His Double Life

I bought this because I had discovered "Holy Matrimony" (a later version of the same story) and loved it so much. The far inferior sound and picture quality of the Alpha DVD of "His Double Life" makes a fair comparison impossible. But I would say that in almost all respects H.M. is the better version, particularly the screenplay. Lillian Gish and Roland Young are wonderful as the leads in H.D.L., and are more believable as a romantic couple than are Monty Woolley and Gracie Fields. The latter are absolutely charming, and they are "cozy" together, but it seems more a marriage of convenience in which she has become his new valet. I would welcome others' comments on this aspect.

1943 Holy Matrimony (Gracie Fields, Monty Wolley), a remake, is by far the better version, and it is one of only a scant handful of movies starring Gracie Fields as well (Molly and Me also starring Wooley and a very young Roddy McDowell is the only one I have been able to locate so far). His Double Life comes across as more of a comedy, Holy Matrimony less so, and the comedic elements in this movie are a little too cringeworthy IMO. Young's portrayal of the reclusivity of the character, his breakdown at the funeral, and the hearing scene from his POV are so over-the-top that they make the character appear to be some sort of flaming idiot; Wooley's seem right on the money and much more realistic and get the audience believing in the character. Both Gish and Fields do a credible job in the respective movies, as do the supporting casts, but in the end Holy Matrimony is simply more believable. It may come down to whether the audience prefers more silliness in a comedic version or more believability in a sometimes funny drama version.

A perfectly Darling little film. I got right into it. I was so caught up that I was horrified for "Farrel" when everyone ran him off, thinking he was Farrel's gentleman's gentleman. How he thought he could live on nothing was beyond me. But then, it's a movie. Certainly can't get away with this kind of thing, or at least it would be fairly difficult.For those that complain that it hasn't been digitally remastered not everything is. Especially little-known movies. I've found that to be the case with so many British films. It doesn't take away from the charm.

The streaming version is not at all a good print so everything is kind of dark. But I watched the whole thing anyway.Nice to see Lillian Gish beautiful at 36 years old, and finally doing some work again.The story is goofy but acceptable. Roland Young in amusing. I had seen him before but now I know his name.I would give it more stars if it look better. It is just marginally viewable as is.

Having just watched several documentaries on forgers, I found this movie an absolute delight! Especially the unlearned jury attempting to determine what was real or fake, and the subjectivity of great art and the "expertise" of experts. The acting was lovely, I look forward to seeing the other version "Holy Matrimony." It's a film that could be remade at any time and still be entertaining and relevant. For anyone interested in art forgery, I highly recommend "A Genuine Forger" about Guy Ribes and "Masterpiece or Forgery? The Story of Elmyr de Hory."

This is not the typical old fashioned movie comedy, but it has enough charm you wish the right director would bring it up to date in a remake. It's very charming and understated. You have to put up with what it is not, but what's there works. Has anyone remade this?

I have long enjoyed old movies but this one is tedious. I wonder if it truly was humourous all those years ago. Sadly, not well preserved film.

Pleasant, light, entertainment. Did not look remastered, kinda like the old originals. Not as good a role for Roland Young as Topper, could also have had a better script and directing. Of course it also did not have Cary Grant