Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Brian Kaufman I stumbled upon this film last night, thinking it would be fun to see another take on how women had to find socially acceptable means of having a child out of wedlock. Other great actresses have played these roles -- Ginger Rogers, Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis -- and they deliver wonderful performances. Not in this film, where the leads are just one-dimensional even when expressing conflicting emotions. The sets were lavish -- fanciful confections of style and so over-sized as to convey the opulence and grandeur of the privileged class of the sister heroines.The most memorable aspect of the film were the sumptuous yet hideous gowns and coats worn by the stars. Reminded me of Carol Burnett's spoof of Gone with the Wind where she has a gown made from the velvet draperies, and leaves the drapery rod in. Perhaps it was the juxtaposition of these angular, geometric, over-sized costumes against the backdrop of the Architectural Digest style sets made them even more laughable.

secondtake Her Sister's Secret (1946)An enchanting double-entendre title, and a slightly forced but still effective melodrama. The time is intense—World War II—and the desperation of lonely men and women leads to the crux of the plot, a child born out of wedlock.This only happens after some decent character development, mainly between the man, a charming average fellow played by Phillip Reed, and the woman, who is the main character, Toni, played by a charming Nancy Coleman. Neither actor is well known, and you might make a case for their plainness here. Both are convincingly normal people—not the glowing stars that live in someone else's universe.Because these regular folk are facing a pretty common problem, though one that was hushed up or swept up at the time, at least amidst the upper middle classes depicted here. The large twist is the immediate solution to the problem, a believable convenience in wartime. It leads to emotional conflicts and some heartwrenching decisions, and eventually to a crisis involving really good and well-meaning people.Such is a melodrama.The filming is typical amazing 1940s Hollywood, dramatic and silky. Cameraman Franz Planar has a huge resume of quite good but not stellar films, but I've seen a number of them recently and am impressed by a steady professional richness to them all (I'm thinking of "Bad for Each Other," an odd but beautiful Charlton Heston vehicle). This visual sense helps hold the film up as it rises and falls through the streets of Mardi Gras to house interiors. It's all rather enjoyable if never quite riveting and demanding.This movie might be forgettable if not for the cult favorite director, Edgar Ulmer. And it truly is his panache that lifts a B-movie to something worth watching. It lacks the dazzle of his famous movies like "The Black Cat," but it still has a slightly daring social twist for the time. Give it a go on a quiet night when you can get absorbed.

edwagreen The typical movie but nicely about a woman who takes her unmarried sister's child as her own when the latter becomes pregnant after a one night fling with a soldier. Of course, the letter he sent her to explain that his leave had been canceled goes astray.Nancy Coleman as the unmarried lady and Margaret Lindsay, as the sister, play their roles to the hilt. We have guilt, promises broken and an adorable little boy.The atmosphere of the film is a good one as it begins at Mardi Gras time in New Orleans. When I first saw the film and what was taking place, I thought I was headed to the tear-jerker, "My Foolish Heart." Yes, the sisters may have been foolish in what they decided to do, but don't we do things as a sacrifice to children? The story ends on that note.

tsmith417 This film was shown on TCM the other night and before it started there was Robert Osborne, lauding the talents of the director and saying what a great movie it was.I don't know what Mr. Osborne uses as his criteria for a great movie, but it sure ain't the same as mine.The acting was wooden. Everyone just stood there and spoke their lines at each other, not necessarily to each other. I've seen more emotion displayed by a marionette. The editing was choppy. In one scene the girl and boy are riding in a hansom cab and they're seated one way, in the next frame they've switched places, and then they go back to the first way.The sound quality was poor.I apologize to the reviewer who said he was so happy to have played the part of the child, but he was not that good and seemed to not even know what was going on most of the time he was on-screen.The story is an old one: an unmarried girl gets pregnant the first time she has sex, the father of the child disappears from her life so she goes away for 9 months and her sister/friend/mother tells everyone the child is hers, and the girl spends the rest of her life regretting her decision.The story was done much better by Bette Davis in both "The Old Maid" (where she plays the unwed mother) and "The Great Lie" (where she plays the one who adopts the child as her own). Don't listen to Robert Osborne and don't waste your time on this mess of a movie.