La fille qui avait tout

This is tripe dressed up in fancy clothes. A loose remake of "A Free Soul" this silly melodrama is a painless time waster and not much else. What was once a racy provocative drama has become an empty potboiler.

True it does have Elizabeth Taylor at the peak of her beauty and that's always worth seeing. Additionally she is a much more relaxed and natural actress than Norma Shearer ever was. But she is handed a part that has been diluted from the original which is true of the entire picture.

William Powell, a welcome presence as always, isn't given the flashy part that Lionel Barrymore won an Oscar for in the original just a disapproving father without any real bite. No wonder he left MGM after this if this is the best they had to offer.

The real problem is the casting of Fernando Lamas in the old Clark Gable role, with Gable and his animal magnetism you could understand Norma's desire and willingness to stray with him. With Lamas, attractive though he may be, there is none of that and he comes across as a cheap hood made good and an oily one at that and Liz's headstrong determination to be with him makes her seem a foolish, spoiled nitwit.

For fans of the stars, and of course this being an MGM film they are beautiful dressed and the surrounding sumptuous, it's worth one watch but that will be more than enough.

this is a very short movie and one of the most obscure in Elizabeth Taylor's filmography.Obviously it's not one of her best but she is really gorgeous .

She portrays a rich kid "who has everything" (the title tells no lies),with a rather over possessive father -who has excuses ,for he is a widower and she is his only child- and a good-looking but bland and boring fiancé .Enter a shady handsome Latin lover type man (Lamas)and the girl falls heads over heels in love.The most interesting side of this Harlequin Romance is its reactionary side:for the distinguished father ,the hunk will always be worse than a nouveau riche ;he will never be part of the respectable circle of gentlemen and the more he tries to start all over again,to redeem his soul -"even God would give me a second chance"-,the more he fails ,for he's got two kind of enemies now: the fine upstanding people and his former partners from his racy past.

This film is a good example of standard MGM output in the early 1950s - still glossy, with good production values, but dramatically no great shakes. It is perhaps most notable as being William Powell's final film at MGM. Although it must have been appealing to Powell to play the same part that won Lionel Barrymore an Oscar in 1931 (for A Free Soul), the writer of this film let Powell down with a routine script. Also notable is André Previn's score, which seems unnecessarily lush at times given the routine nature of the production.

... and this film is a good example of that.

Attorney Steve Latimer (William Powell) defends an old client of his, Victor Ramondi (Fernando Lamas) when he is hauled before a senate committee concerning his illegal gambling operations. Steve's daughter, Jean (Elizabeth Taylor) goes with her father when he travels to Washington, and there she meets and begins dating Ramondi. Ramondi follows the Latimers back to Kentucky, rents a place, and begins courting Jean. It doesn't take long until she is in love with him and the two plan to marry. But against his lifelong principles of being "a free soul" Latimer for once decides - Not with my daughter you don't! Complications ensue.

This is a very sanitized and watered down version of the precode "A Free Soul" from 1931, which was a big hit for MGM at the time. In the original the attorney/father Stephen Ashe is a hopeless alcoholic, the gangster is somebody Ashe defended for a murder of which he was very much guilty, and when the gangster threatens the daughter if she tries to leave him, her discarded fiance kills him but lies about his motive to protect her honor. I won't tell you what does ultimately happen in this film, but I will tell you that these three aspects are missing to the point that I wondered why MGM even bothered.

The 1931 film was made during the precode era during which there was much freedom to portray human nature with all its warts. The production code ended that in 1934. Thus it was not unusual for studios to remake their precode films in such a way that they could be exhibited in the production code era. What was unusual was for them to wait until the 1950s, as MGM did with this film, to produce a remake. As a result this film just seems like there is something missing mainly because there really is. All you have left is some cautionary tale about a girl who always had her way growing up in the shadow of a father who shunned convention who, as a result, goes after the wrong kind of man. Although Vic Ramondi does tell Jean he intends to change, is going to retire from the rackets, and is initially only showing his softer side, so even the accusation that she is attracted to a bad boy does not hold water.

The acting is good in this film, and as usual, William Powell makes it look effortless. He was the reason I decided to watch it, although the other performers do the best that they can with such thin material.

Back then, the studios made a lot of films, they were film factories; some films were given special treatment, those are most often the ones we see today. There was also a great deal of product that was ground out like sausage. The Girl Who Had Everything falls somewhere in the middle, as it has big stars and one of MGM's reliable (though not very artistic) stalwarts at the helm, Richard Thorpe. But it plays more like a B picture nobody cared about too much. It couldn't have taken very long to film it. It's mostly comprised of dialogue scenes and shot at MGM.

Basically it's a remake of A Free Soul, a brilliant melodrama from the studio's early days. If they had just done a fairly close remake of that one, in an updated form, they probably would have had a compelling film, what with William Powell in the Lionel Barrymore part and Elizabeth Taylor, Fernando Lamas, and Gig Young in the roles first taken by Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, and Leslie Howard.

Instead, it's a very watered down version of that picture. For example, a central plot point of A Free Soul is that daughter Norma will give up gangster Gable if alcoholic dad Barrymore will go on the wagon. There's nothing like this in the remake. Powell drinks, but he can handle it. Every interesting dramatic point is thrown away while keeping the bare bones of the original story, so there is no real dramatic tension. See the two films back to back for yourself.

A Free Soul takes place during Prohibition and Gable's character is a gangster who owns a speakeasy and gambling den, and Barrymore's character is a lawyer who frees him from a murder rap. It's topical, exciting, and fits together neatly. In the loose remake, Lamas is a racketeer and Powell is his lawyer, and that's about it. Well, see for yourself. It never gets a dramatic head of steam going. The acting is good, but that's about it.