I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Admirable film.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Ann Sheridan became my favorite classic film actress on the strength of feisty performances in films like 1938's "Angels With Dirty Faces" and 1940's "City For Conquest". Here she portrays a conflicted character who's had an affair and killed her former lover when he refuses to concede that the romance is over. Because the viewer doesn't know this when the story begins, it appears to be an open and shut case once she's arrested for murder. The intriguing story that follows contains several twists and turns that makes this a thinking person's movie, one that challenges a typical reaction that a divorce between the aggrieved parties is a foregone conclusion.The player who really makes one sit up and take notice however is Lew Ayres as attorney Larry Hannaford, lawyer and personal friend of Chris Hunter (Sheridan) and her husband Bob (Zachary Scott). Initially sympathetic to Chris's plight, he really lets her have it when he uncovers the truth of her affair, comparing her to any number of 'cheating, conniving women who parade through my office'. He eventually tempers his disdain over the situation by realizing that Chris didn't have it in her to murder a man wantonly, and so takes up her murder trial defense.Now this art shop guy Barrow (Steven Geray) was a real low down creep, wasn't he? Seeing dollar signs in it for himself when he connects the dots on newspaper headlines about the Tanner killing, he holds out for a ten thousand dollar payday by bringing in the widow Tanner (Marta Mitrovich) on his scheme. To get a good idea of Ann Sheridan's range as an actress, just catch her reaction when Barrow tells her Mrs. Tanner has the bust that Michael Tanner sculpted using her as a model. It was a foreboding look that held the threat of everything in her life about to fall apart.Actress Eve Arden also displays a side to her acting ability I haven't seen before as well. Watching her as 'Our Miss Brooks' in TV reruns back in the Fifties, I'm more familiar with her comedic side, but she proved she was capable of inserting a capital 'B' into a colorful description of her character Paula. In case you're wondering, the word rhymes with 'witch'.Ultimately this becomes a bittersweet story once Mrs. Hunter survives her murder trial and is acquitted. Then it becomes attorney Hannaford's job to try and patch up the canyon wide differences between the Hunters. The dialog that sets up what might be a successful reconciliation is the kind of writing one generally doesn't come across in pictures of the era, and works to significantly elevate the quality of the picture.

I appreciate the overall theme and believe it has merit in its outlook on marriage. And Lew Ayers gives a near-Oscar-worthy performance. He and Eve Arden are so good, you can recommend this film just for the two of them.Plot-wise I have some problems. Yes the husband failed and pretty much set himself up for some of his marital woes. But Mrs. is a real piece of work. Maybe you understand the infidelity point generally during wartime- OK its wrong but understandable in some cases. But I believe the writers here have blown it. Her immense quantity of lies, and serial lying, lying in a sworn police statement (a legal criminal document) are just too much. Lying to police, district attorneys, the press and public. A fundamental series of lies to her own lawyer, who also is a loyal old friend who trusted her.As to her complaint about loneliness- I don't buy it because near the end she is proposing to simply go her sister's house to live. Why could she not go stay with sister during the war (could have paid those servants a retainer and traveled) or have her sister visit her in the lonely house? Couldn't she have easily afforded to bring in out-of-state family to visit her in Los Angeles? And she wasn't leading an empty life- she worked with Red Cross and numerous other organizations. I question the writer's over-assassination of her character traits. She's supposed to be a cheating wife- but she is also portrayed as the least trustworthy, chronic liar in the history of film. I don't understand how the husband and the lawyer could possibly continue any relationship with this remarkably prolific liar. This despite the fact that in many cases relationships can and do continue with cheating wives and/or husbands.If a cheating husband told this many lies to this many people post-affair, he would be placed in alimony purgatory by the system and ridden out of town on a rail. Not for the infidelity, but for extent of his lies to everyone.So I believe this film has some serious flaws as written.

I began watching this film out of curiosity. Having seen "The Letter" I just wanted to see how this one stacked up. But other than in general terms there is little else to compare them. Frankly the first half was somewhat predictable, a soap opera that telegraphed the outcome. But when it hit its stride, boy what a surprise! Without giving away any details this film is worth watching simply for the honest and straightforward way it deals with the complications of married life, especially when a couple is separated over a long period. There is plenty of good advice here especially considering the times we live in, what with all the servicemen returning home to find that their wives and sweethearts were real people with real problems.But there was more to it that just that. Perhaps a lawyer might object, but to me even the brief courtroom scene was believable. And the issues were very real. The film did not take the easy way out and reduce itself to an indictment of infidelity. Instead it examined and revealed the motives of the principal characters and none of them came out all good or all evil but a mixture, hence human.If one subscribes to the belief that cinema reflects life then this film is an important revelation of post WWII society and the surprise is that it wasn't all that different from today.

The film begins with Ann Sheridan coming home from a party and being attacked by an unknown person. The next morning, her husband (Zachary Scott) returns home from a business trip to find the police at his home. It seems that Ann killed the attacker and the story seems pretty open and shut--some guy broke into her home and she justifiably killed him.However, just a bit later, you find that there's a lot more to the story. Ann actually lied and what exactly is the truth is something you are never certain of--even by the end of the film. What Zachary Scott and the police do know, though, is that at one point Ann and her attacker had actually been lovers! Now so far, I liked the film and its twists and turns--especially when you find out Sheridan isn't so sweet after all. However, what bothered me and made this film less interesting is that despite her being a liar (and possibly a cold-blooded murderess), other story elements are thrown in which muddle the whole thing. They actually tried to make the viewer feel sorry for her and understand why she might have been justified in lying--and this lost me. I would have MUCH preferred the story not taking this detour and being much more a story about an evil and conniving woman (such as Bette Davis'character in THE LETTER). The sympathy angle weakened the narrative--making this movie more of an interesting time-pass than anything else.