MartinHafer I have long loved Claudette Colbert in films and am a bit surprised that she isn't more well known for her part in this terrific film. While naturally people tend to think of her from IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (two terrific films), it's a shame more people haven't seen REMEMBER THE DAY, as it offered a side to her that wasn't seen so often in films. Here, Colbert is both more sexual and less motherly than she usually seemed in films. Part of this is because her usual asexual hairstyle is gone and she seems to be more of a real woman with real needs and desires. Frankly, apart from her role in SIGN OF THE CROSS, it might just be the sexiest part she ever played. Now this does NOT mean that she was a slut or a loose woman--far from it. But she just seemed more approachable and warmer than in other films in which she appeared.REMEMBER THE DAY is also a highly sentimental film about a beloved teacher who makes her mark on students. However, unlike films like GOODBYE MR. CHIPS and THREE CHEERS FOR MISS BISHOP, the focus in this movie is on the effect she had on one particular student--one who grew up to be nominated for President of the US. The sentimentality is strong but thanks to an excellent script, direction and acting, the film seemed more believable, less maudlin and more authentic than most films of the style.In addition to wonderful work by Colbert, John Payne had one of his better performances and this is a film everyone involved should have been proud of making. A sweet old film that seems to be rather timeless--it's well worth a look.

sevisan Henry King did some masterworks: Stella Dallas, Tol'able David, Alexander Ragtime Band, Ramona, etc., but also some impersonal films (The Black Swan, King of the Kyber rifles, etc.). I think that "Remember the day" lays in between these categories, and I am a bit confused by its positive reviews in IMDb. First of all, there is no chemistry between Colbert and Payne. Here, Payne overacts and looks misplaced as a romantic hero (think of his character portrayed by Power or Fonda). We all think of Payne, instead, as the cynical heavy in the films of Phil Karlson or Allan Dwan. Besides, too much time and sugar is dedicated to the romance between he a she, and too little time to the love of the boy Dewey for his teacher, not to speak of the awkward and abrupt final scene and the horrible actor ¿John Shepperd? who portrays adult Dewey. The direction of Henry King is, except in that final scene, smooth and fluid as ever, but the problems of the film are Payne and the script. The character of Dewey, mainly adult Dewey, should had been more developed.

roxie3 This was a sweet film about romance during WW I, and I happened to see on a movie channel while staying at a hotel recently. The acting was good, but I am surprised at the accolades of other reviewers. The plot was sort of simple, but my main problem was the ending. So I guess this is a spoiler, although other reviewers have mentioned how it ends.The story begins in 1916, when Colbert is a very young school teacher, probably early 20s. Her student who is going to be the presidential candidate is about 10 or 12. Now at the end, they say that a quarter of a century has passed. That's 25 years. The movie was made in 1941, so that would be just about right. However, Colbert is now an elderly woman, complete with these awful glasses and gray hair in a bun. Her student, who is now the presidential candidate, is a middle aged man with graying hair. His wife, who was also Colbert's student, is an overweight middled aged woman who looks about 50.Uh, excuse me, but if Colber was about 23 at the start, let's do the math. Now she is 48 years old--hardly a dottering old bag who looks like she's ready for a nursing home. Her students were not that much younger than her, and both of them would still be quite young at age 35.What were the producer and director thinking? Didn't anyone else notice this? It's also a little hard to imagine that by age 35, especially in that time period, that the former student would be running for president.

theowinthrop This is a very nice little movie that showed Claudette Colbert and John Payne to great advantage as two young teachers who, in 1916, meet in a small mid-western town, teaching at a high school. They fall in love, and we watch the romance blossom into a marriage - the entire effect helped by the nostalgia of a by-gone, simpler era. Parallelling the story we have the story of a young boy that goes to the school and is taught by both Colbert and Payne.The film is set up with it's heart (the romance) surrounded by a more recent story set in 1940, at the Republican Presidential Convention (a fictional version of the convention). Colbert is there to see the young boy student, who has now grown up. It is not until the film ends that we understand who she is visiting with. And it is not until the conclusion of the film that we get the bittersweet portion of the romance.The film is very simple, and it's final element for success is that Payne and Colbert had terrific chemistry together. Ironically enough it would be their only film together (one wishes they had done a second film but that was not in the cards for some reason). Also ironically, it's total success should be compared with the comparative failure of TOMORROW IS FOREVER, wherein Orson Welles and Colbert both perform their roles well (in characters very like Payne's and Colbert's here) but lack the spark to make that trickier story more believable.