Wordiezett So much average

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

vincentlynch-moonoi Cary Grant is my favorite actor, but this is not my favorite Grant film. For most of the film, Grant plays a character you can't like -- a perpetual liar and fraud...not that he's not classy...although perhaps the better term would be slick. That's not to say his performance is anything but excellent, but it's simply difficult to want to like this thug who is willing to avoid the draft by taking a dead man's identity and sell out his country's best interests in the middle of World War II.Of course, late in the film he is transformed into a more noble character...because he falls in love. Of course, he must suffer...so he is shot in the gut and forced to leave behind the first real love of his life...to go into the Merchant Marines. But, of course, this is Hollywood, so on a foggy night she comes waiting for him at the pier...and they are reunited. It sounds corny, and it is...but it works.The best surprise in this film is not Cary Grant's acting. No surprise there...he's always good to great. But his costar -- Laraine Day -- turns in a fine performance as the high society do-gooder that falls in love with Mr. Lucky. There are some fine character actors here, as well, and each plays his or her part well: Charles Bickford, Gladys Cooper, Alan Carney, the venerable Henry Stephenson, and Paul Stewart.As I said, it's a good movie, but far from Grant's best. Very watchable, but in my view, not one for the DVD shelf.

yourdeadmeat69 Google the title and you get DVD availability for Mr. Lucky for Region 2 PAL players. These days a PAL player, or a multi region and HD capable (Blu-Ray) players means you gotta buy a bunch of players. Someday--one player size fits all but, I didn't want folks to think a DVD wasn't available on planet earth somewhere.How good, the quality of sound and print, is to be determined.Stayed tuned.And I wish I didn't have to put in ten lines of commentary to make a simple notification of availability for DVD.

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!)

theowinthrop It's entertaining enough to sit through, and it offers a light on a problem that would forever plague it's leading man, but let us face facts: MR. LUCKY was a World War II moral boosting propaganda film, and as such it is dated. It is set in a mindset for 1942/43 when the actual destiny of the war effort was unresolved, and an Axis victory was still possible. Keeping that in mind we can forgive the character change that the script forces - but posterity lost a second chance of seeing Cary Grant play a rat.After his quasi-rat wastrel Johnny Aysgard in SUSPICION, Grant made the film TALK OF THE TOWN with Ronald Colman and Jean Arthur. His character of Leopold Dilg is suspected of arson/possibly felony murder, but we realize that he is being railroaded by Charles Dingle on those charges. A few years passed and in 1943 Grant agreed to play Joe Adams, gambler and con man, who decides to get involved in the charity racket to make a real killing. And I am sure that Grant chose the part because Joe was a rat - as bad and violent in his way as Johnny was in his.We see this in Joe early on - he has to raise some capital for his scheme, and goes to collect the money that is owed to him. As always Grant is dapper and soft spoken, but here he demonstrates what is underneath all this: his Joe gets the money by beating up the man who owes it. To make the scene more effective, we never see Grant beat the man, but the scene is shot from the legs down, where the man is whimpering on the ground and willing to give up the money. It was a unique moment in the film, only duplicated towards the end when Grant kicks his partner in the face in a final confrontation about the swindle. That is shown performed by Grant - far more visibly than the first scene.Yet the effect of this violence is shattered by changes in the screenplay. Grant's Joe meets the capable and suspicious Dorothy Briant (Laraine Day) at the organization that is creating the charity. She is antagonistic to him at the start, but subsequently they fall in love. At the same time one of her assistant/friends is "Swede" (Charles Bickford), and he starts working on Joe's conscience regarding the war effort and the need of the money for the purposes it is supposed to push. So when Grant beats up his partner he is actually doing it to prevent their plans for the theft of the charity money to come to fruition.Again the studio (RKO again) and the actor's agent refused to countenance a negative image for Grant. So we have to be satisfied with two scenes where Grant uses his muscles to beat people up. One should be thankful for small favors - Grant would try again in 1944 when he appeared in NONE BUT THE LONELY HEART to play a criminal type, but there too the screenplay would prevent him from playing a total rat again.