Reviews were generally positive, but several critics questioned the decision to remake the film at that time because of its lack of appeal to the rock and roll generation.
Bosley Crowther of
The New York Times praised the film as "another fine production of the old romance...It does one's heart good to visit once more that dramatic old house on Wimpole Street."
Variety wrote that the film had "a quality look, perfectly picturing the era with almost museum fidelity and reflecting astuteness in virtually all phases except possibly the most important—choice of story for the current, highly competitive market." The review thought that younger viewers would find the film "no more than a quaint, old-fashioned, boy-meets-girl drama, long, talky and often tedious." ''
Harrison's Reports'' agreed, calling the film "a quality production" but "extremely slow-moving, and the morals and manners of the period, as presented, may prove much too stately for today's mass audiences."
Richard L. Coe of
The Washington Post declared the film "an excellent remake of an old favorite" with a "chilling, memorable performance" by Gielgud. A generally positive review in
The New Yorker by
John McCarten called the script a "fair and literate adaptation" of the play and Mr. Barrett "an impressive figure" as played by Gielgud, "but I'm afraid I can't say as much for Jennifer Jones, who plays the invalid Elizabeth as if she'd just completed a lively hay ride, or for Bill Travers, whose Browning is unconscionably ebullient."
The Monthly Film Bulletin remarked that the decision to remake the film seemed "rather odd," given that to modern viewers it "must appear a little tame and lacking in spirit. In any case, the handling of Rudolf Besier's heavily dramatic play reveals little flair or imagination; the film is far too static and theatrically manoeuvered to maintain the interest throughout its considerable running time." ==Historicity ==