ShangLuda
Admirable film.
Roman Sampson
One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
JohnHowardReid
Producer: Jerry Wald. Copyright 25 March 1950 by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. (sic). New York opening at the Strand: 10 March 1950. U.S. release: 25 March 1950. U.K. release: 31 July 1950. Australian release (shortened to 78 minutes): 8 November 1951. 7,919 feet. 88 minutes.U.K. and Australian release title: TOO DANGEROUS TO LOVE.NOTES: Ladies and Gentlemen opened on Broadway at the Martin Beck on 17 October 1939 and ran 105 performances. Helen Hayes and Philip Merivale starred, whilst Robert Keith, Evelyn Varden and Connie Gilchrist figured in the support cast. Gilbert Miller produced, Charles MacArthur and Lewis Allen directed.The film's semi-documentary opening was cut from the Australian release version and is often omitted by TV broadcasters.COMMENT: Perfect Strangers has a good idea back of it but unfortunately fails to live up to expectations. It commences promisingly in semi-documentary fashion showing the fascinating process by which jurors are selected and all goes interestingly enough (with good use of real locations) until the jury is locked up and we discover that they are not as appealingly well-rounded or cleverly diverse a crowd as we would wish. In fact, to a man (and a woman) they are caricatures - and rather dull caricatures at that. Admittedly the players do their best, but there is a sense of strain and artificiality about their endeavors. Fortunately, Windust keeps the film moving briskly enough (except for the wearisomely long tete-a-tete right at the conclusion) and it is so superbly photographed it is always a pleasure to look at, even when most tiring to listen to. Miss Rogers is good to look at too, even when she wears her hair in an unbecoming upswept style. It's a pity she wasn't given a more personable co-star than Mr Morgan, though aside from his unconvincing speeches at the conclusion, he is adequate. The support players try hard (perhaps too hard) to make an impression, with Margalo Gillmore taking the honors in a line-up that we feel the casting director could have improved if he'd tried a little harder. The film editor too could have improved the movie with just five or ten minutes of judicious trimming. It's a pity that Windust didn't put the same attention into his script and his players as he does into attractive framing and pacey camera movements (still a fluid camera is one way to keep a story moving). In all, certainly disappointing, but by no means a write-off. All the same, odd to see Hecht and MacArthur's name associated with such a bland offering, which completely lacks the sharp, bitingly caustic, frantically witty dialogue, the mordantly observed characters and fast, satiric plot of The Front Page.OTHER VIEWS: A long review in The Monthly Film Bulletin commends the script's presentation of intellectual arguments on both the trial and the social issues of divorce, as well as its realistic depiction of court proceedings. Technically, however, the critic feels the film is a photographed stage play, with Morgan and Rogers dominating the screen.
vert001
If you have a deep interest in how they picked juries in Los Angeles County around the year 1950, this is the movie for you. It begins with a couple of pre-credit shots (a rarity for Hollywood at the time) of the process and goes on its tiresome way for almost a third of the film. We are also introduced to our not very interesting jurors, who will spend most of their time talking about the case when they've been instructed not to and fighting with one another over nothing very much. Oh, and our two stars, Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan, fall in love for no particular reason. The murder case seems a distant afterthought for all involved.Eventually there is a lame parallel drawn between the proto-adulterous relationship of Rogers and Morgan with the adulterous (or was that, too, still in the potential stage?) affair between the accused and his other woman, the wife being the victim. Doubling down, a more direct parallel is established between the final holdout juror and the accused murderer. If I hadn't been on a Ginger Rogers kick I'd never have made it that far. This may not be her worst film, but I do believe that it is the most tedious. The most interesting thing about it is probably the location footage of Los Angeles that occasionally graces the proceedings. 3/10.
LeonLouisRicci
A not very interesting Movie that attempts to give some clue as to the behind the scenes interactions among a Sequestered Jury. Like a Civics Lesson this is as dry as a Depositiion and only of interest to Ginger Roger's completest. The Murder Trial is hardly on Screen limiting the depth needed to give some urgency to the Jurors Private Arguments as they contemplate a Verdict. The typical Romance that blossoms and the Pitter-Patter and Petty Conflicts among The Twelve have about as much appeal as a Boxed Lunch.This could not be called Awful because it isn't, but it barely maintains interest and is a rather Lame Movie that is an Unremarkable Misfire that never comes to Life and remains in a Coma for most of the Running Time, its Duty unfulfilled.
MartinHafer
This film is about a group of jurors who are sequestered during an important case. In the process, two of them (Dennis Morgan and Ginger Rogers) quickly fall in love--even though Morgan is still married! This illicit relationship is meant as a parallel to the murder trial, as the defendant was having an affair when his wife was murdered--making him the prime suspect. Aside from these two actors, Thelma Ritter and Alan Reed (the voice of Fred Flintstone) are on the jury. Also, one of the witnesses in the trial is a young Frank Cady ('Sam Drucker' from "Green Acres")--who is apparently alive and well even today.Aside from the Morgan-Rogers angle, the film is essentially a less tense nor as well acted film in the vein of "12 Angry Men". For example, a lady in the jury is projecting her hatred of her ex-husband onto the defendant--much like Lee J. Cobb directed his anger at his son on the defendant in "12 Angry Men". Overall, it's good, but nothing like "12 Angry Men" in quality and the affair angle seems to get in the way and was rather unnecessary--as well as a bit sappy--especially at the end. A decent time-passer but it just doesn't hit the mark.
