Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

chaswe-28402 1942. Directed by George Stevens, who directed Shane; written by Irwin Shaw, who wrote The Young Lions; nominated for 7 Oscars. This muddled mess terminally bewilders me. One reviewer tells me Cary Grant acts as a Marxist. Useful to know. Difficult to figure. He does not convince as an escaped jailbird, whether framed or not, and certainly not as a gardener. He seemed bemused by his role, as if he didn't understand how to fill it. He is atrociously cast. Ronald Colman is slightly better cast, except that he is supposed to be 100% American, and is inescapably 100% stuffily British. Was that supposed to be a Boston accent ?The repeated arrival of the furniture men, and the exploited mother, reminded me forcibly of various Marx Brothers films. I was expecting these characters, totally extraneous to the plot, whatever it was meant to be, to start handing sandwiches around. Which reminds me: was the story meant to be who winds up with the girl ? Or was it something to do with the law acting against corruption in a democracy ? And lying to the police if necessary ? Given the date, was it planned to encourage America to come into WWII on the side of Russia ? Or was Colman meant to be a proto-typical secret agent type ? Is Leopold Dilg a real name ? And is Lightcap ? His wooing of Georgina Bush (Bush ? curious name) is the clumsiest I ever saw. He sleeps when it rains and the wind is howling with his window open. Dilg is the loudest snorer I ever heard. How did Nora manage to wear Lightcap's spare pyjamas ? It's not funny.I watched it twice, hoping it would improve the second time around. But no. I was going to give it five stars, persuaded by the positive reviews. Now I feel obliged to deduct at least one star. I saw it in order to see Ronald Colman. What talk is the title talking about ?

policy134 Like some of the other participants on this board, I too, am surprised that this isn't more revered, or for that matter, remembered. I have not seen it on any top 100 list on AFI or elsewhere.Not to sound like somebody with a schoolboy crush, but could you find another actress who is more charming than Jean Arthur. She is definitely one of the best actresses of the 30s and 40s. Don't get me wrong, there are other superb actresses like Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn of those years, but there is something about Jean Arthur that I can't resist. Maybe it's that voice? The memorable thing about this film is that you are a little thrown by the opening scene and what follows after. Grant, I can reveal, is wanted for murder and hides out with school chum, Arthur. Matters are complicated by tenant, Colman. At first, you think this is going to be a bedroom farce but it suddenly shifts tone to highbrow drama. Also, I was a little thrown by Grant's sudden appearance in front of Colman after hiding out in the attic. Colman doesn't look that surprised either.Like I said the film shits tone many times. At first, you think it's going to be a gritty crime drama, then it shifts to the aforementioned bedroom escapades and then just as suddenly, we are in the middle of philosophical discussion about law. But that's okay. I rather enjoyed the chemistry between Colman and Grant in those scenes.What is far less acceptable, is the tired convention of which man will the woman end up with. It is not only a cliché, but it is more than a bit awkwardly played out here. Still, you can't have Arthur dump them both, so I think that the filmmakers made the right decision of making it the more popular of the two, at that time at least.If you are confused by this commentary, don't worry. Wait 'till the next one.

Qanqor There's a lot of great things in this film, but they don't add up to a great film. In this case, the total is less than the sum of its parts.The problem really is that the movie can't make up its mind what it's trying to be. It's a drama and a comedy and a romance and a message film, and by trying to be all those things, it succeeds well at none of them.As a comedy, it is ruined by the drama. The movie starts out so serious and heavy, that we get in a serious, heavy mood, and start really caring about the plot-- which is death for a comedy. So when various shenanigans start happening, it's hard to let loose and laugh at them, because we're still worried about how it affects the plot and if the hero will get caught.As a romance, it's almost a complete dud. What we have here is a classic lovers triangle, and while all three leads are very good dramatically and comedically, there's really very little chemistry between either male lead and the heroine. It's a sad commentary on the romance when the most interesting relationship is the hypotenuse-- Grant and Coleman's budding friendship has much more chemistry than either man with the woman. The only good thing I'll say about the romance aspect of the film is that it did do a good job of keeping you guessing about which gentleman she'd end up with.Drama is perhaps the films strongest suit, but even here it comes up short. The story is interesting and engrossing, and again, the leads do a fine job. But because so much of the film is expended on the other aspects, the overall dramatic story is pretty sparse and sketchy. The chief villain, the factory owner, is more a prop than a character; we never do really find out exactly what his scheme or motivations were, or see him actually get some comeuppance. We have no idea what the allegedly strong evidence against the hero was supposed to be-- indeed, it's hard to see how they had any case against Grant at all.And as for the message, well, it's so short on details that it's not much of a message at all. This is no Atlas Shrugged in terms of trying to get a philosophy across. The whole theory-of-law thing works best to simply show the developing intellectual engagement leading to the friendship between the two male leads.So I find the film hard to heartily enjoy. Yet despite all my criticism, I gave it a pretty good rating. Because there is a lot that's very good here. Good dialog, good performances, some of the comedy really is pretty good. It's just that, as I said, it doesn't all add up very well.But I am going to try my borscht with an egg beaten into it one of these days!

Jenna I was reminded of this movie when I saw Big and Carrie watching it in Sex and the City 2. I don't know if anyone would still be talking about this movie if Cary Grant wasn't in it. He was the reason I watched it when it was on Turner Classic Movies. I was excited to see that he was paired with Ronald Coleman, whose dry British manner I had enjoyed on the Jack Benny show. What's more, it starts out fun. Coleman plays an esteemed judge prospective boarder in Jean Arthur's home while she is trying to hide Grant, a Marxist fugitive, in her attic. Coleman's attempts to maintain civility as Arthur's odd behavior drives him insane are a delight to watch – think Bringing Up Baby. As soon as Coleman meets Grant, the fun romp grinds to a halt as the two engage in dull debates about the nature of justice. The film also becomes confusing as Coleman and Grant seem more in love with each other than either is with Jean Arthur, even as they compete for her affections. She was one other reason I had trouble enjoying this film, as I find her voice grating. Talk of the Town doesn't hold up. It's attempts at humor, romance, and social commentary fall flat. Too bad really – I've always like the two male leads.