Reviews

This movie did not turn out to be what I expected -- a heartwarming story of generosity of the heart and spirit. Instead, it was a horrendous film about taking advantage of kind-hearted woman who just wants to be left alone to enjoy some solitude.

What is supposed to be the moral of this one? My guess: it doesn't pay to be kind to strangers. They'll only take advantage of such kindness, robbing you blind while administering emotional torture.

Wow, this one sure does convince its viewer of the soundness of believing in humanity, NOT!!

I only thought to watch this one because of my fondness for actress Aline MacMahon. I thought it would be fun to see her in a starring role, not just supporting, but this one is bad regardless of her presence.

I'm dumbfounded to discover that this story was revisited in 1951. There's nothing enjoyable about seeing someone being manipulated and taken advantage of for a kind gesture.

I'm completely shocked to see that anyone else on here actually liked and even praised this dreadful pre-code film.

What is there to like? It's filled with unsympathetic and unlikeable characters, has a strange and somehow kinky subplot about a nephew who's innocently in love with Hayes' character (which startlingly is revealed from out of the blue) and features a preposterous happy ending.

What did Hayes ever see in Montgomery's character? Its certainly never detailed. And how unforgivable is it that he never even acknowledges the bust lovingly crafted in his image by his wife?

I have to assume that some of my answers were left on the cutting room floor due to censorship.

Oh brother, did this film need some cutting. At almost two hours, it's just too long and that length detracts from what could've been a much more enjoyable experience. The characters are likeable, if a little unoriginal, with Wayne displaying a flair for light romantic comedy. Colbert is perfectly cast also. Unfortunately, there's just too many side excursions that slow things down and delay the ending the audience has been anticipating from the outset -- the two lovebirds finally coming together harmoniously. It's all fairly clever but by the end you're left feeling exhausted rather than elated by the happy ending.

I liked this film, but it definitely had some flaws.

First of all, the title -- which really has nothing to do with the film -- comes from a popular song featured in ONE scene.

Also, the script is problematic. There's several arguing scenes between Mature & Scott that are way too quickly resolved or brushed off, and what's up with Tufts' wife's strangely overt appreciation of his pal, Mature? I got the impression that she'd drop her husband in a heartbeat for a chance with the best buddy.

Also peculiar is the fact that Mature & Tufts play for the "Chiefs," when the team sports "Rams" helmets. And finally, I was quite startled by the film's ending. Now, I realize that divorce was fairly uncommon and actually frowned upon during this period, but it was preposterous to keep Mature & Scott together INSTEAD of Mature leaving his rude and self-absorbed wife for Ball. The happier and more realistic finale would've have seen Mature & Ball get together after all that chemistry they displayed for each other. Maybe the production code said "NO WAY," which lead to the current wrap up.

Although I focused on the films defects, there's plenty to like here too, such as dimensional characters, likeable stars and a glimpse into what pro football was like back then.

This one had all the ingredients necessary for a terrific film -- the wonderful comedienne Irene Dunne, plus a screwball comedy dream cast of supporting players like Alice Brady, Guy Kibbee, Lucille Ball and Eric Blore -- yet somehow it turned out to be a stinker, almost unbearable to watch. The horrendous script has got to be the main reason, but I'm sure the director is to blame too. It's entirely unbelievable that Irene would find Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Disturbing for too long before recognizing that he's got a point and that he's not just some schmuck but a dashingly handsome suitor. Yet, we're forced to wait for an eternity for her to catch on. I was very disappointed with this one. I love Miss Dunne but even she was unable to rise above the script, scenario. I'd skip this one unless you're a hard-core fan.

I agree with so many others who felt the leads were miscast. There's no chemistry between them and it seems completely implausible that they would ever be a couple -- that should've been obvious from the first time they starred in a movie together, 1959's Desire Under the Elms.

And why is Loren dressed like a librarian the entire time, with blouses that go all the way up to her neck? It seems very unlikely that an attractive Italian woman in Paris would want to cover up so throughly.

The best scene in the entire film is when she kills Perkins with her car, running over him repeatedly. By this point in the movie, you really can't blame her, and I found myself rooting her on!

Gig Young's role would've been more realistic had he been an undercover insurance company detective, trying to uncover the truth. As it currently stands, he's just an annoying and unnecessary character.

I was very eager to see this film since it stars two of my favorite actresses, Kay Francis and Carole Lombard. Unfortunately, the pacing of the film is quite slow and seems to go on for much too long, spoiling any potential the film displays.

Surprisingly or maybe not, Lombard steals the show from her co-stars, demonstrating her comedic talents in a scene where she's imbibed more than a few cocktails with a beau.

This is pre-code all the way up until the end, when Powell must be penalized for his immoral behavior.

This movie's believability is severely challenged from the get go by the casting of Fred MacMurray as the eldest brother to Jeffrey Hunter and Dean Stockwell. No amount of hair dye can hide the fact that MacMurray could easily pass as their father or that he's similar in age to his supposed mother Josephine Hutchinson!

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed MacMurray in many films over the years, but he wasn't right for this part. He's much better suited for comedy.

I'm also a big fan of Jeffrey Hunter. He's the reason I bought this film, but he's not talented enough as a dramatic actor to pull off the very tricky role of the coward. Someone like James Dean or Montgomery Clift would've been far better options.

Chill Wills is the only actor perfect for his role and is the standout in the film, although Stockwell does a good job as the rambunctious, hot-headed youngest brother too.

The script is bad as well. It's wishy washy at best and provides the audience with no understanding as to why Hunter became the man he is today until toward the end of the film. This information would've been helpful to know and could've been illustrated with a flashback sequence.

The above mentioned issues really ruin any chance of this film succeeding in telling the story of being different but still being valued and validated.