उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

What a cast! Hepburn, Robert Taylor and Robert Mitchum! Hepburn here is paired with Robert Taylor, a scientist, who seems to have some very nervous employees and some sensitive areas, one concerning an absent brother, Michael. When Hepburn meets one of Taylor's old girlfriends, a very well cast Jayne Meadows, she becomes suspicious of Taylor's motives for marrying her - and suspicious about what happened to Taylor's brother.

Hepburn gives her usual intelligent performance, showing a vulnerable, feminine side that is very appealing. There is a scene in a fitting room where she is absolutely stunning. The scenes between her and her father, played by Edmund Gwenn, are delightful and realistic, as she complains that Taylor could not be attracted to her. "Look at me," she demands, "what do you see? " Her father smiles and says "Beautiful" and kisses her. It's this type of gentleness coupled with good acting, underlying suspense and excitement that makes Undercurrent a very good -- and very underrated -'40s film. Taylor is handsome and enigmatic in his role. Somewhere along the way, he stumbled into playing bad boys, as he does later on in "Conspirator" as well, and these roles suit him. Hepburn once said that Spencer Tracy made her seem very feminine; Taylor does too.

I have to add that I did find the casting quite odd but inspired, with Hepburn and Mitchum cast against type, and Hepburn paired with Taylor. I wish we had seen more of this in Hollywood.

Expecting something completely different when I saw the cast-list, this movie took me by surprise. Hepburn discarding more or less her usual screen-persona holds this mystery-thriller together with a strong performance.Robert Taylor returning from service in WW II,takes another step from those pretty boy parts of his early career. Robert Mitchum,still fresh after his breakthrough, is more or less wasted in a supporting role. Clearly patterned after earlier successes like Preminger's "Laura" and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" this movie isn't quite in the same league,but it still better than most.This is another title I hope will arrive on DVD.

The first time I saw undercurrent, I was as disturbed as everyone else by the soporific pacing.

Having just seen it for the second time, I have to say that there is much detail to enjoy. As in most Minnelli pictures, I enjoyed the awkward party scenes, in which elegant extras enjoy themselves while the principals cringe.

Katharine Hepburn is in her "insecure" mode, like in Summertime, and she is very good. The role would have been more natural for, say, Jeanne Crain.

Most enjoyable is Jayne Meadows, as a cold fish you can't quite figure out. She is incredibly beautiful in the ladies'lounge scene. Both her scenes with Hepbburn crackle with 1940s psychological intensity.

Something of a success, something of a misfire. Katharine Hepburn, Robert Taylor, and Robert Mitchum are all cast against type in this noirish movie made in the style of THE STRANGER, GASLIGHT, and even REBECCA in which a shy woman marries a man with a dark story surrounding him. It looks lush in its black and white visuals and takes its time to get to the tight noose of its plot. However, the middle-of-the road aspect of UNDERCURRENT comes mostly because to believe Katharine Hepburn, of all women, would be this passive person with little to no self-assurance and essentially be a damsel in distress -- a role Joan Fontaine or Joan Crawford could phone in while garnering Oscars -- would be to extend the suspension of disbelief to unbelievable levels. I can see why she'd agreed to take on the role of Ann Hamilton: like any actor, it would give her a chance to extend her range and prove she could pull it off. Both Roberts fared better to varying degrees: Taylor, a thirties heartthrob, had that rich voice and those dark looks that could convincingly translate into playing the complete opposite of the leading man. Mitchum, on the other hand, never known to play an overall nice guy, does just that here. Does it work? Not as well as Taylor, especially when over the years he made a name playing some of the most memorable villains in film history in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and CAPE FEAR. Here, Mitchum gets little to do, and must concede the scene stealing to Taylor who all but ties Hepburn to the train tracks while twitching that mustache of his and sneering. A nice surprise was to see Jayne Meadows making her film debut by playing a woman who also resembles Hepburn and has some interesting information to give Hepburn about Taylor and Mitchum.

