Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Cristi_Ciopron A stylish popular drama with W. William (as an attorney for the state) and Gail Patrick (as his wife), also some customary but unfunny comic relief provided by a black actress. M. Stone has a good supporting role, as a nervous young man, appropriately submissive to his chief, several scenes, from which one senses he was deserving more (though in his scenes with W. William he looks deferent and respectful enough, as required by his role); he's somewhat like a slimmer Wayne, or a much tougher Lemmon.After five yrs, Whale shot again a script, this one; the result is thrilling, but unsubtle dramatically, in that the attorney's shift resembles a sudden conversion (he becomes aware of jealousy and neglect, but this reshapes also his whole professional approach, as his cruelty and malevolence are distinct from his conjugal behavior, although likely kindred, related …). The movie has been carefully made, though it might of seemed somewhat more conventional than the director's other works. Although, given that he remade one of his earlier movies, he might of been fond of the script. Whale has been essentially a genre director, and this movie corresponds to the genre approach, being not a straight drama, but a genre movie, like one made by Sekely, and like countless others …; it follows that his courtroom story is a good show, unsatisfying dramatically: unsubtle, mediocre, but stylish.W. William has a now outdated hawkish handsomeness, appreciated in the older movie-making, reminding of Menjou (only, of course, meaner), but also of Rathbone. In a Universal show, he resembles also one of Hammer's future character actors. His acting being mono-chord, the shift comes across as less believable.Here, he plays a severe, heartless, cruel, sardonic attorney of the state; the idea of the script has been that one of his cases changes so much his thought, as to reshape completely his whole being, and perhaps this shift should of been more gradual, less instant in its effects, though it had been prepared enough by the attorney's exposure to the case. As the malevolent attorney (the Inquisitor, the executioner), he looked his role; and there's also his morbid toy, the abacus, and Whale's savvy directing. The turning, the shift in front of the court was less convincingly played. This shift is less believable, and not very well conveyed by the leading actor himself.I think Whale achieves much given the nature of the script, so that the storyline is polished and neat, the drama is simple but deepened, and MacAllen's case offers a striking reference, so that the style comes across as both popular and thoughtful. Some lines are beautiful, like that about the strange perversity of destructiveness.

MartinHafer I noticed one of the reviewers complained about Warren William's tendency to over-act. Well, as a fan of the actor, I tend to agree--he DID over-act--and I generally liked his bigger than life and devil-may-care persona. That is why I decided to see "Wives Under Suspicion"--I'd watch just about anything starring this now forgotten star. Sadly, however, this was not one of his better films and it isn't surprising--by 1938, William had moved from his very successful career at Warner Brothers to Universal (a must less prestigious studio at that time) and the budgets were clearly smaller and it showed.The film begins with William as a gung-ho District Attorney. He lives to prosecute and convict people--and his marriage and personal life have suffered. All he really cares about is winning--and sending as many people as he can to death row. However, when the case of a man who murdered his wife in a fit of anger (Ralph Morgan) is given to him, eventually the parallels between this case and his own sad life became apparent.I think the biggest problem with this film is that the cast was amazingly limp. Morgan and William were very competent actors, but here they were NOT at their best. In particular, Morgan has a scene where he is supposed to cry but it comes off very poorly--embarrassingly so. In addition, while the story idea is good, the direction and dialog is all either limp or overdone. Director Whale (who made quite a name for himself directing the first two Frankenstein films at Universal) had clearly seen better days and the film failed to impress. It really should have been a lot better given the neat story idea.

MARIO GAUCI While this film doesn't seem to have impressed Michael much, I found it somewhat better than SINNERS IN PARADISE (1938) though, obviously, not quite in the same league as Whale's irreproachable horror output.The film's plot, though essentially contrived, makes for a very interesting melodrama: actually, this was a remake of the same director's THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1933) and the only review I could find called it "tame and uninspired" when compared to the "more visually striking" Pre-Code original (that was apparently shot on leftover sets from Whale's own FRANKENSTEIN [1931]!) - all of which makes me want to watch the 1933 film even more...Despite its 'B' picture status, however, the film is stylishly handled by a master craftsman (right from the opening credit sequence) with special care given to camera-work, lighting and décor - not to mention the recurring use of montages; in fact, the latter sequences - along with the hectic pace and the theme itself - recalled some of the social conscience films being made contemporaneously by Warner Bros.! Warren William and Ralph Morgan give solid performances and their scenes together - particularly the latter's confession and the subsequent trial - are certainly among the film's highlights. Unfortunately, however, as was the case with the blackface scene from Whale's own REMEMBER LAST NIGHT? (1935), the film's stereotyped depiction of William's black maid would, most probably, not go down well with today's audiences! While I never really understood why certain directors needed to remake their own films, I'm certainly glad it happened in this case - particularly since the original doesn't seem to be readily available (a regrettable situation with regards to most of Whale's non-horror titles!), but also because his second stab at the story has certainly made for a pretty good film in its own right.

som1950 Walter Huston famously said that he wasn't paid to sell good lines, but to put across bad ones. He often did. So did Warren William. For both of them, putting across bad lines frequently involved overacting. It's a bit difficult to believe WW being overcome by passion of any sort, and especially any aroused by his boring (though gracious) clothes-horse of a wife (Gail Patrick) in "Wives Under Suspicion," the tame and uninspired 1939 remake by James Whale of his more visually striking "Kiss Before the Mirror" made only five years earlier, but, presumably, too risqué to be rereleased after the Motion Picture Production Code began to be enforced.Frank Morgan switched roles from defense attorney in the first to defendant in this one, and, unfortunately, Gloria Stuart and Walter Pidgeon did not return. The story is mechanical and has coincidences that strain credulity, but Warren William gave it his all. The only interesting touch was the courtroom set with the judge raised to an exaggerated height.