KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

MissSimonetta Take Billy Wilder's amazing 1944 adaptation of Double Indemnity and then sap out all the blood. That's this 1973 made for television version.There's no style to anything. Gone are the claustrophobic sets and the sense of oppressive summer heat wave which gave atmosphere to the original. None of the sets seem designed to do anything other than give the boring, charisma-less actors space to march around in. None of the players are even close to the performances of the original. It's a hard chore to even equal, let alone top, the likes of Barbara Stanwyck or Edward G. Robinson. These people don't even come close.The cinematography is bland. No sexual tension. The dialogue is the same but when it's delivered with no verve it barely simmers. The climax is not so much built to as it is stumbled upon by bloodless characters.Ignore this. Not worth your time. Not worth the film it was shot on at all.

AaronCapenBanner Jack Smight directed this TV remake of the original 1944 film, based on James M. Cain's novel, that stars Richard Crenna as Walter Naff, an insurance salesman seduced by a client's wife named Phyllis Dietrichson(played by Samantha Eggar) to murder her husband for the insurance money, with the double indemnity clause giving them twice the payout, though Walter's boss Barton Keyes(played by Lee J. Cobb) is suspicious of Phyllis, convinced she murdered her husband with the help of another man, not knowing that it's Walter... Needless and ineffectual remake still has a good cast and story, but no atmosphere or point at all.

kosmasp Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first! There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!

mrb1980 When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.