I'm torn over this movie. I remembered seeing it years ago on TV and was blown away by it, so when I saw the DVD was available, I bought it. And despite remembering basically what happens through the movie, I still found myself engrossed in it. But it took some doing, that's for sure.
To begin with, it now irritates the hell out of me to see a movie that is set in the forties having women dressed in modern clothes, even though I know it was common in the 50's and 60's for movies to do that (up to BONNIE & CLYDE, basically). The worst example of this is IN HARM'S WAY, that has one woman in a near mini skirt even though it's supposed to be taking place the night before Pearl Harbor. Well, you got that in this one -- Lillie Palmer decked out in the latest fashions of 1962, even though the movie's set twenty years earlier. It's a glaring fault that makes it hard to take the story seriously.
Second is the incessant voice over that tells us what we're seeing and how we should be feeling about it. Hate that.
Third is the complete lack of chemistry between Lilli Palmer and William Holden, both of whom have been bright and sexy in other roles. I don't know what the problem was, but they act more like they can barely stand each other than as the romantic leads.
I think the fault lies mainly with George Seaton, the director. He is a GREAT writer...but as a director he does not understand his scripts and cannot seem to shape them into anything that approaches the hyper-reality of great cinema. I keep thinking of what Alfred Hitchcock could have done with this story, how sexy and scary it would have been.
But that's wishful thinking, and even with these flaws, the truth of the story builds and captures you and intensifies and provide some powerful moments. I was engrossed, despite myself. Here's a good movie ripe for a remake with an international cast done by someone like Spielberg or Weir. No counterfeit directors, those two; the only one is the one who directed THIS movie.
To begin with, it now irritates the hell out of me to see a movie that is set in the forties having women dressed in modern clothes, even though I know it was common in the 50's and 60's for movies to do that (up to BONNIE & CLYDE, basically). The worst example of this is IN HARM'S WAY, that has one woman in a near mini skirt even though it's supposed to be taking place the night before Pearl Harbor. Well, you got that in this one -- Lillie Palmer decked out in the latest fashions of 1962, even though the movie's set twenty years earlier. It's a glaring fault that makes it hard to take the story seriously.
Second is the incessant voice over that tells us what we're seeing and how we should be feeling about it. Hate that.
Third is the complete lack of chemistry between Lilli Palmer and William Holden, both of whom have been bright and sexy in other roles. I don't know what the problem was, but they act more like they can barely stand each other than as the romantic leads.
I think the fault lies mainly with George Seaton, the director. He is a GREAT writer...but as a director he does not understand his scripts and cannot seem to shape them into anything that approaches the hyper-reality of great cinema. I keep thinking of what Alfred Hitchcock could have done with this story, how sexy and scary it would have been.
But that's wishful thinking, and even with these flaws, the truth of the story builds and captures you and intensifies and provide some powerful moments. I was engrossed, despite myself. Here's a good movie ripe for a remake with an international cast done by someone like Spielberg or Weir. No counterfeit directors, those two; the only one is the one who directed THIS movie.