Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Kirpianuscus One of films so predictable than, except the actors, nothing could become interesting. the problem is not exactly the story or the vision of director or the cliches but the impression to discover, more and more, not the inspired choices. Henry Fonda is far to be credible as playboy/ rich man/ jealous husband . the story is for him a huge ice field in which each step is a fall. Barbara Stanwyck has great efforts for build a convincing character. but dr. Helen Hunt is just a sort of weather vane. Roger Clark looks for the right tone for his Vandemer. but the character is like a puzzle with too many lost peaces. the virtue ? it is a perfect film for the viewer who needs a refuge against blockbusters of the new milennium, familiar actors, easy stories and who real has low expectations.

mark.waltz Feminists might get upset by this movie that insinuates that once a career woman gets hitched, she should give up her job to take care of her husband. That's the situation for doctor Barbara Stanwyck who marries an idle playboy (Henry Fonda) after taking care of him while he's recuperating from influenza. It's not as simple as that; Fonda isn't insisting that she close her practice and spend every waking moment with him, but jealously attacks all of her male patients he is sure are making advances towards her. 90 percent of the movie follows this plot until he finds something to do which causes another problem for them.In a year where Stanwyck was really busy, three out of four films have become classics. One of them had to be a disappointment, and this is it, albeit a minor one. She was a sexy gold-digger (opposite Fonda) in "The Lady Eve", a sequined wearing gangster's moll nightclub entertainer in "Ball of Fire", and a hard-as-nails reporter in "Meet John Doe". Those films all have outstanding screenplays, something this one lacks. The comedy moments are infrequent, although when Fonda tries to disguise himself by wearing tree branches, wife Stanwyck makes an order, "and get rid of those antlers!" Hot after "The Grapes of Wrath", Fonda's whiny, cry-baby character is one of his weaker performances, but it is not his fault; His character simply isn't believable. Stanwyck here is gorgeous and filled with perfect comic timing. It's not difficult to understand why every available bachelor in town would want her medical services.In the supporting cast are many familiar faces; Gravely voiced Edgar Buchannan as the gardener; lip-smacking Fritz Feld as the nosy innkeeper (whom Stanwyck refers to as Mr. Moto for his nosy inquiries); nasal voiced Maude Eburne as the cook; and Ruth Donnelly as Stanwyck's nurse/secretary who could deliver the best wisecracks in her sleep.SPOILER BELOW: What basically frustrated me besides Fonda was the attitude that a rich man can't go out and get a job because he might take the bread out of somebody else's mouth. Democratic ideals or communist? Certainly not the values of a free society. Ironically one of the actors in this scene is Larry Parks who was later accused of being a communist. Towards the end when Stanwyck decides to give up her practice and Fonda disappears after being fired from a job he's taken, the film switches gears into a political statement it never fully deals with. The ending the film does come up with seems rather rushed which lessens the impact of the message.

blanche-2 "You Belong to Me" is a 1941 comedy - I think - starring Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck, with a screenplay by Dalton Trumbo and directed by Wesley Ruggles. The story concerns a female doctor (Stanwyck) who impulsively marries a millionaire. His jealousy toward her male patients is obsessive and causes embarrassment and trouble immediately.If anyone but top stars had been in this, it would have gotten a 4 from me. Boy, is it bad. Fonda and Stanwyck are such an attractive, delightful couple. They're wasted here in an absurd story. The Stanwyck character would have dumped this guy in 24 hours in real life.The story does point up the change in our society's values. The Fonda character has money and is considered by himself and his wife completely useless. She has a successful practice - guess what happens to her resolve to keep that going in 1941. The philosophy stated in the film is that the only reason to exist in the world is to be useful. Well, Mother Teresa felt that way. Does Paris Hilton? Stanwyck and Fonda dream of living in a small apartment with a Murphy bed and no money rather than the enormous mansion they live in now. Right, Donald Trump and Bill Gates wish for that daily.Someone on this board said in their subject matter "this hasn't worn well." It really hasn't. Part of it is the world's fault; the rest of it is the script's. Skip it.

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) This is an oddity and truly shows its time and its era and not well. I am not surprised it is so rarely seen. Henry Fonda as the wimp of all time in a poorly contrived little vehicle to showcase Barbara I would think who plays a spunky bright young doctor and gets a lot of good lines. However, I gave it a 5 out of 10 for the supporting cast who are magnificent. Buchanan particularly as a crusty old gardener and also the guy who plays the butler is a hoot. I could have just watched the supporting players all night and Barbara of course. Normally I enjoy old Henry but here he shows more than his normal display of great Fonda teeth and is given the worst and most brainless lines. All these actors had to earn their stripes over the years in poorly scripted movies like these.