kidboots Films showing the effect war had on the ordinary person in the street were extremely popular - "Perfect Strangers", "Millions Like Us" - even Leslie Howard, before his mysterious death, directed and narrated this blatant propaganda piece about life in the woman's army, "The Gentle Sex".Too episodic to hold viewer's attention with only a slight attempt to give the seven main girls distinctive characteristics, this was really a film designed to show that women could do their bit every bit as well as the men. Rosamund Johns plays against type (I have never seen her in a role like this) as an unsophisticated Scots girl who finds fleeting romance with John Laurie at a staff dance. Joyce Howard was probably at the peak of her popularity around this time, forming a team with James Mason in a couple of mystery thrillers. Her "Anne" may have been the most detailed role - a girl from an Army family who falls in love with John Justin, an impossibly handsome soldier!!You are tantalized at the start by Joan Greenwood's "Betty", an innocent rich kid who had never been away from mummy but unfortunately that interesting storyline just petered out. Greenwood was light years away from the sultry star I remember with the husky voice and the "come hither" eyes, the one chosen by Empire Magazine (1995) as one of the 100 Sexiest Stars in Film History (No. 63). Jean Gillis' "Dot" was another who at the start made you take notice - she was joining up to get away from the sordid life of night clubs and cabarets plus a persistent boyfriend. A small scene midway through involving a enthusiastic punter and you realise that she is married and her husband has just been wounded. Jean Gillis was to become Great Britain's answer to Ann Savage, she had a modest career in England before coming to the States and wowing everyone in "Decoy".Producer Derrick de Marney had co-starred in Alfred Hitchcock's very under rated "Young and Innocent"(1937).

Andrew_S_Hatton The best description I have seen elsewhere is a 'time capsule' and what is in the capsule is idealised propaganda.It is almost impossible to review the content seriously, in the early 21st century, particularly by reviewers who, probably mostly grew up in the aftermath of 'The War' as the great World War II Conflict was described in my Fifties childhood in suburban London, England.I make no significant comment about the cinematography or acting, which to me seemed competent.Presumably the purpose was to encourage yet more to volunteer and to provide reassurance for the parents of those women who served. The times were as terrifying then for most British people as events in the Middle East are exciting and terrifying for residents now, as one country after another begins a revolution of sorts, in a search for democracy, in March 2011.Things were VERY different and the comforts most take for granted now, were not even dreamed of by the majority - for whom two slices of bread and margarine followed by a small 'rock cake' and consumed with a mug of tea were all the sustenance that would be expected when travelling. There may have been something between the slabs of bread, such as meat or fish paste but if it was there it was spread thinly as the bread slices were mighty close together! Another small detail, the lorries with those little swishing window wipers, swinging from above clearing just the part of the window a driver can see through and working independently of the passenger's window wiper. Then the ambulances without doors, but with just a textile closing across the bottom half of the door-frame. I remember milk-floats like that in the fifties.A film more for those interested in recent history than an ardent film buff!

writers_reign Okay, it's 1943 and presumably there's no indication of when the war will end, no sign of any breakthrough and D-Day is still a good twelve months away so why not shoot a little propaganda-lite; a sort of visual blend of 'The Lady' and 'Women's Companion' magazines; a little about food, a little about clothes, a little about men, etc. At the time it was probably a minor success; the viewer is drawn gently into it via Lesley Howard's voice-over as he 'selects' a group of women who have all 'joined up' - in this case the A.T.S - and then permits us to follow them on their train journey to the camp where they will undergo basic training. As a time-capsule it is fascinating because for the viewer in 2007 it is like travelling to Atlantis or one of those lost civilizations that so beguiled Professor Fawcett. Was there EVER an England like this? Clearly there was and Tony Blair couldn't rest until he'd obliterated all traces of it. The cast are all competent and although a handful - Joan Greenwood, Rosamund John, John Laurie, Lili Palmer, Jimmy Hanley - continued to work on stage and/or screen none of them really achieved what today we would call Super stardom. It's a modest effort, quintessentially English, worth watching on TV - which is where I saw it - but not worth searching for on DVD.

csrothwec My view is that this film has nothing to compare it with wartime productions like "Millions like us", let alone the Powell and Pressburger masterpiece, "A Canterbury Tale". While the production and acting standards are quite good, the whole thing simply lacks pace and sufficient development of either plot or characters to keep the viewer's interest. Rather than attempting to follow the fortunes of seven new recruits to the women's forces in the second world war, (and then dissipating the time covered by the film trying to keep up with all of them), Howard would have done better to focus, (as in the two afore-mentioned films), on a small number of characters and investigate the way in which the relationships between them develop and intensify and, in THESE ways, allow the message of "why we are fighting" to come through much more clearly than in the stiff upper lip, (except, of course, for Lilli Palmer playing "the excitable foreigner"!), rendering of patriotic platitudes which the film produces. A disappointment and, in my view, now mainly of interest only for what it conveys of "established" views of women's war time endeavours in 1943 rather than as visual entertainment which, while being revelatory of its own period, ALSO far transcends this and provides entertainment and reflection of a much deeper nature as well. Right, let's roll "A Canterbury Tale" again and see how it SHOULD have been done!