leethomas-11621 Still packs a punch but somehow the ending is unsatisfying. Is it too pat? Alas, Shirley Booth and Burt Lancaster as a couple don't fit. He doesn't look the part either - too young and good-looking. In his physique there is no evidence of the years of self-abuse. He is subdued and asexual for most of the movie. Booth's role is one-dimensional. She doesn't really grow throughout the film. The young cast threaten to steal the movie from the two stars. (I was shocked too that for those times Doc was allowed to call his wife a slut, twice!)

flarepilot Look Carefully at the scenes involving the automobile, in some scenes the passenger side front windshield is missing to allow for better filming without glare.Beyond this, the movie is a fine example of real film making. Shirley Booth is incredible. At the ambassador east hotel in chicago, they named all the booths after famous celebrities. One of the booths is simply named: SHIRLEY.I seem to recall that DOC is actually a chiropractor though he wanted to be a medical doctor.There is a non musical version of "HELLO DOLLY" called, "THE MATCHMAKER" and Shirley Booth is wonderful in this film too. Far better than Barbara Streisand in the musical version.

Dalbert Pringle If nothing else - I think that this stark, sad, and very despairing drama (that touches on such subject matter as - alcoholism, bad marriages, loneliness, and youthful lust) is well-worth a view since it gives the spectator a very clear idea of the distinctive and dynamic acting-styles of the early-1950s.In particular - This 1952 film (which was adapted from a stage play of the same name) seems to exemplify that era of movie-making quite commendably as it attempts to faithfully portray "realism" without the usual Hollywood fluff & glamour thrown into the mix.Yes. This film contains its fair share of both terrific, as well as terrible moments - But, in the long run, I'd say that it hit its intended mark more often than it missed.54 years old at the time, actress Shirley Booth was, to me, quite believable in her part as Lola Delaney, the gabby, frumpy, lonely wife of Doc Delaney, a secretly resentful, recovering alcoholic.This would be Booth's first film as an actress (though she had performed on stage for many years prior). For her in-depth portrayal as Lola, she won an Oscar for "Best Actress".

dougdoepke One thing for sure—the film certainly goes against the glamorous 50's mold. Probably no movie from that prettified period is as dour as this one, from the dowdy Lola to the grim- faced Doc to the bleak photography to the plebian sets. I kept yearning for lively little Marie (Moore) to bounce in and give my eyes some relief. My guess is Hollywood was out to show Broadway that they could entrust their Meaningful stage plays to the notoriously commercial West Coast.Sure, Booth gets the spotlight and responds by emoting like she's on New York's center stage. But with that whiny voice and desperate demeanor, she's more pathetic than sympathetic. Then again, that may be the point, but you've got to wonder why the hunky Doc (Lancaster) stays with her in about as egregious a piece of visual miscasting as I've seen. But then maybe he too pities her long lost youth that won't ever come back no matter how hard she yearns. Looks like they're both paying a price for a mistake made years earlier. Of course, as might be expected, the screenplay's loaded with symbolism, especially her "dream" soliloquy. So get out your Freud if you care to.In my little book, the movie amounts to a one woman show that hasn't worn well, despite the studio's good intentions. Then too, catch that pat, unconvincing ending, so typical of the time. The dour production, however, does manage to put a dent in the bosomy Technicolor spectacles that ruled the 50's Hollywood roost. I'm just glad the talented Booth eventually moved on to TV and the less stagy Hazel (1961-1966).