Opening

63% The Maze Runner Sep 19
65% A Walk Among the Tombstones Sep 19
43% This Is Where I Leave You Sep 19
82% Tracks Sep 19
93% The Guest Sep 17

Top Box Office

11% No Good Deed $24.3M
70% Dolphin Tale 2 $15.9M
92% Guardians of the Galaxy $8.1M
19% Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $4.9M
20% Let's Be Cops $4.4M
88% The Drop $4.1M
37% If I Stay $3.9M
35% The November Man $2.8M
35% The Giver $2.6M
67% The Hundred-Foot Journey $2.4M

Coming Soon

70% The Equalizer Sep 26
71% The Boxtrolls Sep 26
84% The Two Faces of January Sep 26
—— Two Night Stand Sep 26
91% Jimi: All Is by My Side Sep 26

Premieres Tonight

100% The Good Wife: Season 6
58% Madam Secretary: Season 1
—— Miss Marple: Season 6

New Episodes Tonight

—— American Dad!: Season 11
87% Boardwalk Empire: Season 5
53% The Lottery: Season 1
89% Manhattan: Season 1
97% Masters of Sex: Season 2
78% Ray Donovan: Season 2
87% The Strain: Season 1
—— Witches of East End: Season 2

Discuss Last Night's Shows

91% Doctor Who: Season 8
—— Hell on Wheels: Season 4
40% Intruders: Season 1
90% Outlander: Season 1

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit Reviews

Page 1 of 4
Apeneck F

Super Reviewer

January 11, 2013
High toned soaper that does interesting stuff, especially involving post-traumatic stress syndrome. A vet returns to civilian life and is comfortable more or less, only his wife (cast as sort of a villianess: Jennifer Jones in an excellent portrayal) wants more, "... a bigger house, more money, some status wouldn't hurt, and why aren't you going out to get all that for us??? Maybe its cause you lost yer balls in the war!" Ouch! There's a couple of side plots as well; the romance in Italy with the other woman, the boss who sacrifices everything for the company and wants Peck to do as well, which are not bad. The overall treatment of the characters and the subject keeps everything from parody.
AJ V

Super Reviewer

September 5, 2010
There are a lot of good actors in this movie, and the story is realistic, but it's so realistic that it's boring and uninteresting most of the time. It's okay, but it could have been a lot better.
jjnxn
jjnxn

Super Reviewer

December 19, 2008
Well acted but very dated in its attitudes.
Rico Z

Super Reviewer

January 9, 2008
This is a classic film that hardly anybody knows about (like most classic films nowadays.)

Gregory Peck stars as a family man whose luck is down despite having a loveley wife and three incredibly loving children. Their middle-class lifestyle is becoming stifling in the years following WWII, and his wife's pressure for having "more" is making him eager for a change.

What follows is a series of hurdles that Gregory must pass in order to become fulfilled. He begins work as a public relations executive for a New York television network. His ideas a fresh and innovative and catch the attention of the station's owner and head honcho--a merciless, yet somehow kind-hearted--Fredric March.

Peck ideals are put to the test as he must soon choose between his opportunities for advancement at work and his opportunities for a normal life at home.

Thrown in here is a subplot of Peck's tortured past as a WWII vet. His night of passion with an Italian beauty and the resulting child that would later come to haunt him and his marriage. His choices aren't easy ones, but this movie has so much heart and style that it makes everything seem so easy compared to problems we deal with today.

Definitely watch this if you're a Peck fan. And it's worthy of your time if you like classic movies in general.
Cameron W. Johnson
Cameron W. Johnson

Super Reviewer

June 23, 2012
Poor ol' Atticus Finch had made it to color from black-and-white, and yet, his suit was still gray. Granted, "To Kill a Mockingbird" came out quite a bit after this film, but either way, the fact of the matter is Peck never got to escape that dreaded gray flannel. Well, at least he's not as bad trapped by a role as DeForest Kelley, who may have only had a bit part in this film, yet there's no way you can't look at him as an army medic and not scream in your head, "McCoy!" As if that's not bad enough, one of his only lines was, "This man's dead, Captain", so they may as well have just had the line be, "He's dead, Jim", and there's not even a person in the cast named Jim, which is weird, considering that everyone and their grandmothers were named James back then. Does anyone else love how I keep referencing things that came out well "after" this film as the roots of typecasts. Wow, this film didn't even make it a decade before it started to get dated to where you started seeing links to the relatively contemporary, so of course this film doesn't make it into the new world spotlessly. Well, luckily, it's still a good film, regardless of what time you're watching it in, and yet, even if the dated aspects were legitimate marks against the film on a general level, they would still remain among the least of the film's problems.

