I cannot understand how the scene could be analyzed purely in relation with spatial organization, performances, or script's expectations, as a whole or each part separately. Moreover, if there is any style here, it dissolves in pure abstraction. The scene is mainly a single medium shot of both actors sitting side by side at a table. Two glasses and a bottle of wine on the table. Two candles at both front corners, delimiting the shot's borders. That's about all. Charles Boyer was Charles Boyer, and Irene Dunne, Irene Dunne. I do not trust the additive value of the summation of all aforementioned elements. I cannot understand my astonishment but in this distinct feeling of both renunciation and uprooting, which leaves its mark on all scenes, in the short breath of the suffocating voices, in the petrified bodies that do not belong to this world, in the icy ridges of a frame with no way out. The voice is here a muffled cry in front of an unbreakable wall.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A bore
rodinnyc17 August 2019
I stayed with this hoping for something and it delivered squat. I actually got hooked in the beginning which would have made a very good movie...when Dunne is essential in getting coworkers "the girls" to support a strike against her boss, never seen, of a chain of restaurants. The first part of the film sets up a smart, working women facing the exploitation of the bosses....and she is pursued by the union rep, a handsome man. Instead she becomes tied up in a subsequent dreary plot with Boyer. The first part of the film is charming and interesting and she's an arresting character. Even he is mildly interesting. The slice of 1939 life they partake of is very well played: going to the piers where people are cooling off pre AC, helping a kid who's skinned his knee, lost his pants held up by rope. He's pushing his friend in a go cart. After setting up an interesting film they are caught in a storm. Held up in a church. Which holds up the film. Even that is passably interesting. Finally, we meet Boyer's mad wife who isn't so addled when away from her mother and her minder. She wants her husband. And Dunne as a good woman in a 1939 movie, isn't going to fight her for him. This is all trite. Had it been a light, romantic comedy built around striking women it would have been a good film. A film about a strong, smart woman leading a strike. As it is...I guess this is what is called condescendingly "a woman's film" like today's "chick flicks" and it's a bore.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed