rhoda-9 OK, here's the plot: Famous conductor and unknown composer fall in love and marry. He cheats on her, she walks out and won't return, he becomes a drunk, she returns and nurses him back to health. And, yes, that's IT! That's all there is, there isn't any more! It's as if the movie makers decided that, with Boyer and Hepburn on hand, no proper script was necessary. But this bare, banal drama is so devoid of interest no stars could save it, hard though they work to make something out of practically nothing.The absence of complexity makes Boyer's behaviour not only inexplicable but repellent. Why, after only a few months, does he cheat on his wife, whom we are told he loves passionately and who loves him? He tells her the other woman means nothing to him, she is the only woman he loves--typical banal, empty rhetoric of the cheating husband. Later, talking to a friend, he complains that his wife is immature and doesn't want to face real life. What does that mean--she wants him to be faithful? This puts the audience in the position of having to think, Oh, THAT's why he has a mistress--he's French! (Or, as we would say today, It's part of their culture.) Hepburn plays on the piano about a minute of a composition that Boyer inspires, but after that her composing is simply dropped, and her only role is the betrayed wife. She is also given a supportive, understanding boyfriend who looks and acts like her kid brother and who is played by an actor of no attractiveness or interest. These elements also make it seem as if the movie makers just couldn't be bothered.I give it a six for the fabulous leads, who, despite the dreary stuff they are saddled with, do their usual irresistible shtick-- Boyer passionate and seductive, and Hepburn is idealistic and luminous. If, as I do, you love watching them do it, this is worth your time, but you just see them doing it in a vacuum.

blanche-2 Katharine Hepburn and Charles Boyer star in "Break of Hearts," a 1935 film that, despite not being particularly good, has some relevance to today's tabloid news.Boyer is a Tiger Woods-Jesse James type - he's a conductor who marries a young fledgling composer, is caught cheating on her, and she leaves him. Then he hits the skids.Predictable '30s drama. Both Boyer and Hepburn are ridiculously young and very attractive. Boyer is quite charming and moody as the conductor. Considering their respective careers, this is really just a blip on the radar.

MartinHafer Maybe it's just me, but the idea of Charles Boyer playing opposite Katharine Hepburn in a romance is odd...to say the least. Now I am NOT casting any aspersions on their acting--they were both fine actors. But the combination of the two in a film like this just seems strange. Perhaps at the time it didn't--as Hepburn wasn't yet a huge star and hadn't the reputation she'd have just a few years later. But the reddish-haired lady with a refined New England accent and the suave Frenchman--what an unusual combination The film begins with Boyer playing a very famous orchestra conductor and musician. He's a bit of a womanizer, so it's surprising when he meets a young would-be composer (Hepburn) that he'd fall for her so hard that he'd ask her to marry him. They seem deliriously happy and go off on a wonderful honeymoon in Europe. Things couldn't be better for the pair until he decides on a whim to go to a party with an old lady friend. However, when Katharine seems them together, she assumes he's cheating on her and perhaps he was, so she storms off--and is ready for a divorce. Can the two get past this or is their marriage headed for an untimely end? See the film and find out what happens next.Overall, while the acting is pretty good and a nice looking production, the movie itself is very ordinary...at best. In fact, some parts are a bit embarrassing to watch--it just wasn't written all that well and seemed overdone and unreal--particularly in the second half. A sticky and clichéd soap opera and not a whole lot more. There just wasn't enough interesting material in this film to elevate it anything more than a time-passer. Too bad--with this talent, it should have been a lot better.

Sara Hardin This love story was actually good. Philip Moeller did not make this movie what it could have been. A better director such as George Cukor (who was familiar with Hepburn) would have made the scenes much more enjoyable. Katharine Hepburn does a good job of the aspiring composer and Charlie Boyer as the Great Franz Roberti, conductor. The two both have too much pride instead of talking things over, which is relatable. It's also surprising how Hepburn and Boyer got away with slamming each other with insults of their promiscuity. All in all, it was a good movie for Hepburn to do in her early career, and fans of her will enjoy it.