I'm a huge fan of classic Hollywood. Of all the films I've rated on IMDb (over 7,600 at the time of this review) I think it's safe to say a majority are pre-1960. I rarely find myself in disagreement with the consensus when it comes to widely-praised films from this era. But every once in a blue moon I find myself disagreeing with popular opinion on a classic film, even if it's just a little. Which brings me to Laura. I first saw Laura nearly twenty years ago. Then, and every time I've watched it since, I thought it was okay but was left underwhelmed that it didn't live up to its reputation. I return to it every few years with the hopes I would finally "get it." At this point, I doubt my opinion is ever going to change on this movie. It's one of those movies that leaves me wondering what I'm missing. You know the feeling. You watch a movie and you like it okay but you look around and see everybody else LOVES it. They heap it with praise. I have seen countless movies that I felt this way about, especially recently as every summer blockbuster is heralded as the new king of cinema and skyrockets up IMDb's increasingly worthless Top 250.
The problems I have with this movie start with it being a film built around a mystery that leads to the entirely unsurprising plot twist midway through that Laura is not actually dead. Even if this twist were not spoiled by the plot summary on the back of my DVD and in the TV plot descriptions from TCM, which it is, I would still find it hard to believe anyone is really surprised by it. To make matters worse, the film is not the same after the twist as it was before. The first half of the film is excellent, with the always-wonderful Clifton Webb giving a standout performance as Waldo Lydecker. Dana Andrews is also great up to this point. But then, shortly before Laura shows back up, we're led to believe that McPherson (Andrews) has fallen in love with her. There's no build-up to this. It just happens. Then we get a second half of McPherson acting like a jealous nut instead of the calm and collected police detective he was in the first half.
Okay, there could still be a great film there. Perhaps an examination of the similarities between McPherson and Lydecker. Maybe even making McPherson take stock of his own obsession with this woman and pulling back from the brink. But no, the film doesn't do this. Instead, while Lydecker's crime is exposed and we see how far obsession has taken him, McPherson's obsessive "love" for Laura is treated like a true romance. Laura returns McPherson's feelings and we're led to believe these two wacky kids really are in love. While we're at it, the character of Laura really doesn't seem worth all this attention. Outside of her very pretty face, she's about as interesting as wallpaper.
The film's certainly got some positive qualities. It's beautifully shot, it has a great cast, nice music, and good direction. Gene Tierney is very easy on the eyes. I know I'm in the minority by not loving this film. It's got a great score on IMDb for a film this old. Its reputation has stood the test of time, even if I don't totally agree with it. My final thoughts are that I think it is a good movie, not a great one, that is predictable and uneven with a weak second half. Your mileage may (and probably will) vary, however.
The problems I have with this movie start with it being a film built around a mystery that leads to the entirely unsurprising plot twist midway through that Laura is not actually dead. Even if this twist were not spoiled by the plot summary on the back of my DVD and in the TV plot descriptions from TCM, which it is, I would still find it hard to believe anyone is really surprised by it. To make matters worse, the film is not the same after the twist as it was before. The first half of the film is excellent, with the always-wonderful Clifton Webb giving a standout performance as Waldo Lydecker. Dana Andrews is also great up to this point. But then, shortly before Laura shows back up, we're led to believe that McPherson (Andrews) has fallen in love with her. There's no build-up to this. It just happens. Then we get a second half of McPherson acting like a jealous nut instead of the calm and collected police detective he was in the first half.
Okay, there could still be a great film there. Perhaps an examination of the similarities between McPherson and Lydecker. Maybe even making McPherson take stock of his own obsession with this woman and pulling back from the brink. But no, the film doesn't do this. Instead, while Lydecker's crime is exposed and we see how far obsession has taken him, McPherson's obsessive "love" for Laura is treated like a true romance. Laura returns McPherson's feelings and we're led to believe these two wacky kids really are in love. While we're at it, the character of Laura really doesn't seem worth all this attention. Outside of her very pretty face, she's about as interesting as wallpaper.
The film's certainly got some positive qualities. It's beautifully shot, it has a great cast, nice music, and good direction. Gene Tierney is very easy on the eyes. I know I'm in the minority by not loving this film. It's got a great score on IMDb for a film this old. Its reputation has stood the test of time, even if I don't totally agree with it. My final thoughts are that I think it is a good movie, not a great one, that is predictable and uneven with a weak second half. Your mileage may (and probably will) vary, however.