Not a good one


I was disappointed by this movie. Katherine Hepburn is absolutely awful in it, she's downright irritating. And Mitchum only has a small role. Waste of time.

reply

Worst movie I've seen in a long while.

reply

You people have GOT to be kidding. I thought Kate was wonderful, she sold me the whole ball of wax. And Mitchum cast against type was perfect! I sure liked this a lot better than some of Minnelli's chick flicks, it had some tension to it for a change.

reply

They may be kidding but I'm not. This movie is so bad that I watch it in horrified fascination every time it's on. Kate Hepburn as a helpless clinging vine? She actually does clinging well but she's about as helpless as an acre of kudzu. Mitchum rattled off his lines to Hepburn in a bored monotone and only came alive in his scenes with Robert Taylor. The two men had better onscreen chemistry than either had with poor Kate.

Then there were her hats, ranging in appearance from household appliances gone mad to roadkill to botanicals that flourish in the dark and the wet. It's a wonder that Minelli didn't make her reprise her appearance in Christopher Strong wearing her infamous "moth costume".

There was certainly tension, though, as the whole movie walked a tightrope between bad and awful. Or do I mean worse and worst?

Definitely right up there just under Strange Interlude in the So Bad It's Good Top Ten.

reply

I could not believe how bad this movie was!!!!!!

There is such a thing as 'screen chemistry'....WOW this one DOES NOT have it at all; Robert Taylor and Hepburn? Mitchum and Hepburn? Taylor and Mitchum..they were all on different wavelengths, and you could never believe any of them would want to have anything to do with the other!!!

Just so you know; great examples of 'screen chemistry' would be Elizabeth Taylor and Monty Clift, Hepburn and Tracy, (of course!!) Lana Turner and John Garfield, Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni, and many others.....

Anyway, this is one movie I regret seeing!! I sat, amazed and dumbfounded at, especially, the plot angle where she is in love, more or less, with Mitchum's character...........almost like 2 different people were writing the script; one started, someone else finished it up..

But I refuse to waste any more of my time on this piece of dreck!!!


reply

I read Mitchum's biography. He did NOT enjoy making this movie.

reply

It's not among my favorite films, but the second half is memorable for its plot devices. I liked the unique presence and mysterious form surrounding Michael throughout the movie and leading up to his reveal in the shadows with a burning cigar. UNDERCURRENT also creates a very thoughtful and original background story between Alan, Michael and the source of Alan's wealth. The horseback ride in the end was another highlight; literally a cliffhanger.

reply

UNDERCURRENT also creates a very thoughtful and original background story between Alan, Michael and the source of Alan's wealth

Guy kills guy to steal his invention. Other guy knows it. That's hardly original.

The horseback ride in the end was another highlight; literally a cliffhanger.

Terribly directed and some of the worst acting I have seen from Hepburn (who was not at ease with the damsel in distress part anymore than Mitchum was with the sensitive guy part).

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

Just watched it again.

If anything, it's actually worse than I remembered.



"The night was sultry."

reply

This is a very good tight little film.

I see it is quite under-rated here on the IMDb.

It's not a chick-flick, where the heck did THAT notion come from anyway?

It's a melo-drama / mystery movie.

Hepburn and Taylor were great in it.

'nuff said.

reply

I rather like this film and am puzzled by the vehemently negative reactions I am reading here. "Undercurrent" has a great cast, good production values, and a thought-provoking script. I am especially impressed by Hepburn's character. Here is a strong, intelligent woman who faces adult problems in a mature fashion. She acts like a grown-up, which is getting to be a rarity these days.

The 1940s was a decade in what actresses such as Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford were featured in roles that allowed them to be intelligent and strong-willed, yet sensitive and emotional at the same time. "Undercurrent," while perhaps not the best example of the "woman's picture" genre, is well worth watching.

I can't help comparing the portrayal of the female lead in this picture to the way in which women are often portrayed in the TV series "The Big Bang Theory." My wife and really love that program, but consider its female characters. On the one hand you have the likeable, but poorly educated and not terribly bright Penny, and the super intelligent but emotionally awkward Amy Farrah Fowler on the other. The characters portrayed by Hepburn, Davis, and Crawford are both attractive and bright. They are, in other words, not caricatures.

I should mention also the performance of Robert Mitchum. Not yet thirty years old when the film was made, Mitchum was already an accomplished actor who really could make you think that he had just walked in off the street and said the first thing that seemed appropriate under the circumstances.

I am also a sucker in general for 1940s films. The first movies that I ever saw as a very young child were in the last years of that decade. I would not rate "Undercurrent" as a classic, but it is a well-made film about grown-up people who acted as if reaching 21 really signaled the end of acting like kids.

reply

Here is a strong, intelligent woman who faces adult problems in a mature fashion. She acts like a grown-up, which is getting to be a rarity these days.

If you think that's a strong intelligent woman facing problems in a mature way, then thank the Gods, it's rare because she acts like an idiot through the whole movie, and a codependent good little wife. And it would have been the death of her too without the intervention of the hero. Ugh.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

Just watched it ... intelligent, sensitive, stylish ... but there is no accounting for taste. That's what makes it art.

reply

You're right, cervantes: there is no accounting for taste. Perhaps Hepburn was not the best choice for the role, but I don't believe she was totally mis-cast, as others have indicated, and Taylor did a good job as a (perhaps) good man gone bad. I do tend to think, though, that in the hands of a director more used to this type of drama, the film would have been even better.

reply

[deleted]