Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

hollywoodlegend I watched this film hoping to see some sizzle between Ava Gardner and James Mason. She was wonderfully wicked, but he underplayed it too much. Same great voice, but no passion in his role at all. Absolutely zero chemistry between Mason and Stanwyck. No wonder their marriage was in trouble! How did the studio ever think they would be believable together? I was eager to hear Mason's character's explanation at the beginning about why men cheat. Didn't impress me though. The best part of the film was the murder mystery aspect and a wonderful appearance by Cannon star William Conrad. Van Heflin played a former cop and a character you like right away. However, his part seemed like it belonged in a different film from the underused Ava Gardner's. The overall lack of excitement gives the viewer time to notice annoying things about the actors. Why did Barbara Stanwyck talk like she had false teeth? James Mason was curling and uncurling his fingers non-stop. Now the great comedy part: Man Hands! If you are familiar with the Seinfeld episode with Man Hands, you will certainly shout it out toward the end of the film.

moonspinner55 Extremely busy marital melodrama which (rather unsuccessfully) lapses into a homicide investigation! New York City socialite Barbara Stanwyck loves and trusts investment counselor husband James Mason--even though he has a penchant for disappearing after-hours and returning home at four in the morning. Turns out old flame Ava Gardner is back in town; she's a high-class man-chaser who won't take no for an answer. Screenwriter Isobel Lennart, working from the novel by Marcia Davenport, starts things off routinely, but keeps adding characters until the scenario is bubbling over like a stew-pot. Van Heflin does wonders with a shapeless role as a war correspondent/ex-detective who ends up in jilted Stanwyck's kitchen, flirting with her in Italian, while Gardner is offered some juicy repartee (when Mason calls her "cheap", Ava replies, "That's what you like about me."). A country square-dance is curiously transplanted to a Manhattan penthouse, and Beverly Michaels' supporting performance congeals into high camp; still, Barbara and Van have an immediate rapport--one that is not apparent in her scenes with Mason (who doesn't help his cause by portraying the cad-husband like a petulant boy). Stanwyck, outfitted and coiffed like a lady ten times her age, initially doesn't have much to do, but Lennart's script soon has her traveling all over the city--east side, west side, and beyond. It's a nervous, flighty picture, paced exhaustively by director Mervyn LeRoy, but overall quite watchable. **1/2 from ****

dbdumonteil The first of the three Mason/Gardner collaborations (for the record,the two others were "Mayerling" (1968) and "Pandora and the flying Dutchman" (1951) )although the actress has only a supporting part here. Anyway,the stellar cast (also featuring Gale Sondergaard who almost outshines all the other actresses in her few scenes ,particularly her last one,Barbara Stanwyck,Van Heflin,Cyd Charisse,who could ask for more?)makes the movie worth of your time .The story of this posh NYC society people is rather derivative and you do not have to be Hercule Poirot to guess that the husband did not kill the runaround girl.It does not compare favorably,though,with Le Roy's earlier works such as "I'm a fugitive from a chain gang" "they won't forget" or "Waterloo bridge" .Very moral ending.

dougdoepke Louis Mayer's MGM had a certain philosophy about high-class soap opera—load the script with stars, glamour, and sophistication, and the story won't matter much because audiences pay attention first to what they see and only secondarily to what they hear. Okay, so I fell for the powerhouse cast. But not even the luscious Gardner or Charisse was enough to compensate for this over-written, over-long "will she leave him or won't she" turkey. It's one talky static scene after another with a desultory murder thrown in. I should have known trouble awaited the other side of that smarmy prologue about New York being "my town".Too bad that Director Le Roy walks through the staging, while Mason appears interested only when dialoging with Sondergaard. At the same time, stuck in a drab, colorless role is the normally gritty Stanwyck. I kept waiting for her long-suffering wife to show some typical Stanwyck fire, but she remains pulse-challenged throughout. Apparently, the normally low- key Heflin sensed the boredom since his high-spirited good guy threatens at times to go over the top. Then too, his instant attraction to Stanwyck over the appealing Charisse remains as much a mystery as the murder itself. I guess it's left to Nancy Davis (Reagan) to hit the right dramatic note and deliver the movie's message— It's true, despite the conflicts over men, women can be friends. With these 1940's sophisticated types, I guess that's a message worth delivering.There are two points of interest. It's clear that Gardner's femme fatale has a sexual hold over Mason's chronic philanderer, rather explicit for the time. But the tension is undercut by Mason's lack of conflicting emotion when confronted with her raw appeal. It's almost like director LeRoy wants to imply the lack of character instead of showing it. Second is the movie's high point that comes out of nowhere. That's when muscular blonde Beverly Michaels all but decks Heflin in the front seat of a car. Their spirited tussle is more riveting and energetic than the rest of the film combined.True, Mayer's astute philosophy got me in the door, plus I enjoyed scoping out Gardner and Charisse, but I'd like my proverbial money back, anyway.