Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Arthur Freed. An M-G-M Picture copyright 25 May 1949 by Loew's Inc. Released 15 July 1949 in U.S.A.; 5 December 1949 in U.K. New York opening at the Capitol: 30 June 1949. Australian release: 1 December 1949. 9,349 feet. 103 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A clean casino operator is beset by both an ungrateful family and too-grateful friends. NOTES: M-G-M production number: 1444. Shooting commenced 4 January 1949 and wound up 26 April 1949 with a few re-takes on 5 May 1949. Negative cost: $1,465,641 (including $50,000 to 20th Century-Fox who owned the screen rights to Heth's 1945 novel; $29,167 in salary to screenwriter Richard Brooks; $68,100 in fees to director Mervyn LeRoy; and $241,250 contractual payments to Clark Gable). Initial worldwide rentals gross: $3,205,000. PRINCIPAL PROBLEM: Gable disappoints. COMMENT: An extremely popular film in foreign parts, where Gable still had a very large 1950 following. Mind you, I suspect many audiences found the movie disappointing. Too much talk and too little action. And a distinct lack of budget largesse. Just under $1½ million sounds more than adequate until you examine the details. Close to $1 million gone on payments to cast and crew, doesn't leave much room for gloss after deducting studio overheads. The film opens in an admirable fashion with a wide diversity of camera angles and camera set-ups edited at a smart pace. The screenplay very skillfully and subtly imparts needed information. But later on, the script bogs down in some very tiresome domestic passages - and there is some unconvincing acting here from young Darryl Hickman. Against this, there are engrossing character portrayals by Stone, Morgan, Corey, Rober and Conrad, whom Brooks provides with some first-class dialogue. Gable's acting is efficient, but he does not make as much of the role as we would expect. Atmospheric photography and appropriately drab and realistic sets are major assets.

JLRMovieReviews Clark Gable is a casino owner who has tried to give all he can to his wife and son, but maybe all they needed was his time. Alexis Smith and Dwayne Hickman is his wife and son, and the movie is peppered with great supporting actors like Frank Morgan, Wendell Corey, Mary Astor and Marjorie Rambeau. The film begins rather slow, but is rewarding to those who like character studies and get into family dynamics. This seems to be the type of film that doesn't rely so much on active plot but on the way the characters relate to each other, which in some ways, puts it ahead of its time. While others may find fault with the film and I do admit it has its faults, I thoroughly enjoyed it and appreciated what it was trying to convey, that in life we have to give a second chance not only to others but also to ourselves. A new beginning is always the best perspective. Watch Any Number Can Play and see what you get out of it.

dkjj77 Well worth watching, especially for the star turn by veteran Lewis Stone as the struggling Ben Snelerr. A consummate lesson in reacting instead of "acting." Brilliant.Some other great performances from a top cast including the ubiquitous and larger than life Frank Morgan, Wendell Corey, Alexis Smith and Mary Astor, although Darryl Hickman as Gable's estranged son Paul tends to chew the scenery. Addresses the thorny issue of gambling and its social impact, especially upon families. Stylishly directed by Mervyn LeRoy, capturing the end of the 1940's with still a lot of film noir touches. Roll the dice and enjoy it.

MartinHafer I like that Clark Gable plays the logical extension of the characters he so often played in the 1930s and 40s. So often he played the likable rogue who made his living just skirting the border between good and evil--playing gamblers, mercenaries or con-men. However, in each film you almost never see what this same character would have been like had the film followed him into mid-life. Well, ANY NUMBER CAN PLAY is such a film. Gable plays an older rogue who owns a gambling house but also has a wife and older son. And, instead of being firmly in control of his life, you can see it slowly crumbling--at least around the edges. This role took some guts to play as he was more vulnerable and Gable COULD have just continued playing "fluff roles". Give it a try and see an adult drama.