I can't be unbiased. This is the film that brought me into classic film - the first full film I ever saw on TCM. It means more to me than the favored classics. It gave me the greatest gift.

All of the criticisms of this movie might well be flushed down the loo. This is one powerhouse of an interesting movie.

Call it Film-Noir. Call it Mystery/Suspense. Call it Psychological Thriller. Call it what you may...I call it: absorbing drama.

It moves very deliberately...and the facts are revealed one by one, in true mystery fashion, until the fantastic, thrilling ending.

Those who say that Hepburn and Mitchum were miscast are just so wrong. Hepburn wasn't playing Hepburn here...she wasn't Tracy Lord here. She wasn't a know-it-all New England uppity snob here. Not a worldly character at all. She played a different character than I've ever seen her do. Hepburn doesn't rely on her stable of clichés to capture our imagination here. She does it with imagination and as few of the Hepburn cornerstone mannerisms as possible. Good result!

Robert Taylor is fascinating to watch. He has so many secrets in this role. And they reside behind his facade for us to watch and enjoy. He slowly swirls into controlled mania and desperate determination. Very fine, indeed. He should have been nominated for this one.

And then there's Mitchum! What can one say about Mitchum without gushing foolishly. Gee whiz...the first time you see him...he shows us a side of him we have hardly ever seen! He seems at peace, mild in character, mellow in mood...pensive...other worldly. Likable even! Never gruff or abrasive like we've seen him so many times before.

What is unique about this story is that we really do not know what is going to happen next. We spend most of the movie residing in Hepburn's character's mind. Her wondering, her confusion, her search for the truth -- at all costs.

I was expecting not to like this movie. I was expecting it to be another formulaic Hepburn vehicle about high society. But this is where this movie takes a left turn into an underrated mystery.

I enjoyed the use of the theme to the Third Movement of Johannes Brahms' Third Symphony throughout the movie. It lent a delicious air of mystery, love and luscious pastoral passion to the whole affair.

And to say that Vincente Minnelli was WRONG for this movie? Gee whiz! He was perfect! Why compare him to Hitchcock? Minnelli has manufactured a mystery world all his own. Sure there are devices. All movies have devices. But they are handled so deftly...we don't rely on them to make us aware of the story -- they don't get in our way. They heighten our interest and this very absorbing plot.

Well done. I wish it had been a longer movie...it was THAT kind of movie.

I recommend this one...

Undercurrent (1946)

Melodrama with Katherine Hepburn instead of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford?

Yes. And it works, though differently. Hepburn rules the movie, for sure, and she covers some range from sweet daughter of a scientist to a rich man's wife losing her innocence to someone who rises up on her own two feet. She's still the classy (or stiff) Hepburn (depending who you ask). I like her, and I liked her in this film a lot.

The plot uses a whole range of clichés but uses them well. The slight twists to what you expect are never shocking, but they keep you guessing. The second big star, seemingly, is Robert Mitchum, but if you are a fan of his, don't see the movie for his role. It's exceedingly minor. A very strange contract arrangement on that one. When he is there, it's undramatic, though he's in command, of course. The other male lead, Robert Taylor, is his usual reasonable, appropriate self--carefully chosen words to avoid saying a little starchy and ordinaire. One bit part is predictably colorful, Marjorie Main with her earthy comebacks.

Director Vincente Minnelli is in good form here, actually, and if the movie seems routine, it's the story that holds it back. He has some great photography behind it all (Karl Freund), and the score is unusually effective and beautiful (Herbert Stothart). I wouldn't call it a film noir, though it has shadings of the style and it's from that post war dark period. Instead, it's a noir melodrama. Worth seeing, absolutely, if you like those kinds of films.

