This may have been a great play, but George Brent doesn't have the star quality to carry the role. Despite a lot of great actors in this movie, he ruined it for me and I had to turn it off. In fact, Ronald Reagan would have been more interesting in the lead.
shareNo, Reagan would clearly NOT have been more interesting in the lead.
And he played a drunk very poorly in this film.
I agree George Brent was not a strong enough actor for this part, but Ronald Reagan in the lead would have been horrible. I wish it had gone to Melvyn Douglas. I think he would have been perfect for this.
shareSorry, but Bette Davis would NOT have allowed a 'stronger' actor to be her leading man. She wanted to dominate all her films, and she WOULD NOT STAND for a lead actor who could be as strong as her or stronger. This is a well-known fact. One of the main reasons she adored George Brent so much was because she knew he would NEVER try to upstage her - this has been documented.
Whenever she had 'strong' leading men, she would OVER-ACT like crazy to OVER-COMPENSATE for their 'strength'. She was insecure, like so many stars.
How could Ronald Reagan possibly have played the doctor at that age?? He would barely be out of medical school - and this is supposed to be a WISE, MATURE person who has been practising medicine for well over a decade!! You're just saying that because you probably find Ronald Reagan attractive in this film, but the doctor was not supposed to look like a sexy playboy.
shareI am watching this right now. I am looking at George Brent who supposedly was born in 1904. This movie was made in 1939. That would make him about 35 or so? He looked 50. No way was this guy born in 1904. Just my opinion
sharei thought the same thing.
share