RanchoTuVu A well off and capable New York corporate lawyer (Dana Andrews) carries on an ongoing affair with a successful fashion designer (Joan Crawford) who waits for him to divorce his wife (Ruth Warrick). This he finds difficult to do because of the two daughters and his position with his father-in-law whose law firm he works for. There are some complex issues in this situation with the wife, kids, work, and Joan Crawford in a fairly tender part as Daisy. The dialogue between the characters shows a sophistication as they deal with the situation that is fairly impressive. When Henry Fonda shows up as a widowed WW2 vet, there are several scenes between him and Andrews or with him, Andrews, and Crawford that move right along with interesting observations, as both men love the same woman, and the woman, who loves them both, seems to want to keep her own identity as well. The divorce court scenes come in towards the end to make the film a court drama as well, but do not intrude as the issues with Crawford's character become exposed by the lawyer representing the Andrew's wife. Though the film is not a crime drama, a lot of the B&W photography by Leon Shamroy looks like ace film noir. Some may say that director Otto Preminger would not voluntarily take on a project like this, that it must have been contractually foisted upon him. If so, he did a fairly admirable job, keeping the characters from going over the top while keeping up the pace and making a pretty tough ending with a surprisingly tender Dana Andrews, whose definitely at or near his best.

mplsrain As another poster mentioned, what happened to Tubby the dog? Tubby was a sheltie - I recognized it right away because I'm a sheltie owner myself. These dogs are hopelessly devoted to their owners and hate to be left alone. They live for the moment when their owner comes home, and follow them from room to room. These dogs will choose to sleep on a cold hard floor, as opposed to a nice soft couch if it means being nearer to their owners. It was somewhat disturbing to me to see that Daisy and Peter moved to the Cape without explaining what happened to Tubby. Perhaps that footage was edited out due to time constraints?Regarding the men in this movie, they are trying to win the love of Daisy and in retrospect it was in fact a chess game. One player (Dan) used his best moves and the other player (Peter) used his as well. Kudos to Peter for being cool, wise and astute restraining his emotions and remaining levelheaded in order to win his wife back. It was just killing him to pretend that he didn't care, but he knew that due to human nature being what it is, it was the best way to play this game. He won in the end and showed us all what he was made of.

robert-temple-1 This film is the latest release in the Fox Film Noir DVD series. Although it is not a noir film at all, but is instead a potent emotional melodrama, this does not matter. We don't complain, do we, when splendid DVDs of classic films are released under any pretext from those perfectly preserved negatives sitting in California archives crying in unison: 'Release me! Release me!' Anything directed by Otto Preminger is welcome. He may have been a nightmare as a person, but his films were terrific. This film is beautifully directed, and the lighting by Ken Shamroy and the sets by art directors George David and Lyle Wheeler all combine to give tremendous atmosphere to a film which could so easily have had none. Shamroy's lighting is not only good because of the shadows, but the subtle ways he picks out the faces and the eyes. Those were the days! Who can do that so well now? The Hollywood stars then knew how to play to their lights in order to deify themselves to still higher celestial orders. In those days, facial surgery took place by lighting methods, and there was no need for the knife. I am far from being a Joan Crawford admirer, but although she was an even worse nightmare than Preminger as a person, she can act with fantastic, mesmeric power when she wants to. And she does so here. The story is about a confused 'independent woman' of the immediate postwar era who is a mistress of a self-absorbed cad and the wife of a perversely self-denying idealist. Which shall she choose? She dithers with all the uncertainty of a woman in love who is not sure with whom. Does she go for the strong and cruel one, or the weak and adoring one? (Animal instinct always urges the former, on the premise that it is a better breeding prospect for the species that the strong, however cruel, should procreate.) Dana Andrews, usually a nice guy in films, here does a very good job of being a real jerk. Henry Fonda always found it easy, with his relaxed, gangly walk of a hillbilly, to be Mr. Nice Guy, since after all, only nice guys walk like that. He doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but what is needed is there. (No need to chew gum or 'baccy' this time.) This love triangle is greatly aided by a spectacular performance in a supporting role by Ruth Warrick as a harridan wife of Dana Andrews, although the fact that she is a child abuser who beats up her own little girl is severely down-played in the film. There are some wonderful small touches: a garrulous taxi driver reciting endless boring statistics about his trade, and a glassy-eyed couple who descend the stairs and do not say hello, the woman surprisingly being former silent film star Mae Marsh! Yes, it is a pity about the Greenwich Theatre being gone, not to mention Pennsylvania Station, of the interior of which we get a glimpse. This is a powerful soap opera story raised to a higher level by the talent involved.

James J Cremin I agree with another reviewer that the two male leads have more interesting characters than Joan Crawford. It seem odd today in 2008 that Dana Andrews was billed over Henry Fonda and it would have been interesting if the two had switched roles for this.As for Crawford, in it has been mentioned that she was playing younger than she really was. However, she kept herself in better shape than most of her contemporaries and I do include rival Bette Davis. She still had those straight shoulders and that stride in her walk that spoke of the attractiveness that Joan Crawford had. She knows she's playing the other woman and even knows the cheating husband has two children.Dana Andrews really had the best role as that husband whose actions cause his wife Ruth to beat one of their daughters, sorrowfully played by Peggy Ann Gardner. He loses a case representing a Japanese who lost his home. Today that would have been a slam dunk but then, no. Preminger doesn't even the Japanese in question but he is to be commended that bigotry and child abuse was even in there.Henry Fonda could have played that role but instead played actually a creepy veteran and professes love to Crawford on their first date, then with no explanation stays away. He must have sensed she still has a thing for Dana but even steps aside when the three meet.Hard to believe now, but his and John Ford's MY DARLING CLEMENTINE was not a commercial success when it first came up. Though he does end up with Joan at the end here, his role was somewhat confusing. Thank God, though, that Preminger gave him a nightmare instead of Joan to work out.He and Preminger would work again in actually better films, ADVISE AND CONSENT and IN HARM'S WAY, the later in support but his character in that movie fares a better than Dana Andrews did.And Fonda would return to Fox, but other different rules. The main reason to like this film is that for the only Joan Crawford-Otto Preminger collaboration, this really is not bad.