Pluskylang Great Film overall

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

AaronCapenBanner Vincent Sherman directed this long but interesting drama that stars Paul Newman as Anthony Judson Lawrence, an ambitious young man in Philadelphia society who rises from construction foreman to law school student with a good offer of employment that is interrupted by the Korean War, which sees Tony distinguish himself even more. After his discharge, he resumes his successful career, finding love along the way. There is a sad development when old friend(and fellow war veteran) 'Chet'(played by Robert Vaughn) has fallen on hard times, now an alcoholic accused of murder, and wanting Anthony to defend him, despite his inexperience... Despite the potential simple soap opera story, this is a well acted and written film that is surprisingly interesting. Glossy but entertaining.

moonspinner55 Awfully corny melodrama adapted from Richard Powell's book has Paul Newman turning from crafty tax-attorney into hot-shot trial lawyer, defending buddy Robert Vaughn on a murder rap. It's rather incredible this passed muster in 1959--it looks like an episode from TV's "Playhouse 90", what with cheap sets, ugly designs and a stilted direction from veteran Vincent Sherman. Terrific players (including Barbara Rush, Diane Brewster and, in a disappointingly brief role, Brian Keith) help compensate for the dreariness, though some of the dialogue has a little snap. Best performance is turned in by a cunning Alexis Smith, doing solid work as a tycoon's wife who has her eyes set on Paul. ** from ****

Robert J. Maxwell Richard Powell, on whose novel this movie is based, certainly knew his Philadelphia in the early 20th century. It was tradition bound in the sense that some coastlines are iron bound. And everything that deviated from that tradition was kept under cover because it was a quiet city. No scandals, no engaging corruption, no roguishness. You have to read E. Digby Baltzell's "Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia" to understand the historical roots of this self-effacing character. Powell got the education part right too. The elite of Philadelphia send their sons to Princeton. If the kids go into a profession, like law, medicine, or finance, they revert to the University of Pennsylvania, which happens to have the best professional schools in the business. Those traditions seem to be dying now. The Main Line mansions that once housed people of class like Grace Kelly are now owned by basketball players and people of that ilk. Watching this movie is like looking into a time capsule.The film gets that part right, and that's about it. Otherwise it resembles any other sprawling trans-generational epic story in which people make mistakes then after many travails find themselves again. Family secrets, idealists turned cynics, bastardy, money, social class, love, rebellion, marrying the wrong person, multiple subplots, chicanery, other assorted familiar mishigas -- it's all here.I mentioned that the movie was like something that ought to be in a time capsule and that's true in more ways than one. Everything we see on the screen is old fashioned. The direction by Vincent Sherman has no pizazz whatever, not a nod in the direction of modernity. Staging is strictly functional in the sense that nobody gets in front of anybody else, and when a reaction shot is called for the editor lingers on the face for a few extra seconds to make sure we get the point. The photography is high key and has lots of fill and comes out flat. (In stark, and even welcome contrast to many of today's films in which even hospital operating rooms are in deep shadow except for the actors' faces and the hole they are bent over and peering into.) Everything seems to be shot indoors on a sound stage with perfunctory furniture and accessories. The makeup turns a pseudo-elderly Brian Keith Irishman into a caricature of Boss Tweed. The wardrobe completely lacks either realism or originality. (A butler appears on the witness stand -- dressed in his butler suit. Barbara Rush is decked out, in all seriousness, in a turban -- in 1959! I am anything but an expert on haute couture but turbans belong on Gale Sondergaard in a 1944 Sherlock Holmes movie.) Despite all the dialog about cash and custom, there is no sense of place. The story might have taken place in almost any big city and might have been shot at any time between 1935 and 1950.As for the performers, Paul Newman doesn't do a bad job but neither is there any Paul-Newmanness in his acting. He looks at the floor, hits his mark, speaks his piece, and is done. The people who come out of this the best are perhaps Otto Kruger, an old smoothie himself who has been through this sort of thing many times before, and Robert Vaughan in a juicy supporting role. John Williams, in his umpeenth role as a lawyer or investigator of some kind, also comes out ahead.There are a couple of scenes, though, that stick in the mind. Alexis Smith, no longer a spring lamb, looks yummy and when she is consumed by horniness and tries to crawl into Paul Newman's bed at night he weasels out of the complicated business in such a way as to leave her breathless with gratitude.Newman's explanations to the dotty Billie Burke about how she can easily avoid paying taxes on some stock she owns and some charitable contributions she makes was, I thought, quite instructive. If it left me saddened, and it did, it was only because I am so poor I don't pay any taxes and so those kinds of shenanigans were of no more than intellectual value to me.There's a short courtroom scene (only one witness: the snooty butler) that wraps everything up neatly and resolves all problems. It's hardly gripping, although the stakes are high. If you're in the mood for this kind of film, it ought to be satisfying enough, but I wound up with a sense of despair at all the opportunities that were simply thrown away because no one seemed to be paying attention.

tedr0113 2/3 of this movie is very good. Nothing profound but enjoyable in much the same way as the also-Newman starring "From The Terrace". Especially enjoyable is the always enjoyable Billie Burke (if you haven't seen it, catch the marvelous "The Young In Heart"). Then...it devolves into a pedestrian court room drama. The ending is never in doubt and just getting there is a slow slog. This is no slight on Richard Deacon, who does well with his role as a fussy butler. There just isn't enough interest in what happens. The key plot point on whether Newman will do something to endanger his career is just diluted to the point of indifference. The movie simply needed a better ending. Otherwise, there's nothing offensive here and nothing to tax the brain. Amongst the cast, John Williams stands out in my eyes. Robert Vaughn got the Oscar nomination for one chew-the-scenery scene that left me unmoved. So, I'd skip this one and stick with "Terrace"