Too much of everything

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Such a frustrating disappointment

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Though the second half descends into more suds than the first, the movie is more uncompromising than I expected. Daisy (Crawford) gets caught up in a triangle between married man O'Mara (Andrews) and returning soldier Lapham (Fonda). The latter is a sweet guy who more importantly wants to marry her, while the high-powered attorney O'Mara seems more interested in himself. The trouble is Daisy can't seem to resist the self-centered attorney. Worse, he's got two loving little girls at home and a wife who would respond if he just treated her right. So, Daisy's head is pulled in one direction, while her heart is yanked in the other.Surprisingly, it's really Andrews's movie as he plays the cad to forceful perfection. At the same time, dear Joan's more restrained than expected as she anguishes over the next tug on her heart strings. Fonda slyly low-keys it until the end when we finally get some insight into the ex-soldier's taciturn style. Together, the three play off one another effectively, and they better since their interactions comprise the movie. The first half sets up the predicament pretty compellingly as we get to know the three main characters. It's hard to like O'Mara and his abrupt manner until we see him soften with his enchanting daughters (Garner & Marshall). Then too, the problems with his wife appear more his doing than hers. But is divorce the answer and does Daisy really want something more permanent with a guy who would leave such a promising family, especially with a nice guy like Lapham waiting in the wings.No need to give away the ending, except I think it's more unsparing than I expected, particularly for the two little girls. All in all, it's Joan hitting the right emotional keys, even if Andrews steals the film.

A woman becomes romantically involved with a married man and an army veteran. Given the talents of the star trio and the director, this one is a disappointment. This seems to be an attempt at another "Mildred Pierce," but falls far short. The main problem is the screenplay, which is little more than a soap opera. Crawford has to choose between rich but married Andrews and decent but dull Fonda. There is no exposition, with Crawford and Andrews having a tiff in the opening scene even before we get to know the characters. The dialog is mostly pedestrian. The goings on are mostly mundane until the latter stages, when it starts to become somewhat interesting. There's not much here beyond star gazing.

Some movies age well, some don't. This movie has not aged well. Joan Crawford's acting is stagy, the story contrived, the story's mood gloomy and the film-noir style bleak and stark. Ms. Crawford was too old for the role. Daisy Kenyon is a young career woman, not a middle aged lady set in her ways. Also, the movie features two leading men, Dana Andrews and Henry Fonda which further weakens the story as Ms. Kenyon goes from one man, to the other, sometimes to both, then back to the other, etc. Real Hollywood pulp lacking substance, utterly vacuous, and above all dated. The movie is slow-paced and obviously filmed in a studio. Maybe this movie was popular in 1947 but in 2008 it's just another Hollywood curio that belongs on the shelf.

What is film noir? Perhaps it's easier to answer this question by detailing what it is not. Because film noir is currently flavor of the month among cineastes, many DVD companies are issuing almost any old black-and-white film from their libraries as film noir. A notable case in point is the 1947 movie Daisy Kenyon directed by Otto Preminger. Now I'll admit that Daisy Kenyon does have some noirish elements, chiefly in the dark photographic texture imposed on the picture by Leon Shamroy (who presumably disliked working with Joan Crawford because he often seems to go out of his way to capture her close-ups from unflattering angles). And there's also a court case in the movie. And two auto accidents. But the court case is a divorce proceeding, not a criminal suit, and one of the car accidents occurs off-camera before the story even commences. It's true too that the Andrews character is a heel, and that Fonda's soldier is both battle-scarred and neurotic, and that Daisy herself presents as a terribly mixed-up kid. But aside from Daisy's consistent indecision, these elements are under-played. Instead, as the title implies, aside from a few forays into the glum two-timing Andrews household, the camera's focus always remains firmly fixed on Daisy. Is she emotionally unstable? Not really! She does admittedly suffer one major breakdown, but then recovers with remarkable celerity. Is she hemmed in by forces she can't control? To some extent, but only to near breaking point on one occasion (the cross examination) and to an actual break at the climax. Is she depressed, disillusioned? No more than most of us, and probably less rather than more. Is she ever in any danger? Only in one short sequence, and that strictly from herself. Threatened? Never! Does she ever feel she has no way out? No.Above all, is the prevailing mood of the movie downbeat? Dark? Black? Answer, despite all Shamroy's efforts to indicate otherwise, no!Therefore Daisy Kenyon, although it possesses a few noir elements, is not film noir. Personally, I found the central character unconvincing. Her reactions are those of a dime novel heroine rather than a real life person. True, Joan pulls out every trick in the actor's handbook to bring this impossible caricature to a semblance of reality, but is defeated by the slow-moving mechanics of the impossibly stodgy plot. As for the two male characters, I found them both distinctly unsympathetic. What I did like about the movie were the incidental touches that producer Preminger introduced (Garfield, Runyon, Lyons and Winchell at the Stork Club). The main game from director Preminger, alas, was dead dreary from go to whoa! Any picturegoer who couldn't figure out which man Daisy would choose five minutes into the action was obviously unacquainted with the Breen Office's inflexible requirements. And as the whole plot revolves around this question, the movie is totally pointless. Why make such an enormous issue of Daisy's choice, when we all know what will satisfy Breen almost as soon as the picture starts? And yet for 99 minutes this is dragged out. Incredible, but true! All told, Daisy Kenyon is a picture strictly for patrons who enjoy watching paint dry.