I haven't seen this film since 1975 when I was 17, and although the starring players - Katharine Hepburn and Laurence Olivier - were 50 years older than me, their characterizations of two lovers who had met and fallen in love at the age I was at the time, had separated - but not for lack of love, and now are reunited under the most awkward of circumstances drew me in and held me.

I'm going to tell you upfront I intend to spoil this movie to the extent my memory allows because it impressed me so much and because it is such a shame it is not available on DVD.

The basic story is that Katharine Hepburn is a famous retired actress, Jessica Medlicott, now widowed, who takes up with a young man because his romantic interest in her revives her feeling of youthfulness. However, his interest is only her pocketbook in the end, for he sues for breach of promise, since back in turn of the century England - and America for that matter - a proposal had the force of a contract. If he wins he will take a significant portion of her wealth with him, plus at that time the winner of a civil suit is afforded the cost of legal representation from the winner, which could be significant.

So Jessica hires the best barrister in England - Laurence Olivier as Sir Arthur Glanville-Jones. Sir Arthur recognizes her immediately as his first and really only love from decades before. The problem is, she seems to have no recollection of him at all! She doesn't seem to recall their torrid love affair when he was a law student and she a struggling actress, and how she ran out on him when she decided to marry a much older wealthy man out of the blue. Sir Arthur never explicitly asks her about this, but from her demeanor he can tell she does not recognize him.

The memory of the affair may seem to be gone, but the chemistry is still there and sparks fly. Sir Arthur warns Jessica to show up to court looking old, haggard, and dressed plainly so that the jury can see how ridiculous it would be for such a young man to have such an old woman as his bride. She rebels by entering court in a bright red gown with plumes, a hat with even more plumes, and an ornate parasol. Her entry wows the jurors (I believe they were all men) as well as the judge and the rest of the court as she winks and collectively flirts with them.

Sir Arthur is furious, but during his cross examination of Jessica, and in his final argument to the jury ,he talks about how ridiculous the idea of any real marriage between the two could be. He asks the jury if they can see the two having children?, growing old together?, doing anything that a newlywed couple can look forward to? Part of the reason his argument is so impassioned is you can just tell he is thinking of the future that he and Jessica lost so many years ago - the past that could have been.

If you can ever find it, I'll let the legal decision be one secret I do not tell. However I will tell you that Jessica's memories are not as dead and buried as Sir Arthur believed. This one is absolutely worth your time end to end. Highly recommended.

Both Sir Laurence Olivier and Katharine Hepburn were born in 1908 which would have had them make their earthly debuts during the reign of Edward VII. I guess it's fitting that they do their one an only film together in a romantic comedy about two elderly people brought together by a lawsuit.

Hepburn's solicitor, Richard Pearson, brings Hepburn and Olivier together. Hepburn is being sued for alienation of affections by a young man who swears she promised marriage to him, he who is old enough to be her grandson. Olivier is a barrister of great repute and they happen to be neighbors on the same block in London.

What Pearson doesn't know and Hepburn seems to have forgotten was that a long time ago, almost forty years, Olivier was a young law student in Toronto who was crushing out big time on young actress Hepburn. Like a good stage door Johnny, Olivier waited for her and had evening out with her and never saw her after that. She married a wealthy title and Olivier went on to a great legal career, but he's been crushing out on her since.

In today's terminology they would call the suit against Hepburn palimony. The trial portion of the film is the best with Hepburn almost seeming to work at cross purposes with her own attorney. The opposing barrister is Colin Blakely who played a lot of sleazy types in films. If the British have lawyer jokes in their culture, Blakely would seem like a great candidate. The man just oozed shyster from his very pores.

Thirty years earlier had this film been made it would have had a theatrical release. Movie public tastes change so it got relegated to the made for TV status. Still though with the presence of those two star names it should not be missed.

Love Among the Ruins was directed by George Cukor and deserved Emmys were won all around, by Cukor, Olivier, and Hepburn. They should all get our thanks for showing that quality still had an audience.

It is a shame that this did not receive theatrical release in 1975 for this is ranked as one of the worst years on the big screen for women in film. Katharine Hepburn might have had five Oscars as opposed to four, and her co-star Laurence Olivier might have been a serious challenge to that year's best actor winner, Jack Nicholson. But the big screen's loss was the little screen's gain, giving prestige to the fairly new concept of the T.V. movie which had only taken shape over the past decade with mostly low-budget, cheaply made telefeatures which replaced the "B" movies of the big screen.

In this film, Laurence Olivier is a barrister who is asked by Hepburn's legal adviser (Colin Blakely) to represent her in a breach of promise suit brought against her by an extremely young man who claimed that she had agreed to marry him. Outraged by the ridiculous charges, Hepburn admits that she had befriended the young chap (Leigh Lawson) out of loneliness after her husband died, but had never lead him into thinking that it was anything more than a close acquaintance. Olivier is angered because Hepburn doesn't remember their own involvement years ago when she was a promising stage actress who went off to pursue a stage career while he was getting his legal career off the ground. In love with her for years and never getting over that, he stayed a bachelor, watching her from a distance and pining for the love lost.

Does she remember and is simply hiding it out of some sort of womanly pride, or has she truly forgotten? This is the question as they discuss the facts of the case which present Lawson and his social climbing mother (Joan Sims) as obvious gold diggers out to swindle a lonely old widow. As the case is presented in court, Hepburn gets more indignant, having a temperamental breakdown when questioned in regards to her age and other sordid facts in the case. This blends comedy and drama with great ease, directed to perfection by Hepburn's long-time friend George Cukor who had guided her through many memorable movies through the years, including several with her long-time partner, Spencer Tracy.

As for the chemistry between Hepburn and Olivier, it is obvious that they admire each other very much, and in real life, they were friendly. In fact, one source I investigated indicated that Hepburn was a witness when Olivier married Vivien Leigh, so their pairing some thirty years later is not only historical but nostalgic and touching. As the storyline involving the case is wrapped up, Hepburn and Olivier's characters begin to find a respect for each other that earlier was mostly arguments over their case as well as their past. Looking splendid in period costumes, the two compliment each other greatly. The great Kate has the showier part, with Olivier laid back in speaking his dialog, almost like a school boy experiencing his first crush. You won't be seeing Heathcliff, Maxim De Winter or Hamlet in this performance; He is shyly sweet and professionally tough, mixing the personalities of both business and tender love into a character you can't help be charmed by.