Undescribable Perfection

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I watched this film hoping to see some sizzle between Ava Gardner and James Mason. She was wonderfully wicked, but he underplayed it too much. Same great voice, but no passion in his role at all. Absolutely zero chemistry between Mason and Stanwyck. No wonder their marriage was in trouble! How did the studio ever think they would be believable together? I was eager to hear Mason's character's explanation at the beginning about why men cheat. Didn't impress me though. The best part of the film was the murder mystery aspect and a wonderful appearance by Cannon star William Conrad. Van Heflin played a former cop and a character you like right away. However, his part seemed like it belonged in a different film from the underused Ava Gardner's. The overall lack of excitement gives the viewer time to notice annoying things about the actors. Why did Barbara Stanwyck talk like she had false teeth? James Mason was curling and uncurling his fingers non-stop. Now the great comedy part: Man Hands! If you are familiar with the Seinfeld episode with Man Hands, you will certainly shout it out toward the end of the film.

The first of the three Mason/Gardner collaborations (for the record,the two others were "Mayerling" (1968) and "Pandora and the flying Dutchman" (1951) )although the actress has only a supporting part here. Anyway,the stellar cast (also featuring Gale Sondergaard who almost outshines all the other actresses in her few scenes ,particularly her last one,Barbara Stanwyck,Van Heflin,Cyd Charisse,who could ask for more?)makes the movie worth of your time .The story of this posh NYC society people is rather derivative and you do not have to be Hercule Poirot to guess that the husband did not kill the runaround girl.It does not compare favorably,though,with Le Roy's earlier works such as "I'm a fugitive from a chain gang" "they won't forget" or "Waterloo bridge" .Very moral ending.

The film begins with James Mason at a nightclub trying to make time with a young lady (Cyd Charisse). Charisse isn't and realizes he's a married man. Oddly, despite this, Mason is NOT interested in a fast woman who also enters the scene. It seems that Ava Gardner had, in the past, had an affair with Mason--and he wanted nothing to do with her again--as she was clingy.You then find out that Mason's sad wife is Barbara Stanwyck and she knows about this previous fling with Gardner. She is desperately hoping to get on with their lives--and is scared when Gardner approaches her to announce she's going to steal Mason! Stanwyck acts brave--but it's obvious she's shaken.A short time after this showdown, Stanwyck learns that Gardner is dead and the viewer is uncertain who did it. Stanwyck, you know, didn't do it. But, Mason might have. Or, perhaps some third party did the deed. The only thing you know for sure is that Gardner's character had it coming!! Fortunately, Heflin just so happens to be a retired cop. And so, while he's VERY interested in Stanwyck, he also has a chance to help out by figuring out who committed the crime.This film has a terrific cast--Barbara Stanwyck, Van Helfin, James Mason and Ava Gardner. And, with the material they were given, the actors did a fine job--particularly Miss Gardner who played a wonderfully evil part. The problem, however, is that the film rarely seems believable and the writing, as another reviewer stated, was rather 'pedestrian'. Surely with so much acting talent you'd think they'd be able to come up with THIS! One of the worst problems with the film is the character played by Stanwyck. It was a very thankless role--a woman whose husband has cheated on her yet cannot let the rat go. Viewers are inclined to be a bit annoyed by her needy character--especially when, otherwise, she is supposed to be strong and intelligent. Another problem is the relationship between Heflin and Stanwyck. While you could see them fall in love and this makes for a very interesting twist (the injured wife finding love herself with another man), it all happened way too fast. They just met and then there was an instant attraction--something that rarely happens in real life and which cannot be understood by the viewer based on their meeting. It was simply too rushed and as a result, difficult to believe. All in all, it should have been a lot better and the film is a stylish but not especially inspired soaper.If you do watch this, there is only one standout scene in the film. Watch Heflin in the car with the blonde. The scene is great...and really brutal---and very reminiscent of film noir. I just wish the rest of the film had been that tough and unflinching. Also, keep an eye out for William Conrad as a cop. He looks a lot like his days as 'Cannon' but with a bit more hair--and that same wonderful voice!

I just saw this movie the other day on TCM. The acting was exceptional all around. The story was interesting and kept my attention the entire time.I especially enjoyed the scenes between Stanwyck and Heflin. It was fun to see their characters interact in a friendly manner. It's quite a contrast from their roles in "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers." My favorite parts of the movie were when they ate mushrooms & eggs and when they were hanging out in the NY neighborhood.My only quip was how the murder plot resolved so quickly. The movie would've been more suspenseful if it had been a little longer. And it easily could've been 10 or 15 minutes longer; it's not like the movie dragged at any point.