ShangLuda Admirable film.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

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

bbrebozo In order to enjoy this movie, you have to start out with the understanding that the plot makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! A convicted con man (John Hodiak) convinces a stupid police officer who is accompanying him to prison (Lloyd Nolan) to make it a leisurely first class trip together -- by way of New Orleans, Mexico, and some top notch night clubs and restaurants. Apparently this is the idiot cop's brilliant way of trying to loosen up the con man and trick him into revealing where he has hidden some valuable bonds. Add a beautiful con woman (Lucille Ball) who finds out about the bonds from the idiot cop, complete changes in personality on the part of the key characters near end of the film, and a particularly ridiculous non-explanation for how the bonds were recovered at the finale. It's a lot for a reasonably intelligent mind to discard.But if you can, there are some notable performances. Lucille Ball is very believable in a non-comic, romantic role. She was quite a hot-cha-cha back in the day, if you can get Lucy Ricardo out of your head (another one of the mental challenges this movie presents). Lloyd Nolan plays his usual straight arrow, trustworthy role so convincingly that it's hard to believe that he makes so many dumb decisions and gets into so many stupid jams during the trip. It's almost like he's the world's most unfunny member of the Three Stooges. I never understood why the con man didn't just escape with the bonds during one of the many moments when Nolan was distracted, then come back and get Lucille Ball later if he was so in love with her.I was impressed with the solid acting job that John Hodiak did as the con man, so I looked him up on the internet to find out why he didn't become a bigger star, and sadly discovered that he died fairly young. He did a good job of being just rogue-ish enough to be a convincing con man, but just soft enough to fall in love with a glamorous woman.Anyway, this isn't the only movie ever made that requires you you check your brain at the door. And if you can, there are worse ways to pass a couple of hours.

secondtake Two Smart People (1946)An odd, charming, crime romance with a series of great locales and a real sense of love triumphs over everything. You might expect this from MGM somehow--it lacks the intensity we think of with Warner Bros. crime flicks--but it has more warmth and aura that critics give it credit for. And when it gets to the crazy Mardi Gras scenes, it's really pretty fun.The star here is Lucille Ball. Yes, the comic queen of the 1950s in a dramatic role, and she's convincing, despite the fact that she was unhappy to be in the film (she knew it was her last with MGM). Ball actually made a lot of films before television took her to the top, and she's always really good if never quite sizzling or memorable. She (and everyone) blames the weak script for her lackluster appearance here, but I thought the whole mood of the movie took on its own life and it worked well. The cinematography is led by legendary Karl Freund who later filmed 149 "I Love Lucy" episodes and who had already shot classic movies like "Metropolis," "Dracula," and would later do "Key Largo."Across from Ball in the romantic male lead is John Hodiak, who tries to light up the screen but seems to be slightly trying, as if he knows the kind of charming con man he is meant to be and can't quite "become" it. Still, he's likable, and his chemistry with Ball isn't bad. A third lead has to be mentioned, Lloyd Nolan, because he's the laid back cop who is the most at ease in the film, and who is used to bounce the romance off of.It's true, the script, both the dialog and plot, are routine stuff. But don't let that worry you. The ploy of the stolen bonds hidden in the book (seen in the first scene) is a little overdone as it goes (with a small twist in the final minutes), but it's really just a way to keep a slight suspense going. As the two leads fall for each other in the most impossible circumstance, there is the feeling that maybe the bonds are really the goal, and not true love. Great character actor Elisha Cook Jr. is creeping around in the background, waiting for the money to turn up.Like many post-war films, the filming here is intensely moody, sharp, and filled with moving camera. It's a pleasure just to watch. Director Jules Dassin has several truly great films to his credit, and this one is usually brushed off as a failure of sorts, but I wouldn't do that. I enjoyed every minute. Even when there were cracks in the plot, I still wanted to be there, to go along for the ride. And that's good enough!

michael.e.barrett This obscure B-movie was Jules Dassin's last film before embarking on a series of classic noir and crime films--and actually it's the first of his crime films and shows his interest in developing the genre. As another critic reports in a previous post, this film is NOT a comedy (as Maltin's book describes it) about two con artists mixed up "in art forgery." Actually, it's a crime/road movie about stolen bonds, co-written by the creator of "The Saint." True, Lucille Ball co-stars, and she and John Hodiak meet cute in a TROUBLE IN PARADISE manner, blowing each other's cons with a mutual pigeon. But from the first shot, Dassin reveals his interest in crimeLike Dassin's forgettable comedy A LETTER FOR EVIE, this film is shot by the great Karl Freund, in decline from his silent heyday and not yet arrived at his groundbreaking I LOVE LUCY three-camera period. He gives us expressionist shots aplenty, and such privileged moments as a pan shot with window reflection from outside a train, a cactus-by-moonlight scene, and a chiaroscuro moment when Ball is menaced by Elisha Cook Jr lighting a match. The presence of Cook, Lloyd Nolan, and Hugo Haas (on their way to being entrenched noir icons) also counts for something. The road trip plot (on a train) allows stops in Mexico and New Orleans. The last third (set at Mardi Gras) is suspenseful and colorful, with Cook in fool's motley.In conclusion, if this 1946 film doesn't hold up as well as Dassin's later, truer noirs, we can still see it's an early step in the development of that genre.

reve-2 For some reason the Maltin book looks for laughs in this film. It is not a comedy. I guess some folks were expecting comedy because of the presence of Lucille Ball. In actuality she plays a con woman who is on the lam from the law in Arkansas. She meets up with John Hodiak, a con man who has struck a deal with New York police authorities and who is being transported back to New York by Lloyd Nolan, a good cop who has become friendly with Hodiak. Nolan agrees to indulge in a fun filled train trip back to New York, which ultimately includes stops in places such as New Orleans (at Mardi Gras time). Hodiak tricks Nolan into entering Mexico, where he intends to remain, outside US jurisdiction. But, Nolan comes up with a neat way to get Hodiak back to the US. Naturally, Ms. Ball just happens to be on the same train and is with the two men at all stops along the way. There's an attempt at a love story between Hodiak and Ball which is pretty lame. Another big mistake was the casting of Elisha Cook Jr. as a former partner of Hodiak's who had been double crossed. He is supposed to be a menacing figure throughout the train trip and during the Mardi Gras scenes in New Orleans. But, there is no way that Cook, with his wimpy look, could ever appear to be a menace, even when he has a gun pointed at someone and tries to talk tough. Nolan, by far, does the best job in this movie. He is believable as a very nice cop who stays one step ahead of Hodiak's plots. As I said before, this movie is not a comedy. Unfortunately, it is also not a particularly good film.