NOTE IMDb
7,1/10
3,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueJust before his wedding, the bridegroom hears a complex tale painting his lovely bride as devilish and unbalanced.Just before his wedding, the bridegroom hears a complex tale painting his lovely bride as devilish and unbalanced.Just before his wedding, the bridegroom hears a complex tale painting his lovely bride as devilish and unbalanced.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 4 victoires au total
Helene Thimig
- Mrs. Monks
- (as Helen Thimig)
Mari Aldon
- Mary
- (non crédité)
Polly Bailey
- The Cook
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
This is a great movie! I wasn't expecting to like it but boy, was I in for a suprise. The flashback within a flashback within a flashback (Is there another one?) theme is so great and is never the least bit confusing. Laraine Day, Brian Aherne, Robert Mithchum, and Gene Raymond give great performances in this thriller.
I'm correcting a mistake in the previous post by Limsgirl of Massachussetts. That was NOT the mother of Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine who played the cruel woman who gives Nancy (Laraine Day) the locket. That woman was actress KATHERINE EMERY who played many "evil" or mean women in supporting roles. Lilian Fontaine had a brief nondescript role as a wealthy woman and made no impression whatsoever--she never had a really good role on screen, appearing briefly in THE LOST WEEKEND (Jane Wyman's mother) and IVY (as Joan Fontaine's friend, Lady Flora). LET'S GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE--and applause for Katherine Emery as the cruel woman who has an immense effect on Nancy's life.
Just before his wedding to the beautiful and carefree Nancy, John Willis is visited by Doctor Harry Blair who informs him that he knows the real Nancy and warns the doctor not to make the same mistake as him by marrying her. He tells her the story of how he had just married Nancy when a man called Clyde turned up in his office and told him a story about how he had met Nancy and had got drawn into her world of deception.
Shunning conventional structure is always a risk and in this film it is one that it takes as we have a story being told by Blair that is basically about him being told a story by Clyde. This makes for an interesting approach especially since the stories are both told by her dumped lovers. In this regard we're not sure what is true and what isn't and, while the stories engage on one level, I was conscious of the fact that they were telling and not necessarily facts (a trick Usual Suspects would later repeat to great praise). Existing within the minds of the characters, the story is interesting and is all the better at the end for it. For many viewers the story-telling approach will be a little slow and I times it did drag a bit but mostly it comes together and works as something different and interesting.
The cast are roundly good although they take second fiddle to the script and the ideas of director Brahm (who produces some clever ideas in Nancy's bridal march). Aherne is a bit too stiff in the role where really I wanted him to display a bit more range. Mitchum is good in his role but it wasn't the sort of thing I was used to seeing him in and he has been much better elsewhere. Day takes the main role of Nancy and does well with it she is part of the reason we're not sure what is true and what isn't and she convinced me that she didn't know either. She has plenty of nice touches as well as one or two very strong moments. Like I said though, this wasn't a great actors film but nobody was less than good.
Overall this is an interesting and different film that takes a risk by stepping back to flashback within flashback but mostly pulls it off. The story format might be a little testing on the patience (hearing about something implies a lack of action in the time where we are after all the audience spent the film in the Willis study) but the material is worth it and, once back in the present, everything comes together nicely. Worth seeing for being a different style of drama from the period.
Shunning conventional structure is always a risk and in this film it is one that it takes as we have a story being told by Blair that is basically about him being told a story by Clyde. This makes for an interesting approach especially since the stories are both told by her dumped lovers. In this regard we're not sure what is true and what isn't and, while the stories engage on one level, I was conscious of the fact that they were telling and not necessarily facts (a trick Usual Suspects would later repeat to great praise). Existing within the minds of the characters, the story is interesting and is all the better at the end for it. For many viewers the story-telling approach will be a little slow and I times it did drag a bit but mostly it comes together and works as something different and interesting.
