Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

DKosty123 It is hard to give Cary Grant any less than a 6 which he usually gets just for stepping on the lot. He does well here but since the story is so fictional it is hard to buy him in the title role. He does have a good director and solid supporting cast. Then there is the music of Cole Porter. Where Grant is miscast, the music saves the film from the whitewashed and spun dry story. Eve Arden looks young and very appealing in this movie, not the school ma-rm type of role that would dominate her later career. Even with Grant having to bring across a made up Porter with a script that with the production codes being very restricted, it almost comes off. Hey, these feel good musicals appealed very much to an audience that was relieved the war was over and getting ready to enjoy peace. There would be other attempts to create the mood here the next couple of years. Big Studio Hollywood was the all star stuff dreams are made of. This film is a perfect example.

lindee-20510 I remember the first time I saw this film, I was spell bound,I have read up about Cole Porter since this film,and it's all seems negative,who cares if it's not all facts of his life, the music itself, is all Cole Porter, and if you didn't know Cole Porter's music before you will after this film, that educational in itself,Cary Grant played him well,Monty Wolley,well never heard of him before this, film but I do now and will watch another film that he's in no problem, great appearances from Jane Wyeman and MARY Martin,and to be the first colour film that Cary Grant made what a achievement and I'm sure I notice a very young Robert Wagner in there too has a young soldier. If you like your musicals you got to give this a go and Alexis Smith as Porter's long suffering wife is great #I get no kick out of champagne# #let's fall in love# and you sure do with the Cole porter sound

wes-connors At Yale University in 1914, wealthy young Cary Grant (as Cole Porter) is fonder of musical theater than his studies. Disappointing his family, he decides to drop out of college and pursue a career in songwriting. He makes it to the top, with a parade of hit songs and Broadway musicals, but tragedy is waiting in the wings. "Night and Day" is a formulaic Hollywood biography, with what would appear to be an odd casting choice in its leading man. Both exude elegance, but having Cary Grant play Cole Porter is strange...Miscast at the onset, Mr. Grant does something with the role. Early on, he kisses pretty blonde Jane Wyman (as Gracie Harris) like she's his sister. Later, attractive Ginny Simms (as Carole Hill) laments Grant has never made "a pass" at her. He's not playing Cole Porter, but Grant is playing a scripted "girl shy" man. Most of the story has to do with Grant's romance with beautifully-figured Alexis Smith (as Linda Lee). Grant's reaction to their first real kiss is telling. And, while most "girl shy" characters in Hollywood come around, this one does not. The last romantic scene between Grant's Porter and Ms. Smith dumps the kiss for a friendly hug...Combined with these tentative love scenes, we have Grant playing Porter as what could, then, have been described as "musical" or "light in the loafers." That Grant, director Michael Curtiz and a team of writers cooperated in sending this version of Cole Porter out to the public in 1946 is interesting. We also have bearded Monty Woolley playing the "real-life" role of Porter's mentor. Some of Porter's most successful songs ("Night and Day", "Let's Do It") were about such obvious subtlety. All that being said, the main story fails because it is still ordinary. However, the musical portions are very well done and flow seamlessly into the script...Of several contributions, Ms. Simms' "What Is This Thing Called Love?" is a highlight. The production numbers reach a peak with Carlos Ramirez and the dancers' "Begin the Beguine". As a bonus, Mary Martin performs her star-making hit version of Porter's "My Heart Belongs to Daddy". A legendary stage performer, Ms. Martin translates beautifully to screen in this appearance. Age prevented Martin from making movie versions of her hit plays later on, but her part in "Night and Day" makes one wish we'd seen more of Mary in the movies.****** Night and Day (7/2/46) Michael Curtiz ~ Cary Grant, Monty Woolley, Alexis Smith, Mary Martin

Robert J. Maxwell Warner Brothers must have pumped a lot of cash into this production. It's splashy, moves quickly, and has beaucoup musical numbers. I wish it had somehow all paid off.Cary Grant was at his peak here in 1946, but he looks too old to be a Yalie. He doesn't look OLD. He never looked old, even when he was old, just as he never looked boyish. He seemed to just reach middle adulthood and stay there for fifty years.That wouldn't necessarily be a problem but he's not only the central figure but he's in every scene except the musical numbers, and he's in some of them too with his faux tenor, his vibrato making the walls tremble. Nobody else is of much significance. Monty Wooley should be funny, and perhaps he was in 1946, when beards were oddities. Alexis Smith looks glorious in glorious Technicolor.The film itself is almost a musical review, with episodes from somebody's fantasy of Cole Porter's escapades stuck in between. It's kind of an interesting problem. Porter wrote both music and lyrics, and some of them are playful ("You're the Top") and others blue-hued in their melancholy ("In the Still of the Night"). So why doesn't it play? What's the difference between this and, say, "Singin' in the Rain," given that this film has a more dramatic element. For one thing, there's no dancing to speak of here. One number, "I've Got You Under My Skin" is clumsily choreographed, the dancer seeming to practice her yoga mudrahs, a kind of manual of hands. It's okay when a musical lacks believability. Who believed any of Fred and Ginger's plots? What it lacks is exuberance.Porter's involvement in World War I (that's 1914 to 1918, kids) is romanticized. He gets the idea of "Begin the Beguine" from listening to shell bursts or something -- well, listening to what appear to be Morroccan troops humming in the gloomy night like darkies anyway. Somehow the film links his later, disabling riding accident to his wounds in the war and presents it in the most sentimentalized of ways. I mean, the guy is like FDR struggling to the stage to make his first speech. His homosexuality of course isn't even hinted at. But the writing is pretty careless throughout. The audience loses track of what the year is or what the name of the play is.Well, not to put the production down too much. The songs we hear are Porter's most popular and sophisticated, and they're popular for good reason. Porter was one of a dozen or so marvelous composers and lyricists who made the American stage blossom in the 30 years from 1925 to 1955. What a gang! Irving Berlin, another outstanding composer/lyricist of the period, couldn't even read music or play the piano except in one key! The music alone makes the movie worth watching once. Will someone explain to me what's happened to American vernacular music?