Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

charmadu Caught this recently on the Movie Channel and despite the 1000 interruptions, really enjoyed it. Whoever said this is not Film Noir needs to think again. Film noir refers to a style marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and menace. All three permeate Daisy Kenyon. The term was originally applied (by a group of French critics) to American thriller or detective films made in the period 1944–54 and to the work of directors such as Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, and Billy Wilder. David Thomson spoke on this - he cited Mildred Pierce as his favorite Film Noir. But you say - "where's the crime? where's the mystery?" The crimes are Crimes of the Heart, what the Catholic Legion of Decency used to label "objectionable in part for all", which was code for extramarital affairs, men deserting their children, women marrying for security vs love and getting hooked on married men who string them along for years - in short LIFE as Otto Preminger dared to show it in 1947. The mystery is how Daisy has the most courage of anyone in the film - despite her societal status as "damaged goods". Despite the complaints I've read about the casting - I thought it was excellent. Dana Andrews does a beautiful transition from a total cad and later the much sadder but wiser man. Henry Fonda is quite a mystery himself - and what a delight. And Joan Crawford does a spectacular job as a fallen woman of integrity, trying to swim with the barracudas.

dougdoepke Though the second half descends into more suds than the first, the movie is more uncompromising than I expected. Daisy (Crawford) gets caught up in a triangle between married man O'Mara (Andrews) and returning soldier Lapham (Fonda). The latter is a sweet guy who more importantly wants to marry her, while the high-powered attorney O'Mara seems more interested in himself. The trouble is Daisy can't seem to resist the self-centered attorney. Worse, he's got two loving little girls at home and a wife who would respond if he just treated her right. So, Daisy's head is pulled in one direction, while her heart is yanked in the other.Surprisingly, it's really Andrews's movie as he plays the cad to forceful perfection. At the same time, dear Joan's more restrained than expected as she anguishes over the next tug on her heart strings. Fonda slyly low-keys it until the end when we finally get some insight into the ex-soldier's taciturn style. Together, the three play off one another effectively, and they better since their interactions comprise the movie. The first half sets up the predicament pretty compellingly as we get to know the three main characters. It's hard to like O'Mara and his abrupt manner until we see him soften with his enchanting daughters (Garner & Marshall). Then too, the problems with his wife appear more his doing than hers. But is divorce the answer and does Daisy really want something more permanent with a guy who would leave such a promising family, especially with a nice guy like Lapham waiting in the wings.No need to give away the ending, except I think it's more unsparing than I expected, particularly for the two little girls. All in all, it's Joan hitting the right emotional keys, even if Andrews steals the film.

mark.waltz I'm not referring to the title character, played by the heavily shoulder padded Joan Crawford. I am referring to the embittered wife (Ruth Warrick) of the man (Dana Andrews) that Crawford is in love with. Warrick is an obviously bi-polared woman who shows no love for their two daughters who prefer the love of their much absent father. Warrick is determined to keep her paws on her husband, even if the marriage is miserable. We've seen this type of woman on screen many times, most notably to me Kay Francis in "In Name Only", Barbara O'Neill in "All This and Heaven Too", and most nastily, Constance Ford in "A Summer Place". These characters aren't one dimensional, they are just women who should have remained single (or questioned their sexuality), and prove that not all women should become mothers. Controlling, snobby (not unlike her role of Phoebe on "All My Children") and even somewhat abusive, Warrick is also conflicted inside, and the script gives the impression that she needs a ton of therapy if she is going to have any type of loving relationship with her children and some sort of communication with Andrews.This plot line is nothing spectacular, but with director Otto Preminger at the helm, a lot of psychology is inserted to explore the four miserable adult characters. That also includes Henry Fonda as a recently returned soldier who ends up marrying Crawford on the rebound. Lacking chemistry, Fonda and Crawford seem more like brother and sister than marital partners. It is ironic that Fonda would share chemistry with the three other dramatic divas of the golden age of cinema (Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck and Katharine Hepburn), but has absolutely none with Crawford. She looks more masculine here even than she did as "Mildred Pierce". This is the type of film she did better in the 1930's, as the film does not suit the changes in America after World War II ended.

PWNYCNY Some movies age well, some don't. This movie has not aged well. Joan Crawford's acting is stagy, the story contrived, the story's mood gloomy and the film-noir style bleak and stark. Ms. Crawford was too old for the role. Daisy Kenyon is a young career woman, not a middle aged lady set in her ways. Also, the movie features two leading men, Dana Andrews and Henry Fonda which further weakens the story as Ms. Kenyon goes from one man, to the other, sometimes to both, then back to the other, etc. Real Hollywood pulp lacking substance, utterly vacuous, and above all dated. The movie is slow-paced and obviously filmed in a studio. Maybe this movie was popular in 1947 but in 2008 it's just another Hollywood curio that belongs on the shelf.