One thing the campy reviewer above forgot to mention was the lush score of Elmer Bernstein. Very very memorable themes, beautifully scored... tying everything together... and haunting long after the movie is over...It's a shame this film cannot be seen today on the networks... Too tame by today's standards... but representative of solid storytelling, and fine drama... never possible to be replaced by today's synthesized orchestras, computer drawn scenery, and wannabe character actors...It's also a testament to an era when big name movie stars existed - something you don't have today. Those stars are from an era gone by, and never to be repeated - thanks to our interfering government breaking up the Hollywood system!!!Today's here-today-gone-tomorrow stars just don't have it!

The question this film asks is how can a great director such as John Sturges ("Bad Day at Black Rock", "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", "The Magnificent Seven", "The Great Escape", and "Ice Station Zebra") turn around and make such a lousy film? And a secondary question is how a star as big is Lana Turner, during a particularly productive period in her career ("Peyton Place", "Imitation Of Life", "Portrait In Black", and "Madam X") get sucked into such a film, particularly one where she gets relatively little screen time.I rarely notice goofs in movies, but I sure did in this one. In a very early scene, Efrem Zimbalist tells his secretary that his wife will be home from the hospital that day. 5 minutes later he tells someone else a day or two.Oddly enough, this is a movie with an unusually strong cast. The best acting in the film -- though she got relatively low billing -- was by Barbara Belgeddes as Zimbalist's wife; she brings the scenes she is in to life. The billed star of the film is Lana Turner, who does have some good scenes, although not as much screen time as one might expect. I always liked Efrem Zimbalist Jr., although here he was criticized as being wooden...although that's sort of what the character called for, so was it him or the direction; I'm not sure. I was surprised and disappointed in Jason Robards' role here as Turner's husband; I'll excuse his undistinguished acting here by pointing out that this was only his second film. George Hamilton was very stiff here, and how he got started in movies, I'll never know. Susan Kohner, as the ward of Thomas Mitchell was not particularly good in this film, although she was in another collaboration with Turner -- "Imitation Of Life". I had a lot of sympathy for Thomas Mitchell in this film...he portrays a lawyer that is getting to old to continue...and it was about this time that Mitchell was diagnosed with the cancer which killed him about a year later; nevertheless, a fine performance. You'll see Carroll O'Connor in a small role as a policeman.There is an issue with this film. There's another film -- which I can't place at this time -- that is from the same era that uses an almost identical subplot -- an older lawyer who is shifting funds around to cover one account or another as a result of his own financial misfortune earlier in life. I can't remember the name of the other film or whether it was before or after this one, although I do recall that it was in black and white. One film or the other stole the plot line...it's simply too close.So, whose fault is it that this film seemingly lurches from one scene to another and never realizes its potential. I have to place the blame squarely at the feet of the director -- John Sturges. It's odd...his previous film had been "The Magnificent Seven"...a very successful film, and now a classic. Ah well...no one can win them all.Should you watch it. Well, it has its moments. If you like any of the actors, the watch it. If not, pass it by.

I hated this movie! That's strong words, seeing that I am a Lana Turner fan. This is total soap opera, and very bad at that. The Young & The Restless could out-act, out-write this movie any day. Its just a total disaster. There was nothing that drew me into any of the characters to make me feel anything for any of them. Except for maybe the old man lawyer, played by Thomas Mitchell (Gerald O'Hara in GONE WITH THE WIND, and Uncle Bailey in ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE).I mean there are some big name actors in this debacle : besides Lana, there's Efren Zimbalist, Jr., Jason Robarbs, George Hamilton, Barbara Bel Geddes, and Carol O'Connor to name a few. But the script is just a sorry excuse for screen writing. I could try to point out some of the most inane plot points, but there are so many, I don't know where to start. And the cinematography was awful as well. Yes there was some gorgeous sets, homes, lawns, etc. But the camera work was very static, flat and uninteresting. Most of the shots were long ones with very little close-ups. There's nothing fluid or enticing visually at all.Even though there aren't any redeeming qualities to this movie, I thought I could at least count on Lana looking gorgeous to keep me interested. But her haircut was horrible, looking boyish and butch instead of glamorous. Even her wardrobe did nothing but look ill-fitting and unflattering.I think the only thing this film accomplished was approximating the work of an anesthesiologist - ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

James Gould Couzzens wrote one novel that was almost great-Guard of Honor-and a lot of melodramatic junk that was wildly over praised at the time of publication.The ne plus ultra of his Literary artlessness was undoubtedly By Love Possessed. When it was published, it was a wildly praised best -seller. The only dissents came from Dwight McDonald, who wrote a hilarious assault on the book called "By Couzzens Possessed", and William F.Buckley, Jr. who took a page and a half to sink it beneath the waves in his National Review. Of course, like all melodramatic best sellers, it eventually had to be made into a Hollywood film. Unfortunatly, the only Hollywood directors capable of making it into a good movie were Sirk (and maybe, just maybe, Preminger).Sirk, in fact, with his exquisitely controlled irony, and his insight into American manners and mores would have produced a chilly, superbly calibrated, yet compassionate melodrama, comparable to All that Heaven Allows, Written on The Wind, or Imitation of Life. Unfortunatly, Sirk had fled Hollywood, and Preminger was busy making Advise and Consent. So the decadent Hollywood system in its "genius' gave it John Sturges. Result, a movie that looks like a Sirk film( thanks to Russell Metty), sounds like a Sirk film, and has the cast and plot of a Sirk film..but isnt a Sirk film. Result..bloated, turgid melodrama, without a drop of genuine wit, irony, compassion , or human insight. Well, maybe Couzzens deserved it