Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

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

Antonius Block A strong cast with two leading men, comedic moments, and intelligent commentary on justice in America all make this a very good film. Cary Grant is a man in jail in a small town on trumped up arson charges, and Ronald Colman is an eminent legal mind who is just arriving there to work on a book. Grant escapes to the home of his old friend Jean Arthur, and Colman shows up the same night to begin renting it from her. Grant is hidden away in the attic for awhile, but soon strikes up a friendship with Colman while pretending to be Arthur's gardener, and the pair engage in some interesting debates on justice and the law. Colman represents the viewpoint of the dispassionate letter of the law, while Grant cautions that such thought is too idealistic for the way justice is often administered. As a mob has been whipped up into a frenzy against him by the local corrupt businessman whose factory burned down, he ought to know. Grant and Colman are given equal chance to charm us and shine, and they do. Arthur more than keeps up them, delivering her lines so naturally, and she's delightful. The film keeps us guessing as to who she may end up with, as both men are attractive in their own way. I loved seeing a little bit of darkness and danger in Grant here, as well as moments of charm, such as when he widens his eye and assures Arthur that they won't recognize him from the photograph on a Wanted poster, because they hadn't captured his spirit. The film gets a little heavy-handed in some of its messaging as the film plays out, but I was swayed by just how relevant it is in the times of today's populism. The danger of the mob being manipulated by someone who is corrupt (how can one not think of 'lock her up' while watching that today?), the danger of rushing to judgment instead of listening to the facts and the evidence, and the need to fight for principles were certainly appropriate in 1942, but they're also timeless. Rex Ingram is strong as Colman's servant, including a moment where he gets choked up watching Colman shave off his beard. It seemed a rather odd to me at the time, but since it means Colman is going to fight for justice in this particular case, going against the mob, it may be that Ingram relates this to countless mobs lynching African-Americans, with no one standing up for them. The film has a few moments where you have to suspend disbelief, but I enjoyed it for its intelligence, and added dimension to what otherwise would have been a standard comedy or romantic comedy. It's a film that will charm you one moment, and make you think the next, and that's not bad.Here's a quote from Colman's speech to the mob: "This is your law and your finest possession - it makes you free men in a free country. Why have you come here to destroy it? If you know what's good for you, take those weapons home and burn them! And then think... think of this country and of the law that makes it what it is. Think of a world crying for this very law! And maybe you'll understand why you ought to guard it. Why the law has got to be the personal concern of every citizen. To uphold it for your neighbor as well as yourself. Violence against it is one mistake. Another mistake is for any man to look upon the law as just a set of principles. And just so much language printed on fine, heavy paper. Something he recites and then leans back and takes it for granted that justice is automatically being done. Both kinds of men are equally wrong! The law must be engraved in our hearts and practiced every minute to the letter and spirit. It can't even exist unless we're willing to go down into the dust and blood and fight a battle every day of our lives to preserve it. For our neighbor as well as ourself!"Hallelujah.

Carl Ian Schwartz Why were we fighting against he Axis? Until quite recently, this country stood for the rule of law. Under the guise of a love triangle, and scripted by Irwin Shaw, this wonderful film shows what America once stood for against the the caprice, injustice, and atrocity that characterized our enemies. As the plot unfolds, the rule of law and fact becomes clearer and ultimately prevails against fear manipulated through tainted journalism.There'a another film, released in England a year later, entitled "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." It's thesis is that you lose a war when you lose your national values and adopt those of your enemies.Frank Capra directed a major series of films during World War II--"Why We Fight." These two films put a personal, home-front slant on it.

gavin6942 An escaped prisoner (Cary Grant) and a stuffy law professor (Ronald Colman) vie for the hand of a spirited schoolteacher (Jean Arthur).That description of the plot is a bit misleading. While that certainly is true, and you will not know who she ends up with (if either of them) until the end, it is hardly the main story. This is the story of an innocent man being persecuted by a prejudiced town and of a law professor who only knows the ivory tower and not the real world.While this could be called a romantic comedy in the loosest sense of the term, it is much more than that and much deeper. It is a story of justice, of American rights, and a lively discussion of what the law is and how it should operate.Was there a deeper political message here? Could be. You make the call: a Red Scare theme? Pacifist sympathizers? Who knows?

DKosty123 The plot of this movie is quite easy to follow. An up and coming Supreme Court Judge and Law Professor get a dual lesson in law and how it can be abused prior to taking the bench. George Stevens stays the course Directing this and amazingly treads the line between Comedy and Drama. This is not a line that is easy to follow.Ronald Coleman actually steals this film from Cary Grant in many of the sequences. Jean Arthur is about as good as in any film she ever did and she did some good ones. The hardest part to understand of this film is the ending where Arthur chooses Grant over Coleman. The really is not the basis for that in the story. Edgar Buchanan (Uncle Joe of the Shady Rest Hotel on Petticoat Junction) leads a solid supporting cast. Dilge (Grant) is the subject of a man hunt from the beginning of the film until the end. Arthur spends the film hiding him though exactly why is not real clear. The script seems to assume she is in love with him before he is arrested. Coleman is the law professor who is there to write a book before going to the Supreme Court, He is the outsider who gets pulled into the web that Arthur and Buchanan are orchestrating trying to protect Dilge and not tell Coleman who he is while at the same time trying to convince him that Dilge is being railroaded by a fanatic justice system without evidence.It's a crazy law lesson that once seen, is not easily forgotten.