Tacticalin
An absolute waste of money
Gurlyndrobb
While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.
Nicole
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Panamint
I appreciate the overall theme and believe it has merit in its outlook on marriage. And Lew Ayers gives a near-Oscar-worthy performance. He and Eve Arden are so good, you can recommend this film just for the two of them.Plot-wise I have some problems. Yes the husband failed and pretty much set himself up for some of his marital woes. But Mrs. is a real piece of work. Maybe you understand the infidelity point generally during wartime- OK its wrong but understandable in some cases. But I believe the writers here have blown it. Her immense quantity of lies, and serial lying, lying in a sworn police statement (a legal criminal document) are just too much. Lying to police, district attorneys, the press and public. A fundamental series of lies to her own lawyer, who also is a loyal old friend who trusted her.As to her complaint about loneliness- I don't buy it because near the end she is proposing to simply go her sister's house to live. Why could she not go stay with sister during the war (could have paid those servants a retainer and traveled) or have her sister visit her in the lonely house? Couldn't she have easily afforded to bring in out-of-state family to visit her in Los Angeles? And she wasn't leading an empty life- she worked with Red Cross and numerous other organizations. I question the writer's over-assassination of her character traits. She's supposed to be a cheating wife- but she is also portrayed as the least trustworthy, chronic liar in the history of film. I don't understand how the husband and the lawyer could possibly continue any relationship with this remarkably prolific liar. This despite the fact that in many cases relationships can and do continue with cheating wives and/or husbands.If a cheating husband told this many lies to this many people post-affair, he would be placed in alimony purgatory by the system and ridden out of town on a rail. Not for the infidelity, but for extent of his lies to everyone.So I believe this film has some serious flaws as written.
jjnxn-1
In this heavily worked over re-imagining of Somerset Maugham's "The Letter" Ann Sheridan suffers, in mink of course, when poor choices she's made come home to roost.Ann's sweet natured Chris Hunter is miles removed from the calculating, inwardly vicious Leslie Crosbie previously essayed by Bette Davis and Jeanne Eagels and it changes the tone of the story. In this the affair with the victim is long past and it is the main character who has ended it rather than the reverse which added a great deal of tension and set the scene for the crime of passion that was the focus of the story. Still this is an entertaining melodrama played expertly by Ann but with her two leading men making less of an impact than in previous incarnations of the tale. Zachary Scott, taking a break from being the villain of the piece, is okay as the wronged husband but he always made more of an impression when there was a bit of menace to his character. Lew Ayres' part of the family attorney and friend has been drained of the conflict that James Stephenson played so well in the 1940 version and made him a standout in that film. Lew just melts into the background here.The other player of distinction aside from Ann is the best friend a leading lady ever had, Eve Arden. In a part that either didn't exist or has been greatly enhanced from other versions she plays Paula, high living and apparently shallow cousin of the wronged husband who turns out to be alright in the end. Her tart asides liven the film whenever she appears and the writers have handed her the best dialog knowing she would make it come alive. Best bit-when referring to the gaucherie of an acquaintance "Isn't that Joan stupid? She's not even smart enough to be an idiot!" A watered down version of a classic missing the original's snap but on its own merits a highly enjoyable film. In its rethinking of the tale it does add the twist of examining the pitfalls of hasty wartime marriages and some of the costs entailed to both husband and wife.
calvinnme
but close enough that within 20 minutes or so you'll recognize the basic outline of "The Letter". 1940's version was a production code version of the story that was as close to the original story as the censors would allow. To see what they wouldn't allow watch the 1929 version.This version is different enough that you'll not be sure how it ends even if you've already seen "The Letter". The main change - the topical subject in 1947 of people who met and married in haste during WWII before the man shipped out with the armed forces and how difficult it was for the women to cope with the loneliness. Zachary Scott plays a good if self-righteous guy (Bob Hunter) for a change and plays it convincingly and Anne Sheridan plays his adoring wife, Chris. They were such a couple who over a three week period during WW2 met, courted, and married before Bob had to ship out. Chris was more fortunate than many army wives - Bob's family has money so all she has to do is wait. This spare time turns out to be a curse as well as a blessing though. The two seem to have the ideal marriage though post-war until one night when Bob is away from home Chris is attacked by a man and kills him in self defense. We never see the man and the attack is shown only in silhouette. Chris claims to have never seen the man before, but soon her story is falling apart. Eve Arden is in top form here as a recent rather catty divorcée who, in a scene that could have gone one of several ways when a depressed Zachary Scott shows up at her bachelorette apartment alone and seeking comfort, turns out to be a gal with heart after all and more so, wisdom.Definitely worth your time even if you've seen either or both of the other previous filmed versions of the same basic story.
samhill5215
I began watching this film out of curiosity. Having seen "The Letter" I just wanted to see how this one stacked up. But other than in general terms there is little else to compare them. Frankly the first half was somewhat predictable, a soap opera that telegraphed the outcome. But when it hit its stride, boy what a surprise! Without giving away any details this film is worth watching simply for the honest and straightforward way it deals with the complications of married life, especially when a couple is separated over a long period. There is plenty of good advice here especially considering the times we live in, what with all the servicemen returning home to find that their wives and sweethearts were real people with real problems.But there was more to it that just that. Perhaps a lawyer might object, but to me even the brief courtroom scene was believable. And the issues were very real. The film did not take the easy way out and reduce itself to an indictment of infidelity. Instead it examined and revealed the motives of the principal characters and none of them came out all good or all evil but a mixture, hence human.If one subscribes to the belief that cinema reflects life then this film is an important revelation of post WWII society and the surprise is that it wasn't all that different from today.
