Opiniones de usuarios

Bad for Each Other (1953)

Charlton Heston gets a bad rap sometimes--maybe that's what you expect after "Planet of the Apes"--but here he is the charming, confident, larger than life young man that made him famous. Yes, it's a B-movie, but it's a very strong performance for Heston and he is surrounded by a cast that is decent (Lizabeth Scott not at her best, which is saying a lot) to terrific (Ray Collins as the big business power guy he plays so well). The "business" at the center is a coal mine in a small Pennsylvania town, and Heston plays a doctor, Tom Owen, getting out of the military in a pseudo-noir kind of echo. Owen's dilemma is a worldly one--whether to doctor rich old women with frivolous pains or to work for the miners in their lower class afflictions.

And it is Lizabeth Scott, a pampered (and unabashedly pampered) rich girl who snags our hero, and so against his initial instinct Heston goes the rich and lazy way. But of course the coal mining town is all around him, and reminders pop up now and then. It's a great problem for a movie, and it's worked out with fairly predictable logic, so there is nothing to really fault here. Except that very predictability. Even Scott is a bit bland, not really getting to run her coolness to true ice. Some of the side characters are well developed, surprisingly (a "good" doctor untainted by money and an old woman who is wiser than she lets on at first), and director Irving Rapper (who should have been a music star in the 1990s with a name like that) makes it pop pretty well.

The less than sterling reputation of this movie is unwarranted, but it may be a result of higher expectations than this kind of movie deserves. Yes, the plot is boilerplate stuff, but so are half the movie plots out there. And Heston is sort of terrific. Yes, he plays a type, and he doesn't give the angst some other actor might, but I don't think the character, Dr. Owen, was an angst-y kind of guy. The way he wrestles with things is believable.

The cinematography by Franz Planer is better than I'd expected (the name didn't ring a bell) and there are small sterling moments, the camera moving around a group of people at a table, or across a wrought iron screen as the two leads start to hit it off. Nice stuff. The title is wrong, by the way--it's only Scott's character who is bad for the doctor, not the other way around. She's not about to be affected by anyone, especially a handsome young ex-GI who is such easy prey.

(1953) Bad For Each Other DRAMA

Co-written and directed by Irving Rapper that opens with a colonel, Thomas Owen (Charlton Heston) or Tom for short coming back to a mining town, Coalville and finds out his brother had long been past, that he may not be on the up and up as told by mother, Mrs. Mary Owen (Mildred Dunnock). So he then goes and visits the owner of the coal mine, Dan Reasonover (Ray Collins) and finds out that he stole and owed money to the coal mining comp as well as the owner Reasonover. During this, Dan Reasonover's daughter, Helen Curtis then becomes infatuated by him and tries to convince him to become a doctor for the upper class as a profession and drop from being one for the army. He does, and at the same time falls for Helen and let's her to drop what he wanted to do to become an associate for Dr. Homer Gleeson (Lester Matthews). And while he is in love with Helen, both Tom's own mother as well as Helen's dad disapproves of the match once he proposes to her.

The dilemma unfolds when Tom decides to break ethic rules by letting his boss Dr. Homer Gleeson to take full credit for a surgery he had done, forcing the nurse he had recently hired and respects to move to quit working for him and work for a much smaller clinic for the workers of Coalville.

It is kind of odd, this movie was selected to be shown on TCM Eddie Muller's Noir Alley when the overall experience is more drama than noir. And upon listening to Eddie Muller both from the introduction and afterward, I do not recall, why he thought this was film noir as their was no murder involve at all, but just some dilemmas.

A freshly discharged army doctor passes up practice in blue-collar hometown for big- paying practice among a city elite that includes a cool blonde dilettante.

I got this epic as part of a package claiming to be all noir. The only thing noir in this movie are the several night time shots— otherwise, no crime, no hand of fate, and no moody atmosphere. Only blonde seductress Helen (Scott) instead, and she's hardly the standard spider woman. Actually, the movie's more b&w soap opera than anything else.

That's not to say there're no redeeming features. I guess I wasn't aware of what a racket doctoring among the wealthy can be. The movie shows what a cushy pandering job it can be, treating headaches with high-priced medicines and smarmy words. And coming from a muckraker like novelist McCoy, e.g. They Shoot Horses Don't They (1969), I take it as factually based.

And surprise, surprise, to me, at least—actor Heston is quite animated as the sell-out doctor. I guess this was before he stiffened into a big-screen movie god, but whatever, he's quite persuasive in the role. Still, I thought the script made the doc's transition from honorable soldier to money-grubbing pill pusher much too easy, more like a movie device than a character change. Nonetheless, get a load of the coal mine scenes, quite realistic and well done.

But, bottom line, the story follows a familiar pattern with no surprises, suggesting a production serving mainly as a vehicle for Columbia's newest hunk.

Charlton Heston stars as doctor and retired Army colonel Tom Owen. He has returned to his home turf, the small mining town of Coalville. The miners hate him because of something his now-dead brother did years earlier, but the upper crust of Coalville society are excited by the new hunky doctor's arrival. With the help of rich man-eater Helen (Lizabeth Scott), Tom is soon in private practice, catering to the lonely and wealthy women of Coalville. His nurse Joan (Dianne Foster) wants to practice the "right kind of medicine", but is Tom only interested in a fast buck and a good time?

This was just terrible, badly written and even more poorly acted. Heston wins the prize for "Worst in Show", delivering his lines in the most grating, hammy way imaginable, while also exhibiting some of the most overwrought physical business I've ever seen on the screen. The script never fails to tell you how wonderful Heston's Tom Mason is supposed to be, even if we are given scant evidence of it. Every woman falls at his feet, while every man is either in awe or angry with jealousy. Some may enjoy how the movie moves from just bad to amusingly camp, while others will just hit the "stop" button and find something better to do with their remaining time.

This film is an 83 minute sermon on selflessness vs selfishness, with particular emphasis on the medical profession. The dialogue is full of grandiose turns of phrase that often mean nothing and do not advance the plot. No one's acting stands out because almost everyone is playing a one-dimensional type.

Charlton Heston stars as the only character with any choices to make or an arc to follow. At the start of the story, he plays a skilled military surgeon on leave after the death of his brother. He is initially content to remain in the army where he has been doing good. However, immediately upon arriving in his old hometown, he is offered two positions in private practice. One serving the poor for little pay, one coddling the wealthy for big bucks. He doesn't even have to think about it. Lizabeth Scott plays his new girlfriend, although there is no chemistry between them at all. They both profess their love for the other, but his interest in her seems to be her rich friends, her interest in him is his status as the current fashion.

In case Heston's "bad choices" are not obvious enough, another young doctor and a nurse who both care more about people than money are provided for contrast. Both came to town because they were so impressed by Heston when he was a "real" doctor while in the army. Could that mean he might yet choose the right path?

Finally, to underline the film's version of right vs wrong choices even further is Mildred Dunnock as Heston's mother. She proudly lives in poverty and is distressed that her two sons both preferred a wealthy lifestyle and the corrupting influence of rich women. Neither of her sons appear to have done anything to help out their mother, not for any reason explained in the script, but just because for the sake of the film, everyone must be identified as poor or rich.

Subtle this script is not. Once everything is set up for us, with all the "correct" choices clearly flagged, the rest of the film is just following a predictable path (with some nonsensical speeches) until Heston reaches all the right conclusions.

Charlton Heston ("Col. Owen") returns from almost ten years as an army surgeon to his Pennsylvania home to find that his dead brother has been accused of sloppy practices that caused fatalities at a coal mine. His mother (Mildred Dunnock) and local doctor "Scobee" (Rhys Williams) hope he will stay and help the local community, but he discovers that his late brother had run up quite a bit of debt and determines to pay it back. A chance meeting with the "Helen" (Lizabeth Scott) - the daughter of the man who holds the debt - introduces him to new opportunities. She is wealthy, twice divorced, and well connected. His quick thinking after an incident at a party sees an association with prominent, and rather venal, doctor "Gleeson" (Lester Matthews) offer him a route to success and prosperity. Along the way, he proposes to "Helen" and all looks set fair. Much of this film takes a swipe at the hypochondriac patients - mostly wealthy women - and at the physicians who are little better than charlatans; charging a small fortune for glorified Alka Seltzer. Will "Owen" continue to be satisfied with this increasingly unfulfilling existence or will his innate instincts developed during wartime send him back to tend to the more legitimate and urgent needs of the community at large? Heston is a bit on the wooden side here, he delivers his dialogue rather stiltedly and without much passion. Scott is adequate - but more as an effective conduit for the decisions the doctor might make, and there is a decent, if sparing, contribution from Dianne Foster as the voice of reason in the man's increasingly conflicted life - and not just professionally, either. It's way too wordy but it does offer food for thought about practices that probably still exist today and is a bit better than I was expecting.

Army surgeon Charlton Heston is happy with his work, but a visit home to the coal-mining town he was born in,as well as society vamp Lizabeth Scott, make him think there's more to life than patching up wounded soldiers. At first he's interested in serving the poor people he grew up with. However Miss Scott gets him a job with society doctor Lester Matthews and becomes engaged to him. He finds his practice consists largely of giving nostrums to wealthy women at $250 a visit. Finally his nurse, Dianne Foster, leaves him to assist Dr. Arthur Franz, who's taking care of the miners and their families. His crisis of faith, however, is yet to come.

Heston has already developed his deep-throated growl in this movie, although he has not perfected it. It has a quality to it that I think is supposed to denote dissatisfaction, but sounds whiny to me. In a world where everyone else struggles for status and wealth, it's up to the woman at the top of both trees to point out the necessity of honesty and honor; well, she's the only one who can.

The splendour of this film is the outstanding dialog, which is enjoyable and intelligent all the way, in all its turnings around about ethics, conscience, ambition, vocation and the difficult question of what is right. Lizabeth Scott is not bad, she is just beautiful and charming and irresistible and can't do without her life in luxury at the top, and when she wants Charlton Heston to have the same she only means well. But Charlton is a doctor here with some experience out of two wars, the world war and the Korea war, and he finds life at the top somewhat difficult to adapt to with all its cocktail parties, rich patients of hypochondria, glamour and luxury, which just doesn't fit into what he has been brought up to. The film has been compared to Cronin's "The Citadel", and it's a good comparison, Cronin could have written this story, but it is still sharper and more poignant, as the condition of the coal miners play an important part here, although not quite as great as in "The Stars Look Down", which is also worth remembering in this context. The acting is superb, Ray Collins has an important part, and the ending is without upsets. It is all logical and natural, and Charlton Heston remains as admirable as Lizabeth Scott remains as beautiful as ever.

Charlton Heston and Lizabeth Scott are "Bad for Each Other" in this predictable 1953 film, also starring Mildred Dunnock, Arthur Franz, Marjorie Rambeau, and Dianne Foster.

Heston plays a doctor who returns from the service to the coal town where he grew up. After meeting the wealthy, twice-married, shallow Scott, he decides not to stay in the service and becomes a society doctor, in it for the money. The nurse he hires to work for him (Foster) thinks he's better than that.

The role played by Arthur Franz, that of a young doctor who admires him and doesn't mind going into the trenches, is essentially Heston's conscience.

I found this film pretty bland, but the big problem for me was that the main character as portrayed by Heston was just not likable. He wasn't likable before he took up with Scott nor was he likable throughout the film. Some of this was in the script, but some of it was in his line readings. He had fat attitude every time he opened his mouth. Frankly I didn't care what he did.

Lizabeth Scott was best earlier in her career, in her noir days, where her great voice, sexy blond looks, and ambiguous performances fit very well. Her character in this also was annoying. Now, she's not supposed to be likable, but we should have been able to see why Heston liked her. She seemed awfully pushy for his character to have put up with her.

Heston was tall, handsome, with a great voice and a dominating presence. This film was unfortunately directed in a somewhat old-fashioned manner so as to seem melodramatic and over the top. When someone with that strong a screen persona is directed that way, his performance becomes too actor-y.

Nothing special.

A once-idealistic doctor from a small mining town sells his integrity for a big city practice treating wealthy dowagers. If you said to yourself "That sounds like an incredibly dull premise for a noir," give yourself a gold star. Nothing to see here but a bunch of heavy-handed speechifying and simplistic class distinctions. I've never cared for Charlton Heston (with the possible exception of TOUCH OF EVIL) and here he does a lot of jutting out his chin and looking handsome and delivering his lines with zero conviction. Lizabeth Scott is an actress I run hot and cold on... in this case, quite cold. She's entirely uninteresting as a "bad girl" whose primary vice is a mild materialist streak. I was also rather annoyed by Mildred Dunnock, playing Heston's hand-wringing mother. The script is just awful and photographically, the film is a dud, with a few instances of noticeably poor shot continuity (not a deal-breaker, but a pet peeve of mine). There's no tension, no real conflict, no doubt about how everything's going to turn out okay in the end. Bad for you, bad for me, bad for everyone.

Bad for Each Other ([BFEO) is an obscure modestly regarded film that Charlton Heston made as a Paramount contract employee on loan out to Columbia at the dawn of his cinematic acting career. It was preceded by his excellent western movie Arrowhead, and immediately followed by his well regarded unusual adventure film The Naked Jungle (all made in 1953). BFEO (unlike Arrowhead and The Naked Jungle) is a contemporary social melodrama with a story set in a coal mining suburb of Pittsburgh. Heston is a recently discharged MD who is faced with the usual dilemma such folks often have to deal with: should he be a capitalist and seek out the most lucrative opportunity to practice medicine or a humanitarian and apply his skills to help the less fortunate people in his community? This is the issue at the heart of BFEO.

Heston is conflicted and somewhat self-righteous as he comes to grips with his personal values and convictions. Complicating matters are those individuals who are the major influences in his life: a predatory society woman who has set her sights on him (Lizabeth Scott), an idealistic nurse (Dianne Foster), a young doctor who believes that fulfillment can only come from assisting the poor (Arthur Franz), an older doctor who has a small practice in the mining community (Rhys Williams) and a.mother who believes that he should stay and work in his home town (Mildred Dunnock).

BFEO has a plot that contains echoes from other films: So Big (1932), The Citadel (1938), Not as a Stranger (1955), How Green Was My Valley (1941) and The Best Years of Our Lives (1948). It was directed in workmanlike fashion by veteran Irving Rapper, and the acting is consistently interesting. Heston is sincere, stalwart and occasionally naive in his troubled soul-searching, Scott (cast against type) is a spirited if not entirely credible rich young matron, Foster is a beautiful and appealing supporting player, Franz (a successful TV actor at the time) is quite engaging in his idealistic role, Williams is strong and dependable as always and Dunnock makes a most realistic mother trying to help her son with his choices in life. This excellent cast lifts BFEO from being a routine somewhat derivative entertainment, and the film certainly deserves a fresh reconsideration by a modern audience.

Maybe if John Garfield had been cast instead of Charlton Heston (who looks and moves like Frankinstein's monster here); and if the producers (writers? director?) had not backed away from the mine safety, health, and company criminal negligence theme that packs a punch in the first ten minutes of the movie.

Giving out free medicine in an American film is rare to see, and I am not even sure I have ever seen that gesture of equality before in what is a medical USA drams. The story is simple; Charlton Heston in one of his rare good roles takes on the ethical problem of discarding his uniform and taking on the medical job ( which he was trained for ) to get money from the rich who want excellent treatment. Irving Rapper surveys this greedy landscape quite objectively and he is far away from the Bette Davis melodrama syndrome. But there are two places in town in this film; one for the rich and one for the miners who risk their lives every day providing for them. Lizabeth Scott pays the bad for each other love interest and Arthur Franz is excellent as a young doctor who believes all people are equal. No spoilers but the ending is good for the film. Well worth seeing.

Irving Rapper was a good drama director, watch out his filmography for Warner studios, starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. I am not that surprised that Columbia pictures hired him for such a topic that suits him like a glove. He uses splendidly Charlton Heston and Liz Scott, two Paramount exiled, rather so far hired for crime film noirs. And I don't know why, but I would have imagined Ed Begley in a corrupt or fierce politician. Yes, this is a powerful drama, convincing, but unfortunately not that widely known; such a shame. We also can consider this film as a social drama, evoking hard conditions of miners. I expected a war vet drama, but it's something else and why not?

Horace McCoy must have been outraged that his unpublished 1952 novel 'Scalpel' reached the screen under the 'naughty' title Columbia saddled it with; especially as high maintainance blonde bullet Lizabeth Scott's presence barely even constitutes a subplot compared to the scenes between Charlton Heston and Diane Foster which provide the film with it's heart.

It's been compared to 'The Citadel', but the subject matter also rather resembles 'The Best Years of Our Lives' and Ealing Studios' 'Cage of Gold'. The studio shies away, however, from the potentially provocative nature of the material, and the suspiciously short running time (and the abbreviated appearance by Arthur Franz in a role that approximates to the client Novak in Wyler's film) indicates some drastic pruning and back-peddling before they felt able to release it to cinemas.

If, like me, you watched this movie on Noir Alley, despite its not being a noir but rather a melodrama with Liz Scott, and taped it, then I recommend you do what I shoulda done, namely fast forward to Eddie's closing remarks on co scenarist and author of the novel upon which the movie was based, Horace McCoy. And after you have listened to this sad epitath to Hollywood insecurity, delivered in Eddie's signature doleful but sympathetic tones, then hit the delete button because this is sure one awful film! As the previous reviewer states, the dialogue from McCoy and Irving Wallace (kind of Horace M's oppsite, a best selling writer who never fooled himself into thinking he was an artist) truly sucks with every Hippocratic, noble doctor cliche stiffly and pompously spoken by Chuck Heston. As for Irving Rapper's direction it just kind of slogs along with one scene after another that features the misery of making money as opposed to the glories of treating black lung disease alternating with dull love scenes with an uncharacteristically bland Liz Scott and even duller exchanges about medical ethics between Chuck's idealistic but cynical doc and Dianne Foster's idealistic and resolutely non cynical (read humorless) nurse. And if you're still awake after so much idealism there is the predictible, mine cave in scene ending. But that is far too little and far too late. C minus.