The cast are roundly good although they take second fiddle to the script and the ideas of director Brahm (who produces some clever ideas in Nancy's bridal march). Aherne is a bit too stiff in the role where really I wanted him to display a bit more range. Mitchum is good in his role but it wasn't the sort of thing I was used to seeing him in and he has been much better elsewhere. Day takes the main role of Nancy and does well with it she is part of the reason we're not sure what is true and what isn't and she convinced me that she didn't know either. She has plenty of nice touches as well as one or two very strong moments. Like I said though, this wasn't a great actors film but nobody was less than good.
Overall this is an interesting and different film that takes a risk by stepping back to flashback within flashback but mostly pulls it off. The story format might be a little testing on the patience (hearing about something implies a lack of action in the time where we are after all the audience spent the film in the Willis study) but the material is worth it and, once back in the present, everything comes together nicely. Worth seeing for being a different style of drama from the period.
Knowing that this is the movie with the famous "flashback within a flashback within a flashback" draws people in, but the device never comes across as forced or artificial, and it works.
Like a lot of other people, I think Leonard Maltin underrates this one. "The Locket" is fun and suspenseful, as all "did she or didn't she" stories are when they're told right. This is Laraine Day's finest hour, and Robert Mitchum is very good in a sympathetic role. They are ably supported by Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond.
It's nice to see so many of the wonderful old thrillers from the 40s enjoying a revival. So many little gems like "The Locket" come in at under 90 minutes; they benefit from tight writing, intriguing premises and neat plot twists. Like "Detour," "Phantom Lady," "Follow Me Quietly" and many others, "The Locket" does not disappoint.
This is the kind of movie you think about all day long, and maybe the day after, if you happen upon it at 3:00 a.m. on TCM.
Like a lot of other people, I think Leonard Maltin underrates this one. "The Locket" is fun and suspenseful, as all "did she or didn't she" stories are when they're told right. This is Laraine Day's finest hour, and Robert Mitchum is very good in a sympathetic role. They are ably supported by Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond.
It's nice to see so many of the wonderful old thrillers from the 40s enjoying a revival. So many little gems like "The Locket" come in at under 90 minutes; they benefit from tight writing, intriguing premises and neat plot twists. Like "Detour," "Phantom Lady," "Follow Me Quietly" and many others, "The Locket" does not disappoint.
This is the kind of movie you think about all day long, and maybe the day after, if you happen upon it at 3:00 a.m. on TCM.
Yes! This is the movie that does just that - but it's worth watching for more than that. It is an inspired piece of film-making with excellent direction and fine photography. It also features some strong performances especially from the (is she or isn't she evil) Laraine Day, and the wonderful Brian Aherne. And Robert Mitchum's pretty good too. The best bits are almost expressionist - especially the music box shots - and it's full of the pseudo psychological nonsense that Hollywood loved so much in this era. Highly enjoyable.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesNorma Barzman's lengthy treatment for this film, which Sheridan Gibney revised into a screenplay, was inspired by a true event which was recounted to her by financier George Peabody Gardner and his sister Belle. When younger, the Gardners eschewed their aristocratic upbringing partly in reaction to an incident in their youth: As children they became friendly with the daughter of the family's housekeeper. It transpired that the daughter was wrongly accused of stealing a locket, leading to the firing and departure of the housekeeper and her daughter. Years later, they learned that the daughter suffered from depression and was implicated in a theft, a consequence for which the Gardners felt their family was partly responsible.
- GaffesAmerican ambulances, shown driven with left-hand drive, were not used in wartime London.
- Citations
Norman Clyde: I don't take money for nothing. I'm not conducting a class so the parasitic rich can escape boredom. I'm not that hard up.
Nancy Patton: Well, I hope you never will be, Mr. Clyde. I admire your principles. I wish I could say the same for your disposition.
- ConnexionsEdited into Histoire(s) du cinéma: Fatale beauté (1994)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 25min(85 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant