IMDb रेटिंग
5.8/10
1.1 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA doctor returning from the Korean War to his hometown in Pennsylvania must choose what next to do with his life.A doctor returning from the Korean War to his hometown in Pennsylvania must choose what next to do with his life.A doctor returning from the Korean War to his hometown in Pennsylvania must choose what next to do with his life.
Philip Ahlm
- Minor Role
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Elsie Baker
- Mrs. Olzoneski
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Mary Benoit
- Party Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAccording to December 1950 articles in The Hollywood Reporter and the Los Angeles Times, producer Hal B. Wallis purchased the rights to the novel before it was published for $100,000 ($1.3M in 2024). Wallis intended the leads to be Burt Lancaster and Patricia Neal and that the project was to be filmed at Paramount. It never got off the ground, and Wallis ended up selling the rights to Columbia in early 1953.
- गूफ़The beginning scenes of movie show coal mine operations in Coalville, PA. The railroad caboose was from ATSF (Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe). That railroad never had operations in Pennsylvania.
- भाव
Dr. Tom Owen: [on the phone with his wife] Oh, I'm interviewing nurses, of course... Don't be silly, darling - of course she'll be fat and ugly. I do insist on good legs, though.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Bad for Each Other?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 23 मि(83 min)
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें