michaeljhuman I got stuck, in my brain with the constant feeling the government could have admitted that some details were true with a simple statement and come to an agreement with her to eliminate all of the ensuing problems. Which made it a bit hard to solider on watching itThe leading man and lady were both fine. Dialog is strictly average, but delivery of dialog is good.I very much liked the lady's independent nature and tenacity. It's marred by the standard Hollywood Dislike to love switch that seems to happen quickly and not for very good reasonsAnyway, it's amusing in spots, and mildly interesting to see how it's all going to end so 5/10.As I personally see this as a bit of a screwball comedy, if you like that sort of thing, you might prefer to watch the movie What's Up Doc, which is better in every way :)

glofau The concept for this romantic comedy is kind of interesting: consumer-protection-expert Jane Wyman gets picked up by submariner Dennis Morgan on a secret mission and finds herself discredited by government misinformation. Wyman and Morgan are charming, ably supported by Allyn Joslyn, Robert Douglas and Eve Arden as comic foils. William Frawley has an amusing bit as the representative of the Liar's Club. Michael Curtiz' direction is efficient, the Max Steiner score is effective and excellent, the production is beautiful and beautifully photographed. Jane Wyman, in particular, is made to look especially glamorous and gorgeous; Eve Arden also looks exceptionally beautiful. These positive elements, however, are torpedoed by a tedious, unfunny script. Maybe the movie could have been better if the secret-mission concept had been more thoughtfully worked out or if the core of the picture had been slightly more "true" to better propel the farce; as it is, the various story elements feel arbitrary and disconnected. For instance, Jane Wyman plays a consumer protection expert, but her expertise has nothing whatsoever to do with the story; the story centers on her fight to regain her ruined reputation. The story is clearly intended to be farcical; why not have Wyman use clever inventions from her business (amusingly presented in the first scene) to fight Dennis Morgan instead of the boring, imagination-free ruses she employs? Morgan, meanwhile, comes off as a womanizing liar for much of the film; is he a hero, or just a jerk? It's difficult to decide. Comedy characters are often idiots, by design, but you need to feel sympathy for them as well; these characters were just off-putting. Between the script problems, and the poorly-motivated slapstick comedy, this movie falls flat. As a rule, I adore fluffy comedies, but this one made me squirm in my seat, thankful at my release once it had ground its way to a conclusion. If you're a fan of any of the principal players or makers, as I am, the film is worth seeing because it has some bright performances (particularly by Eve Arden), clever scoring, and attractive photography. If you're into fashions of the postwar era, this film has some wonderful clothes and hair. For most people, I would say, do yourself a favor and skip this misfire of a film. It's not good enough to be worth your time, nor is it bad enough to be fun. It's just beautiful and kind of annoying, a change-of-pace experiment for Michael Curtiz that doesn't really work. For Completists only.

theowinthrop I saw this about thirty years ago, late at night and have never seen it revived. This is understandable, for despite a good cast and director (Michael Curtiz, of all people)it is not a great comedy but a passingly acceptable one.Jane Wyman is a woman whose reputation for honesty is important regarding her job on a magazine that is run by Robert Douglas (here not playing one of his politically ambitious historical villains for a change). She is enjoying a day on a boat when she is sunk by an experimental craft being tested by Dennis Morgan. Morgan tries to keep her from exposing this little secret, but she does not see that a government project is involved - only her credibility. So Morgan and the U.S. government do everything they can think of to get her branded a liar. And Wyman fights back to save her reputation.One highpoint (noted in another of these reviews) is the brief appearance of William Frawley to present an award to Wyman. She expects it to be in recognition of her magazine work. Instead, it turns out to be an award from "THE LIAR'S CLUB" for best lie of the year.The film's weakness is that it probes a subject gingerly - probably because it was the first time anyone ever considered it. The subject is government use of "misinformation" to hide activity that it does not wish to advertise at all. In the years since 1949 we are fully aware that all levels of government use misinformation - that they deny events happened or brand witnesses as liars, or frame the witnesses with evidence or other unknown/unexpected witnesses. But here it was limited to Wyman who fights without an assist by her magazine, and Morgan, who does what he can to discredit her, but finds he is falling in love with her.As an original in tackling this government vice, I mark that the movie is a "6" for being original. But on it's own, based on comic entertainment value, it is lucky to be a "5".

mdonath Wyman is fine and Arden does her usual duty, but the rest is an awful mess. The main flaw is very weak plot is all over the place. First we're in Wyman's potentially interesting workplace that, after a big setup, we'll never see again. Then we have the ridiculously stupid underwater tractor where our two leads meet. After that we just have dumb slapstick and unwitty dialogue. The pacing is terrible, nothing makes sense, and there's little chemistry with the love angle. Give it a miss.