GetPapa Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

HotToastyRag In Robert Taylor's first film since he fought in WWII, he stars as the handsome, charming scientist with a past and a secret. He falls in love with and marries Katharine Hepburn, but when she starts prying, the romantic film becomes a noir thriller! All three leads play against type, and even though I'm not a Robert Taylor fan, his stylized brand of acting doesn't really detract from the film. In a 40s noir, it's pretty normal for actors to over-act. Taylor strays from his pretty-boy image and plays a tormented man who's one word away from losing his temper. Hepburn doesn't display her usual strength; in a role that might have gone to Barbara Stanwyck, she's trusting and fearful. Robert Mitchum, the year after wowing audiences in The Story of G.I. Joe, plays a sensitive, thoughtful soul.If you like any of the actors, you'll want to rent this entertaining drama on a rainy afternoon. I would have preferred a replacement to Robert Taylor, but Hepburn and Mitchum more than made up for it. If you like mysteries like Laura or The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, this will become one of your favorites!

jjnxn-1 Mild thriller with Katharine Hepburn miscast in the lead. Story of a somewhat sheltered young woman, attractive but with no particular personal style. She's swept off her feet by the dashing Taylor who remakes her in the image of a chic sophisticate that suits his position as an important personality. Everything seems fine until she starts to notice small cracks in the persona he shows to the world until he reveals himself a psychotic nut job with brother issues.It's all a bit lurid with Minnelli, in a departure from musicals, a bit off in his pacing. The big surprise though is that Robert Taylor is better in the film than Kate. It's not that she's bad just the wrong actress for the weak sister she's playing, Joan Fontaine, Anne Baxter or Geraldine Fitzgerald would all have been better suited to the part. Taylor on the other hand, while never a great actor, handles the suave heel with the dangerous edge very well. Another glaring mismatch is Hepburn and Mitchum. He was just starting out and the two clashed off screen, with her dressing him down and he as usual not caring what she thought. They share zero chemistry on screen, you can actually sense their mutual distaste for each other in the film. A major flaw since he's supposed to be her dream man. An okay movie but a minor film for all.

LeonLouisRicci A throbbing melodrama of sometimes unbearable proportions. It is pondering and drags for most of its elongated length. It is a matter of a sub-genre (Film-Noir) in the hands of talent so self-absorbed that they can't let the material be exposed without embellishment. Everything is baked and overdone and all the nutrients are gone.Separately, the talent involved here have attained high product. But working together it is a ham-fisted affair of the heart and is more warm than chilling. Hepburn is miscast and so is the Director. This type of thing needs languishing and brooding. It comes off as a parade of fashion and pomp slumming in the Netherlands of psychosis and greed.It plays slow and never fully engages as it sputters and tries to crack through the cocoon of MGM respectability and restraint. The studio forever worrying about image and superficiality.

misctidsandbits It's always interesting to see good and favorite players put together in atypical roles and venue. That's part of the draw of this picture. There are obvious comparisons to other films already made in other posts. On to other things. The film has a draw all the way through, as far as I am concerned, because of the players who are interesting enough on their own and the combination of them.Did feel frustrated by a plot element, which comes up here and there in other films - an improbable that's very difficult to ignore or swallow. In this case, it is that a fairly mature and stable girl like Ann would marry a virtual stranger after only a few weeks' acquaintance, and that her father would be gung-ho about it all. It is a bit of a stretch. The father only knew Alan by professional reputation and nothing at all about him as a person. Ann and her father are very traditional people with a settled, thoughtful, slower paced lifestyle. They are solid stock, people who live with deliberation and preparation. For such a girl, regardless of her boredom with a seemingly limited field, to rush into alliance with someone she knows very little about, is unrealistic and frustrating. This only grows as the folly of having done so is played out. She's not a naive ingénue who "falls madly in love" and rashly runs off on such slim acquaintance. But, that's the movies sometimes.Some are concerned that Robert Mitchum "has little to do," that catch phrase used when someone has a smaller part than one would prefer or think appropriate. It helps to know where Mitchum was in his career in 1946, the year this film was released. This picture, along with others done this same year, represent his breakout from routine B pictures with small, obscure roles and billing. He's not the veteran actor in this with many starring roles behind him. As for his playing "against type" in this film, since this is his first major motion picture, he is yet to establish a type. Rather than "having little to do" or being wasted in the role, he is working with top actors for the first time. Again, it's a breakout role into bigger and better things for him.All in all, it's a picture that holds interest as it goes, fulfilling suspense and outcome.