With this cast and Vincent Minelli directing you might reasonably expect a professional product but you are not going to get one. Hepburn is said to have accused Mitchum of getting the part solely because of his looks because he could not act. If so she was right but beware you who live in glass houses. Hepburn was equally awful and Robert Taylor was decidedly mediocre. Marjorie Main is the one highlight and she is gone after the first 15 minutes or so. The biggest problem however is the totally unbelievable plot. Edmund Gwenn is a scientist living with daughter/assistant (Hepburn) in a home, with adjoining laboratory, run by Marjorie Main. Robert Taylor plays an Elon Musk type, a 40 year old multi-millionaire bachelor, who is trying to win the rights to one of Gwenn's products. He comes to the Gwenn home and is immediately smitten with Hepburn and they marry shortly thereafter and then it gets bad, really bad. Horrible dialogue combined with a preposterous plot, miscast actors and obvious foreshadowing make for one long and tedious movie. There is a reason you have never heard of this one. It is awful.

"Undercurrent" is a surprisingly effective mystery/"chick flick," given elements that could have sunk a lesser effort. For example:

o Dr. Bangs gives away one of the movie's secrets VERY early in the plot (Before Hepburn marries Taylor) o The behavior of some of the supporting players (for example, Mr. Warmly's first scene) aren't really consistent with the denouement o Katherine Hepburn, at 39, is not an altogether convincing object of desire for her younger costars o While Robert Taylor gives a great performance, the first hints of his instability come too early in the film o Third billed Robert Mitchum has about five minutes screen time and his character has no part of the physical action.

Perhaps, if it were not for the tremendous skill with which "Undercurrent" has been acted and directed, these apparent shortcomings might have mattered more. Certainly, casting Taylor and Mitchum against type was a stroke of genius. Further, the more one watches Katherine Hepburn's brilliant performance, the more one realizes "Undercurrent" would have been far less successful using a more "age appropriate" actress, unless she were equally skilled (Olivia De Havilland? Joan Bennett?). However, in addition to brilliant acting, Hepburn carries a cool, self-assured demeanor as part of her persona; which makes her apparent helplessness later in the film much more suspenseful, if not downright terrifying. Given that Hepburn is in virtually every scene, it's really Hepburn's movie and she doesn't disappoint.

I give "Undercurrent" a "7".

#265moviereview

Interesting film noir starring Katherine Hepburn and directed by Vincente Minelli, two names not associated with Noir. Kate plays a middle aged spinster who is swept off her feet by Robert Taylor who makes her into a society wife. She wants to know about his family but becomes enraged every time she mentions his brother, Mike. She knows he has secrets but doesn't know what they are. And she is afraid for her life.

Hepburn gives a tremendous performance, intelligent and appealing but also shows hurt. She also shows fear as she doesn't know her husband's true intentions. Robert Taylor - just back from serving in WWII- was cowed by the relationship between Hepburn and Minnelli, thinking that this would be another Hepburn showcase. But his performance is absolutely riveting and there's no doubt that Minnelli brought out Taylor's best.

Robert Mitchum also stars and his non-entrance entrance is really a thing of mastery by Minnelli. Young Mitchum in a low-key, genteel role is just great to watch. As is Edmund Gwenn as Kate's father. And there is a terrific film debut from Jayne Meadows. She really tears up the screen in the couple of scenes in which she appears.

The movie also looks great. Karl Freund's cinematography is absolutely stunning.

The script, though, is fairly generic and doesn't trod new ground. But it gives Minnelli and Company a base from which to work and produce this nice watchable film noir.

WATCH IT

3.5/5.

UNDERCURRENT most certainly isn't a typical Katharine Hepburn film. In between films with Spencer Tracy, she tries her hand at a suspense thriller, playing the supposedly dowdy Ann Hamilton, an apparently confirmed spinster who quickly finds herself in love and married to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), a rich scientist who is hiding a far greater and darker secret than she could ever have imagined. It isn't long before Ann the gregarious tomboy becomes the cookie-cutter-perfect Mrs Alan Garroway... except for one thing. She just can't seem to shake off that darker, malevolent undercurrent of obsession and hate she senses in her husband. Nor can she ignore the shadow of her brother-in-law Michael Garroway (Robert Mitchum), whom she's never met but has been told so much about. As Alan's apparent normalcy begins to fall away before Ann's eyes, the audience also realises that his deadly obsession with his brother Michael has shifted onto Ann. Now that Alan has staked his possessive claim on her, can Ann free herself from his love for her... and more importantly, her own love for him?

