A sportswriter (Gregory Peck) and a fashion-designer (Lauren Bacall) marry after a whirlwind romance, and discover they have little in common.Lauren Bacall was dealing with husband Humphrey Bogart's eventually-fatal illness during the shooting. According to her autobiography, she took the role (which was originally intended for Grace Kelly) in order to avoid her home situation, but in interviews she said that this film was among her favorites, and that she desperately wanted the part, even accepting a lower salary.Now, whatever the reason, I think Bacall is right for the part. I am not a big Bacall fan, as she reminds me of Katharine Hepburn, of whom I am also not a fan. But that attitude tends to work here, because she is not supposed to be lovable -- these are two opposing personalities coming to a head! What also helps is the boxing / mob undercurrent. Although not a major part of the plot, the film gets a little more interesting when a few rough guys show up and threaten Peck directly (while being nicely dressed). You are not quite sure what direction things will go from there...

This one may not be for everyone but for me, a fan of old Hollywood style who enjoys a clever script delivered by voices with the timbre of Peck and Bacall, some boxing and musical theatre scenes and references, allusions that require a knowledge of cultural mores - hang on this film was made for adults! I do not find the film slow because I don't need something "happening" every two minutes. I tend not to enjoy serve-volley comedy that much. I enjoy character driven comedy that takes a bit of time to develop so that the line or action is funny only because it is that particular character who delivers them.If you see it for nothing else, the scene in which Peck takes Bacall to the fights is one of the funniest ever staged.

The best thing about this film may very well be the performance of Gregory Peck...because it is so unlike the typical Gregory Peck role or performance. While watching the film I kept seeing Cary Grant in the role, only to find out that Grant had turned down the role (as had Jimmy Stewart).I wondered why I had always unconsciously avoided this film...probably because I'm not a particular fan of Lauren Bacall...at least in her post-1940s films. But I must say that Bacall is wonderful in the role.So you have two wonderful star performances, not to mention a top-notch script. What could wrong. Pretty much nothing. I did find the film just a tad bit slow early on, but it built nicely.The supporting cast does nicely here, as well. It's not that anyone stands out, but they all do their jobs well. I was not familiar with Dolores Gray, here as the "other woman"; great for this part; not sure how she would fare generally...and she had a pretty sparse career in front of the camera (she did sing Marilyn Monroe's part in "There's No Business Like Show Business"). Sam Levene may be just a tad over-the-top as Peck's editor, but it's funny. I always enjoy seeing Tom Helmore, here as the "other man"; he does well with his suave manner. Mickey Shaughnessy is priceless as a punch-drunk ex-boxer friend of Peck's. Jesse White as a squealer is pretty good. Edward Platt (later the Chief in "Get Smart" does fine as a crooked boxing promoter. Chuck Connors...well, thankfully it was a small role. Interestingly, 3 actors were uncredited -- Richard Deacon, Dean Jones, and Sid Melton.This climax is unique...and funny...and finally explains why Jack Cole's role as a choreographer (which he really was) is so key to the script.This is a top-notch comedy, and a real treat for Gregory Peck fans. Give it a watch! Highly recommended.

Designing Woman (1957)I continue to disappoint my own optimism about movies from this period--that decade between the real end of the Old Hollywood and the real start of the New. (Let's say the nether zone of 1956 to 1965). But seeing a movie like "Designing Woman" is a chance to see what exactly these movie makers were up to. After all, the actors, directors, photographers, and writers were the same, almost to the letter, as ten years earlier. They were not idiots or failures in any sense. So...What has happened here to my eye has to do with style, an intentional shift to a very glossy, very false, very stylized kind of late 1950s mise-en-scene. Sometimes (in other movies) this rises above. Hitchcock's late 50s films come to mind. And exceptions for particular subsets of the audience exist (and blossom) like the Doris Day films and other period comedies. Some dramas that really still have resonance like "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "Charade" also show the slick detachment of the movie machinery working out well, though with affectations, too.So, here's director Vincente Minnelli, who directed the remarkable 1951 romantic critique of the end of Old Hollywood, "The Bad and the Beautiful." And here are the two towering leads. Lauren Bacall is of course a legend linked first of Bogart, and to hard core Old Hollywood dramas. And Gregory Peck is better known for more serious movies like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Cape Fear." Even the great cinematographer John Alton has a resume a mile long. The writer, I admit, is less known, and the story here is thin, for sure, but he won an academy award for it, which shows how time changes perceptions. But, in all, the larger artistic intentions of the writer and director really bring a cool, dry dullness. It's a revelation to see it for what it is.It's almost like the director and producer know this isn't going to be a serious movie no matter what, that it can't be. Even the gruesome boxing match turns into a lighthearted repartee, and the glitzy high society stuff is generic and oddly lifeless (Billy Wilder does this material better, for example). And be warned, the format is itself uninvolving, with key parts switching to a simple voice-over, explaining what was happening, but not in a moody film noir way, just information.Is it worthless? Of course not. The scenes are often very complicated visually, with a huge array of extras. The filming really is gorgeous, though more static than it needs to be. There is dancing shoehorned into the plot (though both dancers are fairly dull as people, try as they do). There is a classic kind of clash of cultures that is meant to be the set-up for all the gags, Bacall the rich pampered woman of culture and Peck the working class sportswriter. Ugh, so the timing is off, the jokes flat, and the progress utterly slow. All these high production values are disposable. I hate the fact that I love all these people and thought the movie a dud. See for yourself.