The story has more branches than a rainforest tree, and each one is promising, yet when it comes down to execution, the formula hurts the film about as much as it juices it, as the story structure and telling is hardly tight. There's a very large chunk early on in the film that deals with Peck's Tom Rath character having flashbacks of his time in WWII, with particular emphasis on a love affair that he had in Italy, and while that plot segment feels really crowbarred into the midst of the main story of a veteran Raph looking for work for the sake of his family, you're expecting them to come back and work on the war plot here and there throughout the film. In actuality, they just drop it on the spot, after spending way too much time and effort focusing on it over the main plot and while the film's unevenness rarely gets that severe, the fact of the matter is that the film will not simply spend too much time focusing on the branches of its story, with Fredric March even having a rather prominent, late-to-arrive subplot that's almost entirely irrelevant to the central Rath storyline, thus leaving the film uneven in focus, taking too long to tell the subplots, alone. To make matters worse, some of the various branches are quite different in dramatic tone than others, a fact made clear by the unevenness of the story focus. After a while, we grow too used to what tone is presented for too long, thus making the eventual tonal shifts jarring and the story as tonally uneven as structurally uneven. The project is with a strong premise and promising formula, yet both the storytelling and editing is so loose that the film is rendered too uneven to really lock you in all that thoroughly. However, on the whole, the film hits more than it misses when it comes to executing the promising premise, maybe not to where it really knocks you out, but certainly to where it rewards, particularly when it comes to sweep.

Now, this isn't quite a David Lean film, where plenty of things are bigger than they probably should be, as the film, even with its two-and-a-half hour runtime and grand story, doesn't stand as all that much of an epic. Still, it has occasions in which it does, in fact, incorporate epic sweep and recieves fine results, particularly during the, of course, incredibly brief, but still fairly nifty war sequences, which are grand and well-produced to make for some intense set pieces and supplements to the atmosphere. Again, Nunnally Johnson's structure and execution of the story is messy, so much so that it really takes a bit of life out of it and leaves its drama to lose some juice, yet never to where the film's intrigue runs dry. Certain dramatic moments are more impacting than others, yet on the whole Johnson manages to really draw from the atmosphere and intrigue of the story with a confidence and audacity that was impressive at the time, and remains engaging to this day, making for dramatic depth that really keeps this film going through all of its missteps. Still, Johnson is not the only person to thank for the film's engagement value, as credit also goes out to the performers, some of whom are better than others, yet almost all of whom impress to a certain degree, with the exception of the simply unbearable kids who are unpalatably obnoxious, and it doesn't help that they're written to have every despicable non-sense trait found in little brats. Outside of them, this the grown ups' show, and they don't let you forget it, with Greg Peck, in particular, really stepping up. Peck is as charismatic as he always was, yet incorporates some of that good old fashion subtle, yet touching emotional resonance that really defines the depth within the Tom Rath character and, by extension, the film itself, standing among the key aspects that really bring to life the compelling story, which may still be very much a mess, yet ultimately satisfies and makes for an ultimately worthy watch.

Overall, the film's focus is wildly uneven, picking up and dropping subplots - some of which are inconsistent in tone with other story branches within he film - left and right, thus drying the juice within the resonance and leaving the film periodically disengaging, as well as generally quite improvable, though rarely, if ever improvable from underwhelming, as the film is at least consistent in keeping what steam it does have in it pumping strongly, supported by the occasional bit of gripping sweep to compliment Nunnally Johnson's generally inspired emotional resonance, though not quite as much as the mostly strong performances, particularly that of a charismatic and compelling Gregory Peck who helps in making "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" an ultimately generally engrossing dramatic effort.

