Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

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.

calvinnme ... in spite of all of the talent involved. Directed by Mitchell Leisen over at Paramount, who, by now, certainly knew how to direct Ray Milland, who showed real chemistry with star Ginger Rogers if you have ever viewed "The Major and the Minor" from two years earlier, based on a story by Moss Hart, and even giving a minor role to Warner Baxter - what went wrong when so much talent produces something that lands with such a thud? Part of it, I am sure, are the changing times. Ginger plays Liza Elliott, the editor of fashion magazine "Allure", dresses in rather mannish dresses, and keeps all men at arm's length except Kendell Nesbitt (Warner Baxter), with whom she claims to be in love. She goes to her physician saying for some reason she has become a nervous wreck, just certain that disaster is upon her. The doctor refers her to a psychiatrist, the idea of which at first she rejects. But then she has another hallucination and changes her mind. The psychiatrist, Dr. Brooks (Barry Sullivan) is really very demanding, claiming he KNOWS the meaning of Liza's dreams and problems before she is barely through telling them to him. The end lesson, with which Liza heartily agrees, is that she doesn't really love Kendall - he was just safe because he was tame as a kitten, reminded her of her dad, and was technically taken with an estranged wife who would not give him a divorce. What she needs is to be dominated by a man! The kind of man who would talk about her behind her back, embarrass her in public, and try to take her job, trying to justify his actions by claiming that a woman editor "flies in the face of nature" - in short, a real heel, Charley Johnson (Ray Milland). So it turns out that every Virginia Slims girl is just looking for the Marlboro Man according to this film.Well, if I am going to watch the films of 1944, I had better be prepared to deal with the values of 1944. I think what made the movie a difficult slog for me were all of the elaborate yet dull tableaux numbers with completely untuneful songs and the extended dream sequences. They were meant to explain Liza's predicament from her point of view, but I just found myself staring at my watch and getting restless.This whole film is just a case of reverse synergy. And one more thing. I do wish Liza had sprung up off of her analyst's couch and said "I get it doctor! The reason I am avoiding long term commitments with men and dressing in drab clothes is ...I am gay!" And then ran out of the room. Not in 1944. Not with Joe Breen as head censor.I'd say if you are a film history buff it is probably worth it just to say you've seen it, to be able to cite an example of a film that should have worked and failed. For the viewer just wanting to be entertained, I'd look elsewhere.

spotted-owl "Lady in the Dark" (1944) is a visually spectacular film. The surrealistic dream sequences are stunning, with glamorous costumes, lavish sets, and multicolored swirling fog, all in vivid Technicolor. This movie has some of the most extravagant and expensive costumes in film history. "Lady in the Dark" (1944) is one of the great fashion epics of film.Liza Elliott (Ginger Rogers) is a fashion magazine editor-in-chief. She is a hardworking, serious woman, and wears plain suits. Liza is having an affair with a married publisher. Charley Johnson (Ray Milland) is Liza's wisecracking advertising manager.However, Liza is close to a nervous breakdown. She sees a psychoanalyst to interpret her dreams. Liza has a Blue Dream, a Wedding Dream in gold and white, and a Circus Dream that is multicolored. The dreams represent Liza's subconscious. The final scenes of all the dreams are bizarre and unsettling, reflecting Liza's subconscious unresolved issues.In the Blue Dream, Liza wears a beautiful blue ballgown. Liza's psychoanalyst suggests that she really wants to be glamorous.In the Wedding Dream, she wears a fairy tale wedding dress, with an elaborate headdress and a long train.In the Circus Dream, Liza wears a spectacular dress of mink fur, lined with pink satin and gold sequins. She performs a sultry song and dance number, shows her legs and sings "The Saga of Jenny." This dream is especially colorful, in shades of pink, green, and yellow.Director Mitchell Leisen designed the costumes, including the famous mink gowns. Leisen worked as a costume designer, before he became a director. Two mink dresses were made. The first mink dress, lined with glass rubies and emeralds, cost $35,000 to make. However, this dress was too heavy for dancing. A second version of the mink dress was created, lined with sequins, which was lighter so that Ginger Rogers could dance in it. Both dresses are shown in the movie. The dress with the glass jewels was donated to the Smithsonian Institution.Ginger Rogers' performance is excellent. She effectively portrays a variety of different roles: serious fashion executive, troubled woman in psychoanalysis, and sultry singer and dancer."Lady in the Dark" (1944) has artistic merit, and should not be dismissed because it is politically incorrect. The storyline is dated, and some of the dialog has an anti-feminist sharp edge. A simple revision of the script which eliminates the anti-feminist aspects, would have improved the storyline. Also, the lovely song "My Ship" should have been included. However, the movie remains an artistic achievement, a colorful fashion epic of glitz and glamour.

Alex da Silva Liza (Ginger Rogers) is the editor of a magazine who can no longer make decisions. She suffers headaches because she is highly strung about work and she has a love life that she is not comfortable with. Through psychoanalysis with Dr Brooks (Barry Sullivan), she unravels her troubles by recounting 3 dream sequences. Can she regain her decisiveness? This film is a bit girly in that it concerns one woman's journey to discover lost memories and understand her behaviours. It has great colour, good costumes and it's well acted with a spattering of humour throughout. The bulk of the film comes in the form of dream sequences which are musical, colourful and surreal. The 2nd sequence has a pointless dance scene which drags on a bit but overall the dreams are entertaining. The rest of the film follows the romances that Liza has alongside her role as a tough "boss lady". The film is fun and has a happy ending.

radodge I like this movie. It is confusing and difficult, but you can't help but like it. Ginger Rogers plays a fashion magazine editor...and she finds herself having headaches and feeling dissatisfied. This makes no sense, as she has an exceptional job (especially for 1940) three suitors, and conscious and unconscious lives that are fabulously costumed. She goes to her doctor who recommends a psychiatrist...a drastic move for the time...which she promptly declines...but then does finally go to. Ginger undergoes a great deal of stress in this film,and keeping a bottle of aspirin at hand might be wise. As she makes progress with her shrink...her dream sequences become more and more lavish. The film is beautifully costumed...even clothes left lying on a chair...are fabulous. And there are HATS. HATS. Hats... mousey through military...lots of hats...and FURS...Ginger has one dress with a floor length mink skirt...lined with gold and scarlet sequins, two or three fur coats, a muff, and several other dresses trimmed with fur. Pull the shades and make certain that no one from PETA is around when you run this film. The dream sequences are the real meat of this...they are very beautiful and very surreal. In the end, of course, Ginger selects one of the men (no, not the married one) and seems to be on the road to recovery. You get the feeling that a lot got left out...and I don't know what (yet). I know Danny Kaye was 'discovered' in the Broadway show...and that he had special material. Danny was under contract to Sam Goldwyn by the time this was made...so neither he nor any of his special material made the transition into this film. This film is a visual knock out...and a restored print should be made and hi-def DVD's struck...so we can watch this from time to time. It cannot help but remain dated and politically incorrect....that is the legacy of its 1940 dateline.. but it will certainly always be stunning to look at.