WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

mattfloyd-41009 Edmond O'Brien is horrifically miscast as the titled role- he's always being upstaged by his clearly much more effective two female costars all the darn time-to be fair, they're played by extremely charismatic and extraordinarily gifted actresses. He also does a terrible job acting wise, as he has no idea what to do with his character at all, so he unwisely decides to play him as a confused dope with no characteristics at all- thus, the audience doesn't genuinely care about him in the slightest. It also doesn't help that he is supposed to portray an unlikable character sympathetically but due to his monotone vocal range and his lack of passion in the role, he causes the main subject to become less interesting than the horrendous bus tour that sets the premise up in the first place.The moralizing tone overwhelmed the film's script to the point one would swear they were accidentally watching a Hays Code approved "melodrama" which it totally is. This is the only time Ida Lupino ever completely directed herself and it clearly shows why- she doesn't seem to firmly know which job to pursue first, and without any clear decision making on how to reunite those two prospects together, she exerts an unintentional and overwhelming sense of sloppiness upon the whole film itself. The visuals suffer to the point that it looks more like a juvenile televised soap opera than an independent film made by capable adults. The actors don't know what to do with themselves- sometimes such lack of direction helps spur creativity (Joan Fontaine does a wonderful job at expressing her character's inner thoughts- even more astonishing is Ida's self-determination whilst acting as you can feel that she's doing her best under the rather unfortunate circumstances) but most of the time, it really diminishes the actors' and crew's self-confidence to the point of not being able to do their best within their role. This is downright depressing as Ida Lupino showed her true talents within both departments- just not when they're together on the same project.The script, already hampered and trampled upon by a really unpleasant waging censoring finger, is already hard to swallow within its logic department- why did Edmond O'Brien ever think he could get away with bigamy and why did he go along with his first wife's adoption plans as it was made apparently clear that any place in charge of taking care of minors need to search very deeply within its applicants in order for the child to be placed in safe, and reliable hands; why was Edmund Gwenn even allowed to go back to the orphanage after his monumental and unmentionable failure if said mistake was that severe; if the first wife really was a major operative within the company, shouldn't she have been already to Los Angeles to the point that she's well acquainted with the place? Most importantly, why did he never let his second wife know the truth from the moment that he found out that she was pregnant- heck why didn't he tell anyone about the information as he could explain his mistake and accept full responsibility of the situation much to his newfound moral approval and sensitivity to his spouse's sanity as well as fostering respect for his mistress' dilemmas? Aside from many more logical problems, the script should have been really interesting as it made a social problem much more palatable to moral tastes- it sadly fails because the script's so focused on making the controversial issue palatable to contemporary audience reception that it ultimately makes it blandly heavy-handed to the point that the film quickly wears its welcome out before it can hit any dramatically interesting scenes. It's a true shame, as this was one of the few mature films to openly deal with taboo subjects in a time of insanely restrictive censorship and it's clear that everyone tries their absolute hardest in trying to make a badly written tearjerker seem believable. It's just that no one actually bothered to mend that script up so to make it less puritanical and more openly frank or to rid that same production of any massive tonal failures so as to achieve a sense of control in spreading its ideas. If you're still curious about Ida Lupino's directing career, please check out her other films, especially Outrage- an amazing film both of its time and also ahead of its time in its depiction of rape. Please avoid The Bigamist as one would avoid bigamy in real life.

GeoPierpont Oh "How Could I Possibly Hurt My Wives Any Further"??? Well, if that was really your motivation to prevent any more pain to either party, I call BS! You just did not want to deal with any type of "scene" or angry response. If you realllly cared you would never have hooked up so excitedly with a complete stranger. What the heck were you thinking at that moment you wimp of a DB??? I could not fathom this numnutz refused to even hint at what was going on. Only through the court system was he in anyway truthful. Of course, one can only imagine as we received no information on the proceedings except for the two wives staring at each other lovingly. The victim pose.Who would take him back?? What a mystery, the woman with the baby and he saves $85 per week or thereabouts. Simple. And who could resist those local trips to San Berdu! I found the direction to be rather flawless, save for the syrupy music score that prepped the viewer for every scene...boring! The acting was decent but expected a few outbursts of emotion when nothing was making sense to the poor gals vs vacant stares. I wonder what wrath Ida incurred making this film. It would be of great interest to hear the true tale of trying to gain respect in this still male dominated career path.High recommend for women who want clues on how to determine if your husband is married to another with a new baby. Also, kudos to Ida for her dual efforts in direction and acting.

adamshl What's a screen writer to do here? At the end of "The Bigamist" the judge defers announcing his decision until sometime in the future. While this may seem a writing cop out, what's the alternative? Since in this country every state law terms bigamy illegal, it would be unrealistic to have a finale in which a judge fully acquits the accused. At the same time, the writer has presented a pretty sympathetic case for our hero, played expressively by Edmond O'Brien. Likewise, the judge's final comments imply some possible leniency forthcoming. The script allows for no discussion about the rationale for such law in the first place; thus, the basic assumption is made that such practice is most unbeneficial for society. Personally, I would have valued such discourse, perhaps from the adoption officer, craftily played by Edmund Gwenn.Ida Lupino and Joan Fontaine round out a stellar cast, all of whom work together with great emotional sensitivity. Unfortunately, the script isn't quite up to the level of these fine talents, and it is this drawback that ultimately diminishes the total value of "The Bigamist."

David Schildkret I find it odd to see "The Bigamist" described as a feminist film in a number of online reviews, including a couple here on IMDb. In my view, it is anything but.As some other reviewers have noted, the hapless Harry (played by Edmond O'Brien) is treated somewhat sympathetically. He's hangdog, he's lonely, and he just wants a little attention from his careerist wife.Everything that happens in "The Bigamist" stems, it seems, from the failures of Harry's first wife--called, significantly enough, Eve, the first woman, from whom original sin and all the woes of humanity flow, in the common view. This Eve leads her man to the sin of adultery.Not only is Eve unfailingly careerist, she's infertile to boot. We're to understand that it's her insufficiency as a woman that drives Harry to infidelity. That hardly seems feminist to me.I realize that this argument applies a current standard to a work from a half-century ago, but calling it feminist would be making the same kind of judgment. Lupino was certainly a path breaker as one of the first women to direct films in Hollywood. And it's typical of the times that she made "women's pictures"--films whose stories would address women's concerns.But to call this film feminist--with its cold and ultimately condemning portrayal of a successful (and infertile) woman--seems really to miss the point. The film affirms everything about the role that women were expected to adopt after World War II. No longer working on assembly lines as Rosie the Riveter, women were expected to step aside in the workplace to make room for returning veterans. Women had a job to do: to make happy homes for their husbands. When Eve fails to take her rightful place, the most terrible of consequences ensue.I find this a fairly typical film of the 1950s, affirming in a rather sordid and unappealing way the mores of the time. Harry is a far from likable character, and the women are hardly better. Lupino is the most interesting, because she shows a bit of spunk. Fontaine's character vacillates between hard-bitten businesswoman and expectant mother who goes all girlie at the sight of a mechanical soldier. (Really? A mechanical SOLDIER???) This is not a feminist film.