3/5 - Good
xxdebxx
xxdebxx

Super Reviewer

November 30, 2009
The film takes a serious look at how difficult it was for men to return to ordinary everyday life after the horror of the war. Gregory Peck accepts a new job with increased pay but added stress after much nagging from his wife who has big plans for their future. He is further tested when he realizes that an affair that took place during the war resulted in the birth of an illegitimate child. He is faced with the moral dilemma of telling his wife or hiding his indiscretion, which would ultimately wind up affecting his marriage. He wants to do the right thing, as the child is living in poverty. Ultimately the film enunciates the moral and emotional importance of honesty and its consequences. It's the writing and the messages of this film that stand out!! . I think the term"gray flannel suit" refer to corporate America where materialism was the order of the day.
Mike T

Super Reviewer

December 2, 2007
A spectacular social commentary that defines a time and place without fitting into the restriction of its artistic mold. Gregory Peck delivers a phenomenal everyman portrayal, and the story rings true even today. Fantastically acted all around, gorgeously shot and directed with a keen focus on detail.
TonyPolito
September 3, 2010
Dialogue-driven drama that studies the ethical plight of the 1950s organization man.

Peck has the mid-Century American Dream in his back pocket - a Harvard degree, distinguished WWII military service, a gorgeous wife in his idyllic home out in Connecticut and the keys to the executive washroom at a major television network.

But the Dream begins to unravel as he spends his time on the daily commuter train reliving the atrocities he saw - and committed - during the war. At the office, his choice is becoming the successful sycophant with the cushy chair and executive secretary - or taking the risk of doing good work toward real accomplishment.

To appease his wife, Peck may have to play the toady - and lie to her about his wartime past. Peck's a man come to his turning point, where he must decide which suit really fits best, morality or security.

The story does not play out as dramatically as it could, as the dialogue doesn't really have much bite to it - as compared to, say, "Executive Suite." Still, in its time, it was surely a good critical examination of what kind of dogs were stuffed into Manhattan wingtips.

RECOMMENDATION: For students of business or the era, worth a viewing.
jam233
March 7, 2010
85/100. Gregory peck excels as a man with insecurities that is being pushed by his ambitious wife, powerfully played by Jennifer Jones. His character is complex, and Peck handles the role beautifully. The supporting cast is exceptional, with Fredric March coming off best. Ann Harding and Arthur O'Connell also stand out. Well produced,especially the costume design. An excellent film.
dondi2538
March 5, 2007
Peck handled his business well in this movie. I loved the part where he told one of his superiors at his job off.
August 11, 2014
A masterpiece of adult themes. A classic of the times and for all time. Perfectly casted, and flawlessly acted and directed. A tight script that never fails to engage.
November 2, 2012
The characters, specifically Gregory Peck's lead, are likable but the film's general lack of significance plus an overtly long running time can only surface this films reputation for a film that doesn't place itself into a film that is trying enough to make itself useful. The removal of the flashback sequences might have improved the film's chances of sustainability but the overall attempt of showing sequences that make sense but don't create enough effect can only view this film as a bearable but relative disappointment.
Cameron W. Johnson
Cameron W. Johnson

Super Reviewer

June 23, 2012
Poor ol' Atticus Finch had made it to color from black-and-white, and yet, his suit was still gray. Granted, "To Kill a Mockingbird" came out quite a bit after this film, but either way, the fact of the matter is Peck never got to escape that dreaded gray flannel. Well, at least he's not as bad trapped by a role as DeForest Kelley, who may have only had a bit part in this film, yet there's no way you can't look at him as an army medic and not scream in your head, "McCoy!" As if that's not bad enough, one of his only lines was, "This man's dead, Captain", so they may as well have just had the line be, "He's dead, Jim", and there's not even a person in the cast named Jim, which is weird, considering that everyone and their grandmothers were named James back then. Does anyone else love how I keep referencing things that came out well "after" this film as the roots of typecasts. Wow, this film didn't even make it a decade before it started to get dated to where you started seeing links to the relatively contemporary, so of course this film doesn't make it into the new world spotlessly. Well, luckily, it's still a good film, regardless of what time you're watching it in, and yet, even if the dated aspects were legitimate marks against the film on a general level, they would still remain among the least of the film's problems.

