What... the... hell...


This has to be the first movie I've ever seen where the only things remotely credible in it were the performances. And even more astonishingly, that's enough to make it compulsively watchable.

I'm really drawn to this movie, but I can't imagine even trying to describe it to anyone else, much less watch it with them:

"So yes, it contains a man so evil that he tries to orchestrate the rape of his wife, a romantic-comedy sequence involving Charles Boyer and his talking hand, and a ship sinking that's like the Titanic but way less accidental."

Yet it's my favorite of Boyer's roles and one of my favorites featuring Arthur. She's better known for straight comedy, but man she plays this part to the hilt.

I... just don't know what to say. Is anyone else so bemused and enjoyably frustrated by this film?

reply

I love this film, and the only way I can think of describing it when recommending it to people is to say "It's like "Titanic," only with a happy ending." Was Colin Clive ever more vile? Ivan Lebedev more brutish? Charles Boyer more world weary? Leo Carillo more loyal? Jean Arthur more . . . more Jean Arthur?


We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream

reply