Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 11 May 1951 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 15 June 1951. U.S. release: May 1951. U.K. release: 24 September 1951. Australian release: 2 November 1951. 6,819 feet. 76 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A reserved young nurse with a split personality pursues her subconscious love while sleep-walking.NOTES: Commenced shooting late July 1950 with director Jules Dassin at the helm. COMMENT: The only scene that may be Dassin's is the first in the hospital — a long take with some complex camera movements. True, there are other long takes in the film — indeed the direction is generally more stylish than Sale's norm — but nothing else that would indicate any mastery of the cinema. The script is too lightweight for Dassin anyway, so his exit comes as no surprise. It's a very slight bit of whimsy indeed, unusual for a Robert Riskin script in that it is such a trifle. All the same, Riskin has added some attractive conceits. These find their full expression in the amusement park sequence (photographed on location at Long Beach) in which Edwin Max as a delightfully disgruntled attendant is induced to ride the roller-coaster. The following courtroom episode continues the jest neatly.Why dress up this slight trifle with Technicolor? Well it needs color to give it a bit of substance. In fact it's the color photography more than the script and the acting that makes the story and its people reasonably interesting. Of course Technicolor also benefits the attractive Loretta Young no end and makes her costumes especially appealing. It also enhances both the real locations in downtown Los Angeles and the extensive back-lot filming.Mockridge's music score is suitably lively. Miss Young sings/breathes the Newman/Blane ballad with appropriate finesse.The support players are also very able. Max, as mentioned, is a stand-out, but even glum Cotten is quite watchable. And there's Backus, Ruysdael, Ryan, Kellaway (though Cecil does seem to be trying a bit too hard).

dougdoepke It's hard for me to imagine that even Production Code audiences of 1951(note the newly- weds' unlikely twin beds) found this silly exercise anything more than occasionally titillating. I guess the movie was intended as a romantic comedy. The premise of a woman (Young) with two distinct personalities depending on whether she's sleepwalking may have sounded promising, but the result plods along in uninspired fashion minus either bounce or charm. Apparently, supporting players like Backus and Max are supposed to provide the chuckles, but it's really only Irene Ryan as nurse Kay who comes through in lively fashion. From his credits, it looks like director Sale was a much better writer than director or comedy coach.It also looks like Young is having a good time vamping it up in the wanton half of Nora's split personality. The overt sexuality probably comes as welcome change from her typical good girl roles. However, despite the good-humored approach, the result is more ludicrous than funny. Nonetheless, she does get to model 1951's latest fashions, a big thing for Young as her TV show attests. Unfortunately, that fine actor Joseph Cotten is reduced here to little more than a male manikin in a clearly secondary role.To me, the most intriguing aspect is what blacklisted film-noir and scheduled director Jules Dassin (Brute Force, 1948; Thieves Highway, 1949) would have done with the goofy premise and a very proper Young. If ever there was a mismatched movie pair, this is it. So it's no surprise that one of the two (Dassin) ended up having to leave the project (according to IMDb). Anyway, it's still a curious question what the highly serious Dassin would have done with such frothy material. Whatever the result, it's bound to be more interesting than this unfortunately forgettable 80 minutes.

Terry I just saw this movie on one of the cable channels, and it is adorable. Loretta Young is as beautiful as ever, and Joseph Cotton is his usual handsome self! The supporting players are also wonderful and you will recognize each one-The story line is a little silly, but you must take into consideration that the film is from 1951- As a film buff, I am aware that this era was a time for musicals and light comedies, and this film is light- You won't have to figure out plot twists or hidden meanings, the film is straight forward fun-If you are looking for a film that is entertaining and fine for the whole family than try this one-Stay with it,and I am sure you will enjoy it. A fun film!

stryker-5 "This is very odd," says Nora at one point, and she could have been talking about the whole film. The Technicolor is loud and garish, the plot is unconvincing and the characters lack substance in this ill-thought-out 'chick flick'.Nora Gilpin is a nurse who knows, but doesn't like, John Raymond - the handsome (and single) attorney. Nora has a tendency to sleepwalk, and her subconscious self heads straight for John, because although she won't admit it, she is secretly in love with him. A doctor advises John that he should marry her - then her two selves will merge happily.Loretta Young plays Nora. Already a screen veteran at the time (she had been making pictures continually since appearing in Valentino's "The Sheikh"), she is very beautiful and gets to wear some nice New Look outfits. It has to be said that Loretta is no acting genius. It is probably just as well, because the shallow script makes no demands upon her whatsoever. All she has to do is play with a few frocks in front of the mirror, keep her make-up pristine and utter one or two deeply un-witty quips. "I can't believe I'm capable of that moronic talk," she says. It's a shame she didn't say it to the scriptwriter.The part of John Raymond is taken by a miscast Joseph Cotten. If Young was getting a little old for ingenue parts at age 38, Cotten at 46 was stretching the point. The man who, ten years earlier, played Jedediah in "Citizen Kane" so assuredly seems tentative and ill at ease in this bit of froth.Nora shows up at John's place in the middle of the night and flirts with him in his bedroom. This makes no kind of sense, given that this is 1951 and Nora is engaged to somebody else. It simply doesn't ring true.The legal case which occupies the middle segment is just plain dreadful. Nora finds herself subpoena'd to appear as a witness at nine o'clock the next morning, even though no trial could possibly have been arranged so quickly. She is the complainant - so why on earth would she need to be subpoena'd? And who would do it? The papers are drawn up as if this were a civil case and she were the plaintiff, though she has suffered no civil wrong and it is clearly a criminal trial. John Raymond appears as an attorney, even though he is the defendant (this is a major no-no). He concedes the case against him, then the magistrate allows him to cross-examine Nora on a point of no relevance whatsoever. She is cross-examined without having given evidence in chief. Raymond mixes private chat with his questions, volunteers evidence himself and waves exhibits around without formally adducing them. The identification evidence is plain ridiculous, as is the conclusion of the trial.The spurious psychoanalysis is annoying, as is Nora's failure to recognise the fragment from her own petticoat. The back-projection of the roller-coaster is feeble."Half Angel" is half-baked.