Bad for Each Other

1953 "He takes your life in his hands!"
5.8| 1h23m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 24 December 1953 Released
Producted By: Columbia Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A doctor returned from the Korean War must choose between joining a glamorous practice and helping the poor.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Columbia Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

vincentlynch-moonoi Usually my rating comes pretty close to the "group" rating here. But this time I must disagree and give this film a considerably higher "7".I was not expecting much, partially because since Charlton Heston's NRA rants he had fallen out of favor with me, although I still believe his performance in Ben-Hur was one of the great performances in cinematic history. But there have been few other films I really enjoyed him in. But, Heston's performance here is top notchAs one other reviewer here pointed out, it isn't far into the film before we know that the basic plot is that a doctor who is tempted to a rich practice for hypochondriacs will, eventually, return to his true calling. Okay, but then again, we figure out the gist of most movies pretty quickly. What makes a film interesting is the way it gets to a conclusion we've already figured out. On the one hand, some aspects of the story -- such as the coal mining aspect -- are a little different. There are also some aspects of the film that just don't ring true...such as the mother's reluctance to have her son be successful; that is a bit overdone. And, I don't think the screenwriters did Lizabeth Scott's role any favors; she's too callous. But, at least she's interesting here. Dianne Foster as a dedicated nurse was good, and it's always nice to see Mildred Dunnock (here as the mother; too bad the role was not more realistic). Arthur Franz is excellent as a dedicated young doctor. It's always a plus to have veteran character actor Ray Collins in a film, and he is wonderful as ever here. Same for Marjorie Rambeau as a rich, matronly type. Lester Matthews and Rhys Williams do fine as a slick city-type doctor versus a country doctor.So, from my perspective, this is a pretty decent movie. Perhaps not one for the DVD shelf, but definitely worth a watch (or two...as I did).
JohnL-21 This Columbia film is an abbreviated reworking of MGM's THE CITADEL (1938). In THE CITADEL a young doctor treats miners in Wales, but then sells out to treat rich hypochondriacs in London, before rediscovering his ethics in the end. In BAD FOR EACH OTHER, it's miners in Coalville vs. rich women in Pittsburgh. There are many other similarities, although BAD reshuffles the plot elements into a shorter running time. A mine disaster sequence, common to both films, is egregiously duplicated in BAD, including some shots which are near-identical. It's close to plagiarism. THE CITADEL is a great film, while BAD is merely entertaining. Just don't watch them within a month of each other, as I accidentally did.
oldblackandwhite Before watching this movie, I bethought myself, with Charlton Heston, Liz Scott, and Ray Collins, presented in early '50's beautiful black and white, it can't be all bad. How wrong I was. Bad for Each other was just bad for viewing. The cinematography was gorgeous, all right, and the cast was good, all right, but both were wasted on this movie.I will not waste time on the plot. Too much ink has already been spilled going over its standard "The Citadel" pattern doctor-torn-between-being- noble-helper-of-mankind-and-making-money story line. It has been used over and over again because it works well. In Hollywood when they found a horse that would run, they just went ahead and rode him to death. And that's not so bad. But this was a very poor treatment of the familiar story.The development of the story was incompetent and contrived. The story had so many plot threads, it would have taken a two and a half hour movie to cover them all, but this second feature programmer was only 84 minutes. We were led to expect that the X-rays of the miners' lungs displaying some hard-to-diagnose disease, shown to Dr. Heston by both the old coal mine doctor (Rhys Williams) and his idealistic young assistant (Arthor Franz) would turn out important in the denouement. Likewise the issue of whether Heston's character intended to pay off his late brother's debts. But there was no payoff on either. Both were left hanging at the end. People, including her own father, kept telling Heston how bad spoiled society dame Liz Scott had been for all men and how she would ruin him. But he seemed to be developing all of his bad attitude on his own without her help. Her attempts to manipulate him had little effect. In fact he seemed to dominate her.The characterization in general was very bad. The noble poor -- Heston's mother (Mildred Dunnock), the dedicated nurse (Dianne Foster), and Franz's idealistic young doctor -- all came off like doctrinaire commie stereotypes. All of the rich people were likewise portrayed like socialist models of capitalistic pigs, the exception being Ray Collins' mine owner, who showed a little troubled noblesse oblige. I'm not suggesting it was made from a socialist point of view. I'm not sure the movie even had a point of view. It was just crude. If the commies couldn't do any better than that in the propaganda department, no wonder they lost the Cold War!The cruelest disappoint of all awaited us Liz Scott fans. What a waste of that dynamite figure, that wicked, toothy leer, those vampire eyes, and that awesome ability to be bad,bad, bad! So bad that in another, much better, movie Too Late for Tears she even made Dan Duryea look like a half -decent guy by comparison! She never got to be really bad in this movie, just a bit spoiled and selfish. I kept waiting for her to shoot someone, poison someone, double-cross someone, or just run off with the plumber. Any of the above would have considerably improved this movie. Unfortunately nothing so interesting happened.No, Liz wasn't bad, but Bad for Each Other was.
bkoganbing In between his two DeMille blockbusters, Charlton Heston did a bunch of films of varying quality, some for Paramount and some as a loan out. For this medical soap opera, Heston went to Columbia to appear opposite Lizabeth Scott. Bad For Each Other is kind of like Not As A Stranger in reverse. If you'll recall in that one Robert Mitchum had nurse/wife Olivia DeHavilland, but had a roving eye for the sultry socialite Gloria Grahame. In this one Heston starts out going big time for Scott, but there is also idealistic nurse Dianne Foster in the picture as well.Heston's character is an army doctor on leave, fresh from Korea and in Coalville, Pennsylvania to visit his mother, Mildred Dunnock. He gets a nice offer from the town doctor Rhys Williams to move in and gradually takeover his practice. But when Scott comes with a better offer in more attractive packaging, Heston's libido takes over and he leaves the army to work in a high priced clinic for the rich and powerful in Pittsburgh.It's not just hormones talking here, the only thing about Coalville Heston liked as a kid was saying goodbye to it as he didn't want to wind up in the mines like most of the town. There's a cave-in at the mine for a climax and I think if you've seen enough medical dramas you have some idea where this is going. The stars and supporting cast are all comfortable in the parts they are playing, but no new ground is broken in Bad For Each Other.