Reviews

I was surprised when I saw this film because in all the films these two made, I don't think that either ever looked any better than they do in this film. Crawford was about 29 and Gable 33, and each was really in their prime. And the chemistry showed too.

I thought that the swimming pool scenes were especially interesting as one can easily take them very lightly. But the thought of actually acting, reciting lines and swimming back and forth across the pool is a lot easier said than done. Considering the number of scenes, I wonder how many takes it took to get that sequence filmed? It was also a good vehicle to get both stars in bathing suits for the time, and Crawford's is actually pretty revealing.

Some other reviewers believe that the Crawford character would not have wanted to stay with the Kruger character, but I thought that Crawford completely sold it. Not an unusual plot but a somewhat unusual ending especially for the time. Crawford could have come across as sleazy given her characters morals, but somehow she came across as noble, no easy feat, and a tribute to her ability. Gable? what can you say, he just had "it".

One to see for old movie fans.

I liked this film although there were certainly many better for the time. It is the usual war time movie without being too much like the rest.

How can you go wrong watching Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre together? Greenstreet is simply magnetic, and I was stunned to find out he debuted in films with Casablanca only a year before.

I kept thinking during the movie how much better it would have been with someone else besides Raft in the title role, he is pretty wooden. I am not sure where his performance ranks with his other roles. I hope they were better but doubt that they were. I don't watch many of them normally.

Brenda Marshall provides window dressing mostly and the ending smacks of a cheap knockoff attempt, but the rest wasn't too bad.

I am like the poster who managed to go 40 years without seeing this movie. I can say that I liked it very much.

Yes it was a war time movie with all the baggage that entails, but the acting and story were good especially for this genre. It had tension and that tension never really let up for long. The turns and twists of the story were well grounded and the actions made sense within the context of some theatrical license. As with most movie buffs, your mind is ahead of the movie. But in this one I was never really sure which way the story would turn until the end. To me, that is a job well done.

I suppose if it were made today, Flynn would have been just as likely to not have done the noble thing. In the interests of a just society, I am glad he did. I too thought it was one of his best performances.

I tried to see this film before because I remember the very beginning, but I guess I was interrupted. This time I saw it through and realized I was watching greatness. This film has outstanding dialog and a very nuanced script. Oh if people today could only write like that....it is no wonder I watch old movies. This film is a clinic on dialog.

The acting was great across the board but the direction, story, script and casting were especially good. It was a tightly woven story and an unusual one at that.

Wells put in his best performance. Could it have been better, maybe but the way he delivered those heart rending lines...........well maybe it couldn't have been much better. His deep rich voice together with the tenderness, wisdom, and compassion. Well it doesn't get much better. People who didn't appreciate that have not actually experienced life yet. Do not miss this when it comes around again, I know I won't.

How good was it? Well this is the first time I felt compelled to comment on any films here.