Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Martin Bradley The least typical of Max Ophuls' masterpieces, "Caught" is a Women's Picture, written with a steely edge by Arthur Laurents. Barbara Bel Geddes is outstanding as the girl who marries money in the shape of Robert Ryan's sociopath multi-millionaire, modeled so we are told on Howard Hughes, but he treats her with such contempt she runs away and gets a job as a receptionist to James Mason's struggling doctor. It's a triangle quite unlike other triangles in the movies of the time; there is a psychological depth at play here rare in a genre picture of its kind and both Mason and Ryan are superb while Ophuls' framing of the characters greatly enhances the relationships between them, (the distance between Ryan and Bel Geddes in his mansion, the close proximity between Mason and Bel Geddes in the office scenes).In lesser hands this might have simply been novelettish but it isn't the superficiality of the material that interests Ophuls but how he can manipulate the material so the film is all of a piece. The least typical of Ophuls, I said; perhaps not. Shot after wonderful shot reveals this to be the work of one of cinema's great stylists and it really shouldn't be missed.

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) Spoiled by a really crappy ending and a miscasting of Barbara Bel Geddes.I love noirs and made a point of acquiring this one. 1949. A woman marrying for money to a rich psychopath based on Howard Hughes, they say.Barbara is too goody-two-shoes, too girl-next-door for a woman who finds her strength when she gets a job of worth with a pair of doctors. I don't see what James Mason, playing Larry, saw in her.Robert Ryan is brilliant as her wealthy husband. And the slimy Franzi, his sycophantic side-kick is brilliant.And the ending was hugely disappointing, if I got into it I'd give the plot away, but it came across as a complete copout. Rushed, hurried and leaving too many plot holes unfilled.6 out of 10.

mcmason-72160 This film includes some very good acting by Barbara Bel Geddes, James Mason, and Robert Ryan. Ryan in particular is superb as the rich abusive husband. Supposedly his character was based on Howard Hughes but he could be any rich and greedy asshole, including Donald Trump. What I found most interesting about this film is how it handles the concerns of working women in the late 1940's. In fact, this movie is a great time capsule on the fears and anxieties of women of the period. How do be financially independent. How do get ahead in the world. How to deal with the unreasonable demands of men and maintain one's dignity and independence. This movie contains many of the themes that would dominate movies 2 decades later. But unfortunately, in the end, all the female characters submit to male dominated viewpoints and never really escape their plights. But there is one issue that comes through that is most curious. The main female character, played by Bel Geddes, becomes pregnant by the evil rich Ryan character. She has mixed feelings about the pregnancy since she is no longer in love with her husband (Robert Ryan) but is in love with her new employer (James Mason). It turns out she has a miscarriage right after her abusive husband has a massive heart attack which clears the way for her to marry Mason. Strangely enough, everybody seems so happy by the death of this "baby" that it almost seems like an abortion has occurred. In fact, I would argue that this movie advocates abortion even though it is never mentioned throughout the movie. It is clear that removing an unwanted pregnancy that stands in the way of happiness is acceptable. I think it shows that for much of the movie going public in the late 1940's abortion was accepted even though it could not be discussed in public. I don't think this movie could be made today.

TheMovieSmith As a fan of film noir I was excited to find another movie to watch. Little did I know what I was in store for. The lead character was a prime example of a gold digger. I know that looking at a movie through the lens of the present day will distort the original work however I find it hard to believe that a normal woman in the 1940's could be that obsessed with 'bagging a rich one'. The main character spends the entire film whining about wanting to be rich all the while hating herself for being a gold digger (You can't have your cake and eat it too). I know they wanted to make her seem naive but it completely backfired. She is just a horrible woman and has no redeeming value whatsoever as a character. The performances seem dry and forced; absolutely no chemistry between Leonore and the doctor. There is even less chemistry between her and Smith. I find it hard to believe she could have ever fooled herself into loving him (as she claims in the film). Smith is also the prime example of a terrible man and is quite possible a worse human than her. Marrying her just to spite his doctor and then ruling her life at every turn. He is however more believable at being a cad then she is as a gold digger. In a movie full of garbage the most insulting thing to contemplate is that a 'happy ending' (complete with an uplifting score) is the woman's child being still born. After pleading with her husband not to take her baby away from him she is relieved to have the baby die so she can be free to marry the doctor she loves, a doctor (pediatrician) which is just as happy to have the baby and husband out of the picture so he can finally have his one true love. Mindless dribble at its finest. All in all the film is an early example of tawdry soap opera complete with terrible acting and a crummy plot.