DKosty123 Kind of unusual to have Cary Grant learning to knit while heading a mob trying to squeeze money out of a charity. Sounds a bit different as Grant is a draft dodger as well. The movie does work well though.After all, Grant pulls off being a con man. Loraine Day pulls off being the heiress that eventually becomes Grants target for the swindle. No matter how hard he tries to get away, Day keeps after him.Charles Bickford is excellent in support here. This movie ages better than many of the films from this period. You can tell RKO does not have a huge budget here but there is enough cast. There is a solid script though the ending gets a little muddled at one point.This does have the happy ending for Grant and Day and frankly she comes off very well in this movie.

Prismark10 Cary Grant plays a charming but tough gangster who is in the gambling game and is aiming to make that big score even if it includes swindling.Mr Lucky made during the middle of the war combines comedy, drama, romance and does its bit for the war effort. Grant has taken the identity of a low rent criminal who was dying and failed the draft. The name he takes is that of a Greek man, Joe Bascopoulos.Joe wanting to raise money to launch his gambling ship spots an opportunity to rope the New York women's War Relief Fund operated by Dorothy Bryant (Laraine Day) who is one of the administrators to let him run a casino night as a big fundraiser. Joe plan is to use the cash boxes with false bottoms and take off with the raised funds.Of course no such film would ever be released in 1943, Joe falls for Dorothy and plans to do the right thing especially when Joe learns as to what has happened to the real Bascopoulos's family back in Greece. However a former business associated has other plans.It is unusual to see Grant playing a bit of a heel even though he still brings a lot of his trademark charm to the character. His attempt at knitting as he tries to get close to Bryant and then teaching her Australian rhyming slang which is in fact Cockney slang brings in a few smiles and also plays an important plot point later on.Part of Joe reflects Grant's own modest roots back in Bristol when he was just plain Archibald Leach.An endearing film with a spiky performance from Day but a confused ending as the film is told in flashback as Bryant is at the docks waiting for someone or maybe contemplating jumping in as Joe was reported lost at sea when his ship was bombed.

dougdoepke A shady gambler schemes to use a war-relief project for his own benefit. But then he meets up with the comely project director and the very real needs of the war afflicted. Not quite a comedy, not quite a drama, the movie is definitely a reflection of it's 1942 production period. WWII's outcome was still in the balance, and the homefront needs morale building during the dark period. Showing how even shady characters like draft- dodger Bascopoulas (Grant) can be inspired to finally join the patriotic effort is telling. When Grant's character admonishes Dorothy (Day) about snobbery in her wealthy family, we get the idea that classes must come together in time of national peril. This is a difficult format to coordinate with comedic moments, and though the production does its best, the overall results are lukewarm, at best. There are some good Grant moments, nonetheless. For example, to advance his scheme, he has to take up knitting, and worse, while other men watch his emasculation from the street. To fit the format, however, Grant has to show both a dark and lighter side, so fans expecting patented Grant-type farce may be disappointed. It may even that a number of Hollywood's lesser leading men could have essayed the part to about the same effect. To me, the movie is best viewed in WWII's bleak context, and the industry's attempts to meet the challenge in an entertaining way.

krdement I will not provide yet another synopsis. However, the story is told by a sailor (who we learn is Swede) to a watchman late one night on a foggy wharf as a flashback. I thought the movie moved slowly, with none of the clever dialog necessary to sustain a high level of interest in this kind of "talky" plot.The story has enough side plots to keep things interesting. After their falling-out Grant's ex-partner is clearly not to be trusted. But, until the end, the scheme that he has hatched is unclear. This subplot maintains a good level of dramatic suspense. Grant is forced to flee from his associates who try to break down a door to get at him. He then uses his old friend and shipmate, Swede, to convey to Laraine Day the gambling proceeds he has saved from the clutches of his old gang. Charles Bickford is quite good as the faithful friend, occasional medic and stoic but ultimately sentimental shipmate, Swede. (As an aside to another commentator: I have no idea how you conceived of Swede as ever being menacing! I think you must have seen another movie!)It is the love story subplot that doesn't work well in this movie. Cary Grant and Laraine Day never seem to connect. I never really felt any chemistry between them. Consequently I was never gripped by the hope that they would get together - except possibly for the sake of Laraine Day's longing.I am a fan of Laraine Day (whose eyes are mesmerizing, as has been observed), and she was never more beautiful than she is in this role. I liked her in this film.I am a bigger fan of Cary Grant, and I found this role rather interesting. But the movie ultimately fails to satisfy because of Grant's acting (possibly due to the director). His role, Joe, is a male counterpart to the con artist played by Barbara Stanwyck in The Lady Eve. But Stanwyck's growing emotional involvement with her "mark," Henry Fonda is palpable. We see her struggle to reconcile her emotions with her other competing motives. By contrast Grant fails to convey any sense of GROWING emotional involvement with Laraine Day. Grant really appears to be concerned only with his fraudulent scheme to launch his gambling boat - ultimately at Day's expense. It is only when they arrive at Day's old Maryland family home and he hears her confession of love that he seems to suddenly convey any emotional involvement with her. Thus, it seems like a forced reaction. Later, at the film's climax he doesn't seem to dance with her at the "charity ball" with anything on his mind other than how to unweave the web he has spun. He doesn't convey any sense of emotion toward Day or any notion that it might be the last time he will ever hold her in his arms. He has other serious concerns, to be sure (which he conveys well), but there is no sense that she is also in his thoughts, much less in his heart. It is only in the scene toward the end when he pulls away from the dock (and away from the tearful Day) that he seems to express his emotional involvement in a very heart-felt way. By contrast, Day's involvement with Grant evolves gradually. We see her warm to him, even while rejecting his idea for a gambling night gala. And when he tells her the fabricated story about his family in Greece, struggling against the German invasion, we see Day's attitude shift. Her emotions begin to swell visibly for him after that.As one commentator has noted, perhaps audiences in 1943 laughed at times during this film. I may have smiled a couple of times at those junctures. As a 53-year old viewer in 2007, I must disagree with the characterization of this film as a comedy. Perhaps people characterize it as such because they can only think in terms of comedy or tragedy. This is NEITHER - it is a drama. For my tastes, I didn't find it melodramatic in the least. Nor did I find it heavy or depressing. This is simply a light, romantic drama - full of more tense moments than comedic ones.IF this movie were a comedy, the scene in which the police detectives sent by Laraine Day's father (Henry Stephenson) to Day's office might have been very funny. Instead, it is played straight and serious, with Day and Grant transformed into a couple of spies communicating in impromptu code (actually "Australian" slang, which is really rather interesting).The best scene is Cary's "repentance" in the church. The priest reads him a letter addressed to the dead man whose identity he has assumed. It is a scathing, heartbroken letter from the man's mother, and Cary listens to the priest, realizing it could have actually been written to him.Decent story, decent acting, very good cinematography all under the guidance of a director who didn't seem to have a steady hand at the tiller. I really wanted to like this movie a lot. Instead, I found some of its elements interesting, but the movie as a whole disappointing - though definitely watchable. (I wasn't tempted to rush out and buy the DVD!)