Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

JohnHowardReid Executive producer: Howard Hughes. Copyright 7 February 1954 by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Criterion: 26 February 1954. U.S. release: 15 February 1954. U.K. release: 6 July 1953 (sic). Australian release: 25 June 1953. 10 reels. 8,250 feet. 91 minutes.U.K. and Australian release title: BEAUTIFUL BUT DANGEROUS.COMMENT: A very minor bucolic romantic comedy, indifferently written, acted and directed. The scriptwriters had the germ of a promising comedy idea, but they fail to develop it satisfactorily. There are loose characters and loose plot ends all over the place and the film's grand roster of support players like Raymond Walburn, Edgar Buchanan and Wallace Ford have in fact very little footage whereas Mitchum and Simmons are literally swamped with dialogue.Unfortunately, Mitchum doesb't rise to the bait and delivers his usual bored, off-handed portrayal. But at least he does give a performance of sorts. Jean Simmons, on the other hand, can make absolutely nothing of her part, which is understandable - the character is so ridiculously and unconvincingly conceived. Her hair style is unattractive too and her numerous close-ups make her look considerably less ravishing than the second female lead Sally Watson.Bacon's direction can only be described as steadfastly unimaginative. George Amy's film editing rates as plodding and pedestrian as the direction (in fact the film could do with considerable trimming). Other credits are likewise routine and production values skimpy.

dougdoepke Plot— Wow! The people of small town Progress, Arkansas, are getting free money in the mail. So where's it coming from since the mail doesn't say. Is it greenbacks from heaven. No, it's from wealthy New Yorker, Simmons. Seems she wants to thank the town for saving her life as an infant. Now in town anonymously, Simmons meets the local characters, including straitlaced, hunky doctor, Mitchum. Trouble is, the sudden money may not be really helping this rural community with its traditional ways.I'm not sure what the producers were reaching for. But, what they got is a rather flat result with a few lame stabs at comedy. Director Bacon makes no effort to liven up either the narrative or the acting. It's like he's just transferring script to screen. At the same time, Mitchum walks glumly through his doctor's role, never changing his one expression. Likely he's thinking about that obstacle course he has to run, while we get our ears blasted by moviedom's most infernal sounding horn. To say he's miscast is an understatement. Then too, Simmons seems unsure what to do, and since her scenes are ill-defined by the script or director, that's understandable. What's surprising is that such colorful hayseeds as Hunnicutt and Buchanan have little chance to practice their brand of hayseed humor. At least that would have lifted the lackluster results.Nonetheless, the movie does remind us that the money economy is not the only basis of productive exchange. Instead of money, the small town residents use barter—an aspirin bottle may cost one chicken, for example. Of course, barter doesn't work in a complex economy. Still, I think it's well to be reminded that money (in whatever variety) is not the only possible means of meeting needs.Anyway, after the Simmons-Mitchum triumph in the drama Angel Face (1952), this venture proves a disappointment, despite the titillating title. For sure, it's not a highlight of Mitchum's storied career, or Simmons's, for that matter.

edwagreen Jean Simmons is as serious minded as can be in this comedy. Wanting to thank a town for saving her life by paying for an operation, Simmons returns years later and literally gives money away.She comes back to the small town in Arkansas that saved her. There she meets the town doctor, a terribly miscast Robert Mitchum. Nothing much is doing in this rural town, but that is basically true for the entire picture.The town has some notable people such as Edgar Buchanan and Arthur Hunnicutt, who had won a supporting Oscar nomination 2 years before this film for "The Big Sky."The film shows that when money is misdirected, problems may result.Trouble with the film is its writing and that the characters depicted are boring.

Paularoc Given that this movie starred one of my favorite actors – Mitchum – and a couple of my favorite character actors – Ford and Hunnicutt – I was surprised how much I disliked it. The premise is promising: a wealthy young woman (Simmons) returns to the small town of Progress, Arkansas where as a small child the town's people saved her life by raising the money for an operation she needed. She wants to repay them by anonymously making their financial dreams come true. Upon arriving in Progress, she first looks for the doctor most responsible for saving her life and finds that he has died and his son has taken over the practice. Mitchum's character is an easy- going country doctor with an innate kindness and pleasing manner. The Simmons character is completely unlikable – egocentric to an amazing degree. Her "kindnesses" are not really kind and are done with the arrogance of one who is sure that she knows best regardless of all indications to the contrary. Her later speech of contriteness sounds phony. Mitchum walks through his part but at least is someone one actually would like to know. All of the character actors do a marvelous job, but my favorite scene was that of Dabbs Greer as a new father carrying his just born daughter into his wife and telling her "thank you." It was so touching. Greer nailed this scene perfectly. Even so, this is one movie I won't be watching again.