The story has more branches than a rainforest tree, and each one is promising, yet when it comes down to execution, the formula hurts the film about as much as it juices it, as the story structure and telling is hardly tight. There's a very large chunk early on in the film that deals with Peck's Tom Rath character having flashbacks of his time in WWII, with particular emphasis on a love affair that he had in Italy, and while that plot segment feels really crowbarred into the midst of the main story of a veteran Raph looking for work for the sake of his family, you're expecting them to come back and work on the war plot here and there throughout the film. In actuality, they just drop it on the spot, after spending way too much time and effort focusing on it over the main plot and while the film's unevenness rarely gets that severe, the fact of the matter is that the film will not simply spend too much time focusing on the branches of its story, with Fredric March even having a rather prominent, late-to-arrive subplot that's almost entirely irrelevant to the central Rath storyline, thus leaving the film uneven in focus, taking too long to tell the subplots, alone. To make matters worse, some of the various branches are quite different in dramatic tone than others, a fact made clear by the unevenness of the story focus. After a while, we grow too used to what tone is presented for too long, thus making the eventual tonal shifts jarring and the story as tonally uneven as structurally uneven. The project is with a strong premise and promising formula, yet both the storytelling and editing is so loose that the film is rendered too uneven to really lock you in all that thoroughly. However, on the whole, the film hits more than it misses when it comes to executing the promising premise, maybe not to where it really knocks you out, but certainly to where it rewards, particularly when it comes to sweep.

Now, this isn't quite a David Lean film, where plenty of things are bigger than they probably should be, as the film, even with its two-and-a-half hour runtime and grand story, doesn't stand as all that much of an epic. Still, it has occasions in which it does, in fact, incorporate epic sweep and recieves fine results, particularly during the, of course, incredibly brief, but still fairly nifty war sequences, which are grand and well-produced to make for some intense set pieces and supplements to the atmosphere. Again, Nunnally Johnson's structure and execution of the story is messy, so much so that it really takes a bit of life out of it and leaves its drama to lose some juice, yet never to where the film's intrigue runs dry. Certain dramatic moments are more impacting than others, yet on the whole Johnson manages to really draw from the atmosphere and intrigue of the story with a confidence and audacity that was impressive at the time, and remains engaging to this day, making for dramatic depth that really keeps this film going through all of its missteps. Still, Johnson is not the only person to thank for the film's engagement value, as credit also goes out to the performers, some of whom are better than others, yet almost all of whom impress to a certain degree, with the exception of the simply unbearable kids who are unpalatably obnoxious, and it doesn't help that they're written to have every despicable non-sense trait found in little brats. Outside of them, this the grown ups' show, and they don't let you forget it, with Greg Peck, in particular, really stepping up. Peck is as charismatic as he always was, yet incorporates some of that good old fashion subtle, yet touching emotional resonance that really defines the depth within the Tom Rath character and, by extension, the film itself, standing among the key aspects that really bring to life the compelling story, which may still be very much a mess, yet ultimately satisfies and makes for an ultimately worthy watch.

Overall, the film's focus is wildly uneven, picking up and dropping subplots - some of which are inconsistent in tone with other story branches within he film - left and right, thus drying the juice within the resonance and leaving the film periodically disengaging, as well as generally quite improvable, though rarely, if ever improvable from underwhelming, as the film is at least consistent in keeping what steam it does have in it pumping strongly, supported by the occasional bit of gripping sweep to compliment Nunnally Johnson's generally inspired emotional resonance, though not quite as much as the mostly strong performances, particularly that of a charismatic and compelling Gregory Peck who helps in making "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" an ultimately generally engrossing dramatic effort.

3/5 - Good
gillianren
May 6, 2011
A Fine Piece of Work About Which There Is Not Much to Say

I have just, as I sat down to write this, started watching [i]Mad Men[/i]. It's set a few years later, which means that few of the executives in the show have the experiences the executives in the movie had. At the heart of this movie is what happened during World War II, ten years earlier. Gregory Peck was young enough and more importantly seemed young enough so that he'd still be a Leading Man for another decade or better, and I mean the kind of leading man who Gets the Girl. However, it was also recent enough so that you believe he was an officer during World War II. I think that generational difference was probably important, and I suspect it caused a lot of conflict as time went by. I don't know if I'd say that the world changed faster in those ten years than it ever had before, but I think possibly the changes have become more obvious with every recent decade. The life these characters lived permitted the one the characters in [i]Mad Men[/i] lead, and that would not have been comfortable.

