I'm easily bothered by films that are set during a certain decade (and now century) with costuming, design, styling, etc., that don't match the period portrayed. If you pay close enough attention, there's very little that's 1940s about this film in its depiction. That being said, it actually was more satisfying than I anticipated.
The first act of this two-act film is clunky in nature. I agree with the reviewer who wrote that Wagner's portrayal of intoxication is well over the top and therefore, at least to me, unconvincing, but there's moments in the second act in which he shows his acting chops. Dillman unsurprisingly does not disappoint, and Hunter delivers a pleasing surprise.
This movie tends to vacillate between hokey, soap-opera elements and cerebral, emotionally intense components. Once you get past the obvious on-set shooting typical of the '50s and the forcing of "topical" issues, such as unwed pregnancy, interracial relationships, and philosophical objection to war, there's a final product that's actually touching.
I'm truly surprised I liked it.
The first act of this two-act film is clunky in nature. I agree with the reviewer who wrote that Wagner's portrayal of intoxication is well over the top and therefore, at least to me, unconvincing, but there's moments in the second act in which he shows his acting chops. Dillman unsurprisingly does not disappoint, and Hunter delivers a pleasing surprise.
This movie tends to vacillate between hokey, soap-opera elements and cerebral, emotionally intense components. Once you get past the obvious on-set shooting typical of the '50s and the forcing of "topical" issues, such as unwed pregnancy, interracial relationships, and philosophical objection to war, there's a final product that's actually touching.
I'm truly surprised I liked it.