Sounds good? Well, the premise is certainly there. And you've got to admire what must have started out as a far more ambitious project altogether. You've got at least four powerhouses in this film--Hepburn, the Roberts Taylor and Mitchum, and the direction of Vincente Minelli. Unfortunately, UNDERCURRENT only makes an adequate attempt at putting this story together on the screen. There are moments and characters in the film that had so much potential, an example being the mysterious figure of Mother Garroway, who seems as sinister as either of her sons, and yet is quickly forgotten once she seems redundant to the plot. But she isn't, really--the circumstances of her death are just as intriguing as those surrounding Michael's death/disappearance... and yet not picked up on. Nor is the suggestion that Michael is as much Ann's obsession as Ann is Alan's expanded upon.

While Minelli is brilliant in capturing the rhythm and mood of a scene when it comes to colourful MGM musicals, he only manages to create a mediocre level of suspense in this film--there are no heart-pounding moments in UNDERCURRENT; when the lights go out as Ann is stuck in the closet, one only feels annoyed and mildly curious at the completely black screen. There's hardly any pace to it either, since the supposedly climactic ending only comes off rather half-hearted and a bit lame with the less-than-expert editing between Taylor's face and Hepburn's reactions. And yet Minelli is nothing if not an accomplished director; some shots are beautifully dark and capture the ambiguous relationship of Alan and Ann quite well.

Similarly, the performances in this film showcase both its good points and its problems. Starting with the two Roberts: Robert Taylor makes a commendable effort to transform Alan into something remotely human, and almost succeeds. He mostly underplays his part, except for one great scene when he truly goes all out to look deranged, and that really helps. Alan *is* supposed to be perfectly normal... at least on the outside. The trouble with Taylor is that his underplaying isn't as skilful as, for example, Spencer Tracy's--Taylor tends to fade into a monotone, making it just the kind of under-acting performance that would galvanize La Hepburn into *over*-acting to fill up a scene. As for Robert Mitchum: he's hardly onscreen enough to warrant much of a review. Still, considering that he's playing the pivotal role of the mysterious, back-from-the-dead brother of Alan Garroway, Mitchum and his character mostly look stoned beyond caring about what's happening around them. Shame.

As for Ms. Hepburn: although this isn't usually her film genre of choice (film noir is really something one doesn't expect Hepburn's name to ever be associated with), she turns in quite a credible performance. Ann Hamilton starts out as the giddy independent gal in love, a prototype from Hepburn's romantic comedies, but also progresses (or should that be degenerates?) into a woman haunted by fear and obsession--that of her husband's, surely... but possibly her own as well. Even a Hepburn fan must admit that she has a tendency to mug, to overact to fill a perceived void, and unless reined in by a director or co-star, tends to overpower everything around her through sheer force of will (and personality). Mercifully, this only happens in the first few scenes when Ann is still the happy independent girl she is before meeting and marrying Alan--odd that it should happen with a type of character Hepburn has arguably played so many times before. If it hasn't already been made clear, in this film Hepburn is in fact at her best when she plays the scenes with Ann constantly doubting her husband, worrying at his family mystery as a dog would a bone. She portrays the right level of frenzy, of worry, of muted suspicion and unspoken doubt. Her performance on this occasion suggests that there is much more to Hepburn as an actress than simply 'playing herself', although this isn't realised immediately after UNDERCURRENT which, as I gather, flopped rather mightily at the box office. She returns to romantic comedies to lick her wounds for a decade or so, forestalling the revelation of her potential as a dramatic actress to later in her career. The only problems this character gives her are when Ann is called on to be truly helpless--two occasions on which histrionics have been deemed necessary. Both times, when she has to cry but most especially when she has to scream, Hepburn fares rather badly. Other than that, she turns in a performance that does manage to rein the largely ordinary bits of the film together.

All in all, it's rather a shame that UNDERCURRENT doesn't make full use of the considerable talent at its disposal. Minelli and the writers don't see the potential in the script and characters, nor, I suspect, does Minelli know just how to handle Hepburn to draw a more rounded performance from her. UNDERCURRENT isn't a bad piece of film-making or story-telling, but it is far from a great one. Unfortunately, considering the names involved in this production, adequacy is the last thing they should have achieved in making this film.

Ann Hamilton (Katharine Hepburn) is a homebody who helps her chemist father (Edmund Gwenn) with his inventions and experiments. He sells his latest invention to a company owned by Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor). He and Ann have a whirlwind courtship, have a small quick wedding at her home, and then he whisks her away to his home in Washington.

But this is where this film picks up this haunted Mrs. Danvers vibe. Alan becomes quite disturbed and angry at even the mention of his brother Michael's name. Alan says Michael robbed his first company blind and put it under but always had this smooth cultured veneer that fooled people and made him feel like an also ran. He says Mike fought in WWII and he hasn't heard from him since he joined the army and has no idea where he is. Alan has no other living relatives, so Ann has to accept this explanation. Alan is so disturbed by the thought of Michael that he has removed all pictures with either Mike or his mother - Mike was her favorite - from his home, his office, everywhere.

But Ann becomes obsessed with learning about Mike, and more than that, what became of him. Because she is beginning to wonder if her new husband murdered Mike. Complications ensue.

Maybe an individual might make the headstrong decision to marry in haste, but Ann's dad and his housekeeper (Marjorie Main) were encouraging her and even cheering her on. Was Ann eating them out of house and home or was it just the convention of that time that even a marriage with a troubled person was better than never having been married at all? I guess if I'm going to watch the films of the 1940s I should be prepared to deal with the social mores of the 1940s.

These were good roles for both Robert Taylor and Katharine Hepburn as it let them stretch their acting wings and break out of the material that MGM normally put them in.

This film had me hooked because of the plot. The suspense was somewhat Hitchcockian. But the film really belonged to the haunting Brahms score and a very restrained Robert Mitchum (a role that reminds you so much of his fine role in Ryan's Daughter decades later) who only appears in the second half of the film.

This is not Robert Taylor's best effort, yet it's an effort that cannot be ignored. He is menacing in his role but the menace is accentuated by the dark photography of Karl Freund that sets the mood for the film--so much like the photography of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Katherine Hepburn is good as usual.

Somehow, the director Vincente Minnelli could not bring all the great strengths of the movie together to make it stand out. A good plot, a good cast, and a good cinematographer could not make a film that was in sum greater than its parts.

If you can stick with the plot through a long, drawn-out first half, the second half generates at least some dramatic interest. But that first half is a trial, one that tests the endurance and bravery of even the most fortified fans of glossy, dull, dreary 1940s melodramas.

The plot ordeal is made worse by the miscasting of Katharine Hepburn as a shy, demure, self-effacing young woman named Ann, who jabbers loquaciously through almost every scene of the film, and in that grating voice that Hepburn is so well known for. How torturous! Could we not at least have had an intermission?

Then there's nondescript Robert Taylor, who plays Alan, a middle-age man of means and mystery, who wants Ann in marriage, but for what ulterior motive? Only the scriptwriter knows for sure, as the plot veers, meanders, and winds through assorted scenes that exist seemingly just to highlight his motivational ambiguity.

Finally, in the second half, the plot picks up. And the viewer is rewarded with an interestingly strange, if not quite believable, climax. But I could have wished for a quicker, less serpentine route.

The film's B&W visuals and the nondescript background music are soft and glossy, in sync with the melodramatic story. Alan's wealth propels him through a clique of haughty characters, off-putting in their vanity and self-importance, the worst being Sylvia Burton, played by icy Jayne Meadows. Not surprisingly, costumes are mostly high fashion and showy.

If most of the first half had been cut out, if the script had been less talky, and if different actors had been cast in the lead roles, then "Undercurrent" might have been worth watching. As is, it's mostly an example of what can go wrong when a poor script and bad casting collide.

"Undercurrent" is Vincent Minnelli's first good dramatic thriller. It may appear over the top in some scenes but it was made after WWII. A lost of anxiety and anguish came out after the war. This is Robert Taylor's first movie after he left the service. MGM gave him a terrific leading lady, Katharine Hepburn, who portrays his wife. Mr. Taylor is a glamorous scientist, who is hiding a secret and a brother (Robert Mitchum).

Mr. Taylor gave three terrific dramatic performances during his career: "Johnny Eager" (1942), "Undercurrent" (1946), and "Above and Beyond" (1952). The first two movies he played the bad guy. In "Above and Beyond", he played the super good tough guy.

Some people may think this movie is too hysterical, but it is never boring. Ms. Hepburn never looked lovelier. She and Mr. Taylor made a great team. Too bad they never worked again. Ms. Hepburn was very feminine in this movie; thanks to Mr. Taylor, a very masculine guy.

Spinster scientist Ann Hamilton (Katharine Hepburn) is taken with famed chemical tycoon Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor). Her father sells him the rights to a chemical compound. Ann marries Alan but is concerned about fitting into his world of wealth and power. Alan tells her about his no-good hated brother Michael (Robert Mitchum) but there is more to the story.

Hepburn sells the heck out of the role. She's enchanting. There is nobody like her. Veteran actor Robert Taylor is nowhere near her iconic level. He's fine but I can't help but wish for Robert Mitchum in the role. It's early in his career but he's already a sought after rising star. Mike should be a more meek character who could be pushed over by his more dominating brother Alan. Mitchum is not really that meek. It's understandable to have the bigger role given to the more experienced actor. What it could have been is epic. What it turns out is a solid noir from Vincente Minnelli who would gain more fame from musicals later on.

Robert Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, and Robert Mitchum all star in the MGM melodrama Undercurrent which no one will ever rank at the top 10 for any of these stars.

Hepburn is reunited with Edmund Gwenn as her father as he was in Sylvia Scarlett. This time they're a more traditional father and daughter than those fugitives on the run in that other film. In Undercurrent he's a college professor and she's his a bit long in the tooth daughter.

Young millionaire industrialist Robert Taylor gives her a whirlwind courtship and they get married. It looks like Prince Charming has arrived, but Taylor is harboring some deep dark secrets, about a brother he flies off the handle about at the mere mention of his name and about just how he acquired those millions.

Mitchum is that brother and he only has three scenes of any note, maybe about 15 minutes of the film in total. He and Hepburn did not get along and she publicly disparaged his acting abilities. He in turn thought she was one royal snob. Years later Hepburn did admit to making a mistake about Mitchum, I don't think he ever forgave her.

One person who she did think highly of was Clinton Sundberg who she saw in a play The Rugged Path on Broadway with Spencer Tracy. She was the one who influenced Louis B. Mayer to sign him and Sundberg acquitted himself well here and in MGM films for the next several years. He plays Taylor's plant manager and has a lot more sinister role than one initially suspects.

This was Robert Taylor's first film after returning from the Navy in World War II. He acquits himself well, but he and Hepburn just haven't any chemistry at all. His career really doesn't get back on track until Quo Vadis. The leaden story doesn't help either.

There are some similarities to Hepburn's film with Spencer Tracy, Keeper of the Flame, but that one was far better.

Do you think this was one Tracy passed on?