Tom Rath (Peck) lives in Connecticut and works in The City, just like thousands of men leading similar lives. He has a young, pretty wife, Betsy (Jennifer Jones), and three kids (Portland Mason, Sandy Descher, and Mickey Maga). He makes seven thousand dollars a year, which works out to roughly fifty-six thousand today. He's applying for a new job, which will work out to about eighty thousand a year. In public relations. His grandmother died recently, but her estate turns out to be mostly worthless except for the house, which they may not be able to keep after all. He also had an experience in the war which he won't discuss with his wife. It's said that he was a lot more ambitious ten years ago, before he got back, and we certainly learn things about him that his wife did not know. It all comes back in the person of Sergeant Caesar Gardella (Keenan Wynn), who had been in his unit.

The problem I had with the movie was that it seemed to be doing too much. I was reasonably sure that Gregory Peck was headed for a nervous breakdown, because that was where the beginning of the movie seemed to be taking us, but nothing seemed to come of the trauma he experienced. It didn't really seem to have much to do with anything. I think the whole thing with Ralph Hopkins (Fredric March) and his daughter's elopement was to show the destructive effect too much work can have on a family, but it bothered me how much was shown from his perspective. The main character would have had no way of knowing what was going on, and it didn't really have anything to do with him anyway. Drinking with his boss at that pivotal moment probably improved his career, but that's about all there is to it. It's as though the movie (I haven't read the book) is trying to make at least three important points, and it gets too hung up in that to really even make one.

In fact, if I were to choose, I'd want a full movie out of the mental health plotline and one of the Italian plotline. Not mixed, mind. Separate movies. I find it intriguing that a man could go from the start of a case of PTSD to a normal life, only it turns out that it's a normal life wherein he has to write a speech which would get his boss a job as head of a commission in charge of mental health activism. Arguably, Tom Rath was ideally placed to advise his boss, but of course he could never mention that. Look how hesitant Betsy is when she has to mention the word "nerve" to him. And of course, there's no way a movie from 1956 would condemn that; movies today are ill inclined toward condemning that attitude. But taking someone like Gregory Peck and giving him that problem would have maybe meant people would have thought about it as a problem that real people have. Gregory Peck was the kind of man we could all take seriously. We trusted him and always would. He might have been the best chance for that kind of story.

And the Italian thing . . . okay. I don't want to give away spoilers on this, though of course after over fifty years, it's not as though you'd have no way of knowing what was going on. But I understand Tom's actions during the war. He really did think he was going to die. He grabbed onto life in the way people have been grabbing onto it as long as there have been people. He made a move he wouldn't have in any other circumstances, and he walked away. Was flown away by the US military. But what I really find interesting is how Betsy responds. She's angry, and she has a right to be. Her initial reactions all make perfect sense to me. What's interesting, though, is her final decision on what should happen. No, they don't exactly go spreading around to everyone what happened to Tom in Italy. Indeed, they're quite intentionally keeping quiet about it. But it's a marriage where they're willing to work through their problems, and for once, it's believable.
Monsieur Rick
March 16, 2010
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit is a sublime look into the lives of returning WWII war veterans. The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, by Sloan Wilson, is a novel published in 1955 about the American search for purpose in a world dominated by business.

Some get elevator jobs, like a fellow war veteran of Peck's, while Gregory Peck gets the good job as an executive writer at some million dollar company. So starts our film.

Men leave America, indeed men leave homes all over the world, to kill or be killed or at least be a part of the killing. Our lead actor, Gregory Peck, is just one of many who lands a great job in corporate position in New York City, at a mere $7000 a year (salary adjusted this would be more like 70,000 a year).

Gregory Peck, and his nagging, pushy wife Jennifer Jones get things going in this film with their modest home (which always dissatisfied Jones hates) in the suburbs. Peck is ok with the home, but Jennifer whines and harps on Peck about her dislike of the home and her desire for Peck to be more ambitious, a fighter she says, like the one she married. (this scene made me vomit)

Of course, Peck who knew and admits in the film he killed 17 people up close and personal and not from a distance, has a different view of the world. Jones was a stay at home girlfriend of Peck who didn't suffer more than a paper cut, but she has the audacity to tell Peck how to act and how to do things. The book, we are told in the special features (watch it if you can), never had her being so "bitchy".

As the film progresses, we detect a huge difference between home and office. This is what the film is all about. The corporate head played by Fred March is atypical in my opinion. I have met in my corporate life vice presidents and lower who were never this socialable or kind. Of course, our lead actor Peck gets favorable treatment because he reminds our corporate head of a son he lost in the war. This stands Peck in good order as he gets fired from his new position by his unfeeling boss, only to hang on because of the Fred March connection.

