Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

fitz53-750-433715 Pure melodrama (not noir) and not very good at that. Looks great, not satisfying cinematically. I'm shaking my head at all the people saying Mitchum was cast against type. This early in his career, he didn't really have a type.Totally not believable that Hepner's character goes from professional, competent and self-assured to the frightened, clingy female the plot requires of her.It drags, it's predictable, and it's bloated and boring. Bleah! With this cast, I was wondering why I'd never heard of it before. Now I know. Save yourself!

jjnxn-1 Mild thriller with Katharine Hepburn miscast in the lead. Story of a somewhat sheltered young woman, attractive but with no particular personal style. She's swept off her feet by the dashing Taylor who remakes her in the image of a chic sophisticate that suits his position as an important personality. Everything seems fine until she starts to notice small cracks in the persona he shows to the world until he reveals himself a psychotic nut job with brother issues.It's all a bit lurid with Minnelli, in a departure from musicals, a bit off in his pacing. The big surprise though is that Robert Taylor is better in the film than Kate. It's not that she's bad just the wrong actress for the weak sister she's playing, Joan Fontaine, Anne Baxter or Geraldine Fitzgerald would all have been better suited to the part. Taylor on the other hand, while never a great actor, handles the suave heel with the dangerous edge very well. Another glaring mismatch is Hepburn and Mitchum. He was just starting out and the two clashed off screen, with her dressing him down and he as usual not caring what she thought. They share zero chemistry on screen, you can actually sense their mutual distaste for each other in the film. A major flaw since he's supposed to be her dream man. An okay movie but a minor film for all.

vincentlynch-moonoi There's something wrong with this film.I've read several professional reviews of this film, and several try to liken it to Hitchcock's "Suspicion". This is a faulty comparison, in my view. Several reviews also pointed out that this was the only film noir film Katherine Hepburn ever appeared in. Well, although it was a very different plot, it somehow reminded me of the Hepburn/Tracy film "Keep Of The Flame" (an oddball favorite of mine).The film starts out innocently enough, with Katherine Hepburn living with her scientist-father (Edmund Gwenn), and then being swept off her feet by the suave businessman (Robert Taylor) who is buying her father's scientific discovery. They marry, she is pushed into the world of Washington and big business, becomes rather sophisticated, but sense something wrong with the story of her husband's strained relationship with his brother (Robert Mitchum, who you don't see in the film until about halfway through). Hepburn becomes more and more suspicious of her husband, coming to the conclusion that perhaps he did murder his brother. Desperate to hold his marriage together, Taylor becomes (too) suddenly threatening, and attempts to kill his wife. This seems a little implausible, since although he was moody about his brother, he never appeared to be mentally ill. There's a great scene in the film where Taylor attempts to force his wife -- on horseback -- off a mountain cliff (and there are no mountains in Middleburg, Virginia where this portion of the film supposedly takes place...they might better have placed it in Winchester, further to the west). And who comes to Hepburn's rescue? No, not whom you expect! :-) In the end the bad guy dies...you'll have to watch the film to see who the bad brother really is -- Mitchum or Taylor.But as I said, there is still something not quite right with this film, yet I can't put my finger on it. I'm not saying it's a bad film. It's worth watching...once...for the performance of Hepburn, which is quite good. Taylor does well here, also, despite his sudden onset on mental illness. And Mitchum is cast in a different light than we often expect. Yes, watch it, but you may not want to put this on your DVD shelf

st-shot The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.