Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

sekjr One thing the campy reviewer above forgot to mention was the lush score of Elmer Bernstein. Very very memorable themes, beautifully scored... tying everything together... and haunting long after the movie is over...It's a shame this film cannot be seen today on the networks... Too tame by today's standards... but representative of solid storytelling, and fine drama... never possible to be replaced by today's synthesized orchestras, computer drawn scenery, and wannabe character actors...It's also a testament to an era when big name movie stars existed - something you don't have today. Those stars are from an era gone by, and never to be repeated - thanks to our interfering government breaking up the Hollywood system!!!Today's here-today-gone-tomorrow stars just don't have it!

vincentlynch-moonoi The question this film asks is how can a great director such as John Sturges ("Bad Day at Black Rock", "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", "The Magnificent Seven", "The Great Escape", and "Ice Station Zebra") turn around and make such a lousy film? And a secondary question is how a star as big is Lana Turner, during a particularly productive period in her career ("Peyton Place", "Imitation Of Life", "Portrait In Black", and "Madam X") get sucked into such a film, particularly one where she gets relatively little screen time.I rarely notice goofs in movies, but I sure did in this one. In a very early scene, Efrem Zimbalist tells his secretary that his wife will be home from the hospital that day. 5 minutes later he tells someone else a day or two.Oddly enough, this is a movie with an unusually strong cast. The best acting in the film -- though she got relatively low billing -- was by Barbara Belgeddes as Zimbalist's wife; she brings the scenes she is in to life. The billed star of the film is Lana Turner, who does have some good scenes, although not as much screen time as one might expect. I always liked Efrem Zimbalist Jr., although here he was criticized as being wooden...although that's sort of what the character called for, so was it him or the direction; I'm not sure. I was surprised and disappointed in Jason Robards' role here as Turner's husband; I'll excuse his undistinguished acting here by pointing out that this was only his second film. George Hamilton was very stiff here, and how he got started in movies, I'll never know. Susan Kohner, as the ward of Thomas Mitchell was not particularly good in this film, although she was in another collaboration with Turner -- "Imitation Of Life". I had a lot of sympathy for Thomas Mitchell in this film...he portrays a lawyer that is getting to old to continue...and it was about this time that Mitchell was diagnosed with the cancer which killed him about a year later; nevertheless, a fine performance. You'll see Carroll O'Connor in a small role as a policeman.There is an issue with this film. There's another film -- which I can't place at this time -- that is from the same era that uses an almost identical subplot -- an older lawyer who is shifting funds around to cover one account or another as a result of his own financial misfortune earlier in life. I can't remember the name of the other film or whether it was before or after this one, although I do recall that it was in black and white. One film or the other stole the plot line...it's simply too close.So, whose fault is it that this film seemingly lurches from one scene to another and never realizes its potential. I have to place the blame squarely at the feet of the director -- John Sturges. It's odd...his previous film had been "The Magnificent Seven"...a very successful film, and now a classic. Ah well...no one can win them all.Should you watch it. Well, it has its moments. If you like any of the actors, the watch it. If not, pass it by.

secondtake By Love Possessed (1961)In the vein of a Douglas Sirk film this is bordering on some kind of flawed masterpiece. It's flawed, it has some stumbles in the writing and story, and it really is awfully conversational and slow--but there is a very serious probing soap opera tone here that's wonderful. Maybe the single largest limitation is that the nexus of all these searching yearning people is a law firm, which lacks a level of romanticism (no offense to all those attorneys out there). And it's all filmed with a flat bright light that smacks of indifference--something you could never accuse Sirk of.But the best of this is fabulous and cumulative. It gets better as it goes. The writing--the story and the dialog both--is stunning. It might be melodrama, but it has nuance and truth on its side. In fact, the ability to show the bottled up emotional train wreck that much of America experienced in the 1950s is remarkable. There are all these good people, yearning people, who can't quite express themselves. They're smart, they know their dilemma, but they've been so trained to simply be good and lead noble lives that they forgot how to express themselves. Except maybe through words, careful and precious words.The cast here is stellar. In the lead is an actor at his best, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., who became much better known as a t.v. actor (mainly in the ten year run of "F.B.I."). He's sort of perfect, even if you might find him restrained and polished and unexciting. That's exactly his part, and he plays it with inner conviction. Next to him in the law firm is Jason Robards, a more impressive Hollywood staple, who has a smaller role but another perfect one. Their boss is the aging and almost bumbling Thomas Mitchell, who is by 1961 a kind of legend in the industry, and he's great, adding depth and warmth to the place, as much as a brightly lit law firm has human warmth.The women are equally strong, from the ever understated and impressive Barbara Bel Geddes as the wife of one lawyer and Lana Turner (no less) as the wife of another. The two children of note are a somewhat dry George Hamilton and an increasingly convincing and moving and subtle Susan Kohner, who are struggling with a rocky relationship. But then, everyone is in a rotten relationship--that's what the movie is about, as the title suggests. Throw in the great Everett Sloane (from "Citizen Kane" and so forth) and Carol O'Connor (the lead in "All in the Family") and you see you have an uncompromising ensemble situation. Yes, you might say these are all actors of a certain stripe, and no Brando or Newman or Monroe or Janet Leigh or the other flashier names of the day. That's true, and it's partly why the movie eventually sinks in deep and is effective. By the end I was really moved. It seems I'm in mixed company here, as some reviews show a total disconnect (and disparagement) of the film. I can see why someone would say that--and even if you like the overblown and moody Sirk kind of movies (the second "Imitation of Life" above all) you might see this as a, uh, pale imitation.Maybe. Or maybe it's its own beast, with superb and probing writing, whatever the contrived situation might be behind it all. I also found the first half hour almost unbearable--it's so bland in the filming and so slow in the talk talk talk and so subtle in the non-emotional development of relationship. If you abandon ship too soon you'll miss the best of it. And if you expect a more naturalistic movie than this bottled up play-on-a-screen you'll be disappointed. It is actually based on a book which stormed the New York Times bestseller list in 1957, and was nominated for a Pulitzer (and was later condemned for its pro-establishment and slightly anti-semitic content). Take this movie for what it is, it might surprise you as much as it did me, giving it some effort after all.

JasparLamarCrabb Awful. BY LOVE POSSESSED is a really horrendous movie --- a soap opera completely devoid of style and class. Lana Turner cheats on husband Jason Robards Jr. by having an affair Efrem Zimbalist Jr. Turner obviously likes good lineage, but that's still one junior too many! The characters drink a lot and ride horses and live in absurd houses on acres and acres of land. Zimbalist's ne'er do well son is played by George Hamilton. He's being blackmailed by party girl Yvonne Craig while trying to get something started with débutante Susan Kohner. The less said about Hamilton's acting the better. Turner and Zimbalist are dreadful and Robards is saddled with the absurd task of playing a drunk. He acts and acts and acts. As Zimbalist's patient wife, Barbara Bel Geddes emerges unscathed. Directed by a clearly derailed John Sturges.