Family or success, this is the ultimate question. March bemoans giving up his family life for the role he now plays and advises Peck to not neglect his family. Peck later refuses to obey March because of his strained marriage. It seems he had a child back in the war years with a girl he truely loved. Of course, this is a problem the married Peck must face at some point with the never understanding Jones.

Jones keeps pushing the honesty line on Peck, but when Peck gives her a dose of honesty she goes nuts and wants to leave Peck. He lets his secret be known to her after a girl he left behind during the war needs funds to live in Italy. There is a boy, not sure if its his (how could it be? He only knew her for a few days and she admitted at the time to him that she was pregnant).

This is a very powerful film built on a best selling novel at the time. Its about memories, secrets, money, ambition and peace of mind. Due to Gregory Peck's impecable performance, a necessary addition to any film student's library.

Highly recommended, it has no special effects, no perversion, no nudity, no profanity. It does have some WWII scenes which are pretty graphic and intense. It is undoubtly slow paced for moviegoers today but uses Cinemascope to great effect.

Most likely because of the above it would not have succeeded in todays market...

NOTES about the film:

1 In the end, it is a story of taking responsibility for one's own life. The book by Wilson was largely autobiographical, drawing on Wilson's experiences as assistant director of the US National Citizen Commission for Public Schools.


2 The film was entered at the 1956 Cannes Film Festival.


3 Both movie and book became hugely popular. The novel continues to appear in the references of sociologists to America's discontented businessman.


4 The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit II appeared in 1984 - by the time of the sequel a decade has passed in the story-line.


5 In an episode of The Honeymooners, Ralph Kramden is startled when Ed Norton emerges from a manhole in full sewer worker gear. Norton replies, "Who did you expect, the man in the gray flannel suit?"

6 Starring as Bones in TV's Star Trek, DeForest Kelley appears in this movie as a medic in one of the war scenes. Appropriately, his lines generally consist of variations of "This man is dead".





Cast

Gregory Peck - Tom Rath
Jennifer Jones - Betsy Rath
Fredric March - Ralph Hopkins
Marisa Pavan - Maria Montagne
Lee J. Cobb - Judge Bernstein
Ann Harding - Helen Hopkins
Keenan Wynn - Sgt. Caesar Gardella
Gene Lockhart - Bill Hawthorne
Gigi Perreau - Susan Hopkins
Portland Mason - Janey Rath
Arthur O'Connell - Gordon Walker
Henry Daniell - Bill Ogden
Connie Gilchrist - Mrs. Manter
Joseph Sweeney - Edward M. Schultz
Sandy Descher - Barbara Rath


Directed by Nunnally Johnson
Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck
Written by Nunnally Johnson (screenplay)
Sloan Wilson (novel)

Music by Bernard Herrmann
Cinematography Charles G. Clarke
Editing by Dorothy Spencer

Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Release date(s) May 8, 1956
Running time 153 min.
January 10, 2011
I first saw this movie when I was a teenager and thought it was great art. Now, many years later, I see it as high camp. Some of the performances are way over the top, especially Jennifer Jones, who has one of the most embarrassing moments in her career as a shrill, materialistic suburban housewife. Her climactic scene in which she learns of her husbands earlier infidelity is laughable. Peck is stolid and boring so it is up to Frederic March, Ann Harding and Lee J Cobb to give some much needed class to this melodrama.
ZZZ
March 14, 2010
Both the movie and the novel were hugely popular in 1956 as this film depicted the post WWII everyman. Gregory Peck is at his best as a husband and father going through the daily ritual of work and life. Perception: The WWII flashbacks tighten up the story and add meaning and depth to this 1950's iconic character. This character is what is commonly referred to as "The Greatest Generation."
jazza923
March 7, 2010
85/100. Gregory Peck excels as a man with insecurities that is being pushed by his ambitious wife, powerfully played by Jennifer Jones. His character is complex, and Peck handles the role beautifully. The supporting cast is exceptional, with Fredric March coming off best. Ann Harding and Arthur O'Connell also stand out. Well produced,especially the costume design. An excellent film.
Michael H.
November 7, 2008
I truly believe that in this day and age more people need to revisit this movie as there are valuable lessons to be learned from it. One of my favorite movies to grace my DVD player.
Page 1 of 4
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile