Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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

Dunham16 Many successful 1940's black and white melodramas revolved around a subjectively bad central character who negatively impacts everyone's lives until punished with just desserts. Joan Crawford superbly plays this central character and does get her just desserts at the final credits. The difference by 1950 is the perceived flaw of subjectively bad character seems ludicrous in a modern light. There are more recent television sitcoms which bust up a seemingly perfect, fruitful relationship merely because one partner rushes over with a dustbuster every time the other eats a muffin. The popular STEPFORD WIVES novel was later made into two successful movies whose premise seems to be sloppy people lazy toward responsibilities are the wronged folks while neat freaks are the psychopaths deserving to be punished. Should you accept this premise HARRIET CRAIG is a terrific movie as well as an historical reference of early fifties' movie styles and Joan Crawford's professional development by that time. If you don't, this is a well made movie whose premise may not seem sufficiently logical to build grand melodrama.

tsmith417 In this remake of "Craig's Wife" Joan Crawford assumes the role of Harriet Craig, the woman to whom objects are more important than people.The biggest difference to me is that in this version Harriet is more concerned with running other people's lives, whereas in the 1936 version she is only concerned with keeping people from interfering with the smooth running of her own life.Joan Crawford's character is more devious, more suspicious, while Rosalind Russell played it as detached and aloof. Crawford undermines everyone around her; Russell ignores them. Crawford is obvious, like a raging river carving out a canyon; Russell is insidious, like a tiny trickle of water eating away at a foundation.Crawford's severe hairdo makes her look like a prison guard, to represent her rigid personality. Although Russell had a softer look about her, her perfectly straight posture was the giveaway to her feelings about the world around her.Of the two I prefer the Rosalind Russell version.

PudgyPandaMan " Wives may be a little extra trouble now and then, but they're mighty handy gadgets to have around the house." This movie is like a time capsule of the late 1940's and 50's. There are definite stereotypes about the roles of men and women from that period - like a woman's place is in the home, etc. Some will find this very dated and annoying - but I often enjoy seeing glimpses into past periods in American history, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.There is not a lot of depth to this movie in the classic soap tradition. But there is good character development in the sense that you know everyone's personalities. Joan is the controlling, manipulative wife trying to climb the social ladder. Correy plays the wimpy husband who lets his wife control him and everything in his life... Until she finally goes to far. Its good to see Mrs. Craig get what's coming to her in the end.Joan's costumes are beautiful and extravagant. But I hated the hairdo she has in most of the picture - very much like "helmet-hair". Its all stuck very close to her head and gives her profile shots an unflattering shape. Perhaps they're trying to give her an overly masculine look to match her domineering personality. I'm not a huge fan Of Crawford. I find most of her work overly theatric and stiff. This carries over here as well. There is one exception: when she relives the day her father left the family. She shows natural and genuine human emotion and pain in that scene, without all the campiness for which she is known.If you don't like melodrama or soap opera style films, stay away from this one. If you want a glimpse into 1950's stereotypes, watch this. Also, for those familiar with Crawford personal life and "Mommie Dearest", this role perhaps best captures that side of Joan - controlling, manipulative, unforgiving, and without an ounce of warmth in her whole body.

BumpyRide Perhaps one of Joan's last great dramas that had the production values, a good script and fabulous costuming; Joan digs her teeth into Harriet making her a very scheming, perhaps mentally disturbed woman. Turning in a great performance as the brittle Martha Stewart of the 1950's, Joan makes Harriet Craig a stand out movie just as she did with Mildred Peirce, showing what she can do with good material. Wendell Corey, at first seemingly miscast, does embody the role of the "Happy go Lucky" nice guy that the part calls for. Not realizing how calculating Harriet can be, she thwarts her cousin's love life, alienates Walter from his friends from his bachelor days, until finally interfering is her husband's business affairs that would take him to Japan, Walter finally see's her for the fist time. As delicate as her china service, Harriet needs everything to be perfect and in her eyes, change is a very bad thing. She cannot be left alone and will not be ignored. She's as antiseptic as her polished kitchen floor, and just as cold one.