Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

jhkp I have to give People Will Talk a mixed review, even though I've seen it many times and I like it. On the plus side, Cary Grant was never bad, except perhaps in his earliest films, and he's very good here, though (and I'm not sure who's to blame) he gets overly smug in his perfect-doctor guise. Many in the cast are good, including Sidney Blackmer, Walter Slezak, and the wonderful Finlay Currie as the mysterious Mr Shunderson. Others are pretty good, too, like Jeanne Crain and Hume Cronyn. Hard not to like Crain, but she has a complicated role here. Not over her head, but...well, I don't know. Cronyn is a bit too overdone as the baddie of the piece, Professor Elwell. I think if the part of the small-minded prof had been played with less bluster or fussiness, if it were not very nearly a caricature of pettiness, it may have been more effective. The story carries one along, and entertains, and in this way, it's well done, and I recommend the film for that feature alone. Personally, I couldn't buy some of its premises. I found things like not letting a pregnant girl know she's pregnant untenable. Mankiewicz asks us to accept that a doctor (albeit a "very special" one) should have these kinds of rights, because he knows best. And then Mankiewicz demonstrates that, over and over again, this superior human being does know best. And he should therefore have the right to be a kind of puppet master over the lives of the less brilliant and wise. In a way, this view is not surprising coming from a film director. Besides, Mankiewicz in particular was a producer-director whose affairs with younger actresses like Judy Garland and Linda Darnell often saw him assume the role of confessor, savior, and father figure.Cary Grant, a great actor, plays this Mankiewicz surrogate (and that's what he is) a bit smug. It's hard not to, given the lines and situations. Perhaps Mankiewicz should have given the character a few Cary Grant-ish personality flaws like vanity or peevishness, so effective in making us like Cary in other roles. Cary as a saintly figure (see also Crisis, and The Bishop's Wife) seems always a bit too willing to assume the mantle. The pluses of the film are in the better performances, in Mankiewicz's ability to tell a story with intelligence and wit, in the fact that the film covers subjects rarely if ever covered in any film before or since (which makes it seem fresh). You will likely never forget Mr Shunderson's monologue once you have heard it, and if you like classical music there's a lot of it to enjoy on the soundtrack.

joedorchack-71590 Sparkling wit, sprinkled with genuine humanity make this simply a GREAT motion picture! We've all been treated by doctors at one time or another in our lives. Would that we had all been treated by Doctor Noah Pretorius. His whole approach is wonderfully refreshing, namely that the needs of the patient come first. An often overlooked performance in this film is that of Walter Slezak. He ranges from charming to oblivious, but above all he demonstrates just what a good friend ought to be. Finley Currie is excellent as Mr. Shunderson, especially when you consider that he manages to sound "Canadian" even though he has a thick Scottish brogue. And Jeanne Crain is both beautiful and a delight. Invest the time to take in this film, you won't be disappointed!

David-3288 I love Cary Grant and Jeanne Crain, but this one is an uneven stinker. It's dumb and too long and doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy, drama or a mystery.The basic gist is, Jeanne Crain is a college student who gets knocked up, attempts suicide and gets rewarded with Cary Grant's (Dr. Praetorius) affections.But even though they get married, the story isn't a romance or about the ill effects on society of single motherhood as both story lines seem to take a back seat to Hume Cronyn's witch hunt into past and Dr. Praetorius' mysterious sidekick (Mr. Shunderson).It would have been far more interesting for the plot to move along Shunderson's strange, almost supernatural, affect on people, but they didn't go there except through inference. I suppose why this boring film has such high ratings is 1) because it is seen as an indictment of anti-communists 2) it makes no attempt to negatively portray premarital sex, but the accolades are undeserved. Perhaps if it was 80 minutes long and they stuck to a single plot line it would have been more interesting, but with thousands of unwatched movies out there, don't bother wasting your time on this one.

pontifikator This 1951 film directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz has more promise than it fulfilled. The problem is the character of Noah Praetorius, too good to believable. The movie stars Cary Grant as the noble Noah, Jeanne Crain as his love interest, and it has able performances by Finlay Currie, Walter Slezak, and Hume Cronyn.The gist of the plot is that Professor Elwell (Cronyn) is investigating fellow teacher Dr. Praetorius for reasons that I am unclear about. Elwll is really digging up dirt, however. Noah ignores Elwell for as long as he can, concentrating on his personal clinic where he preaches and practices treating patients as human beings, not as their maladies. Noah also conducts the student symphony orchestra, and all his female patients fall in love with him, including Deborah Higgins (Crain).Boy meets girl, boy marries girl, they have a spat, boy has a hearing to determine his fitness as a doctor, boy wins trial, boy conducts symphony orchestra.There are several problems with the movie. Elwell is never given a motive for his investigation of Noah; we have no clue if it's professional jealousy or whether there's some reasonable basis for looking into Noah's fitness to continue as an instructor at the college where both teach. Second, Noah is just too good to be true. He's so good the character lacks credibility. I laughed out loud at several scenes not because they were funny but because the situations were laughably ridiculous. Hagiography comes to mind.The movie had promise that it failed. The movie was released in 1951 at the beginning of the McCarthy era, so my wild guess is that the investigation of Noah Praetorius is somewhat related to the witch hunt for commie spies. It may also be that Mankiewicz is skewering doctors - Noah gets off several zingers, including a comparison of the professions of butchers and doctors. But nothing really is made of the hypocrisy of the investigation. Another serious issue is that Deborah Higgins is pregnant and unmarried when Noah meets her. Noah nobly marries her and will be the father to her child because he really loves her. The issues of unwed motherhood and abortion rear their heads but are swept under the carpet of witty dialogue.The movie succeeds on its supporting cast. Cronyn is good in his role as inquisitor. Slezak is warm and fuzzy as Noah's good friend. But Finlay Currie stole the movie, in my humble opinion. His Shunderson is a mystery in much of the film, a mystery about which we learn all we need to know during the hearing on Noah's fitness to continue as a professor. Currie gives Shunderson gravitas and dignity, while playing the character with little shown emotion. I liked the way the script dealt with Shunderson and Praetorius. Although Shunderson is shown as a silent hulking man, he's actually an astute observer of the human condition, and Shunderson gives Noah good advice, which by the way is readily accepted. Although Shunderson appears to be a servant of Praetorius, the two are equals. Shunderson's story is absorbing when we finally get to it.Shunderson's analysis of Elwell is where the movie should have ended. Pithy and dead center. It fully applies to McCarthy. Maybe it applies to someone today ... who can tell?