Indiscreet (1958)

hyped garbage

best movie i've ever seen.

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.

The acting in this movie is really good.

*PRBLY CONTAINS SPOILERS*I love movie's from decades past as much as I love modern movies. So whenever I recognize at least one actors' name and find the plot interesting I'll watch; that's what happened with this film. At first I had to hit the info button to see what genre this was; I was initially surprised by the comedy categorization. But after awhile I did notice a number of funny parts. Some of my favorites included: Ingrid's scream when she hears Grant's not single was so funny. Grant's giddy attitude and dancing at the ball, he looked so jovial and adorable although I did chuckle when he slips while he's jumping around. Bergman's line of "I need a man" then the help asks "Do u need someone to lift something?" had me laughing so hard that entire scene. But by far my favorite part of the movie is Carl steps out then back into the bedroom, pretending to be the other man it was such a minute moment, almost immature, but I had to rewind back like 5 times, it was SO HILARIOUS had me laughing uncontrollably.

I read several previous reviews and agree with everything they say about this film being very entertaining, gorgeous leading protagonists, etc.Fine.Once a friend of mine said to me "I'm OK with watching a film tonight, but PLEASE, don't make me watch an OLD film!!!". Watching this one made me recall that friend's plea, and understand it too. 1958 was the date in this case, and when you get to see the hypocritical social conventions those people lived --and dyed-- for, one trembles at the idea of conducting such type of living conditions...The woman over twenty five, our leading lady (Bergman was 42 when she made this movie, but she represented 30, jaw-dropping beautiful) was constantly looking --and starting to get desperate-- for a... HUSBAND, because apparently to be single was one of the original Capital Sins at the time.IF she found a candidate, it was verboten for her to be the one making overt declarations of love, even of amorous interest!In this case she had a younger sister (Phyllis Calvert, born the same year Ingrid Bergman was born, and looking quite stunning herself) a sister that was more level headed but brainwashed also with all the prejudices of those days, that tried all the time to find a candidate for her unlucky sister (unlucky because she was getting on in years and wasn't married yet), creating some mildly funny dialogs.Cary Grant's character suffered a similar persecution (it WAS a veritable, obsessive persecution at the time) from people asking him WHY wasn't he MARRIED and with children at HIS AGE... (he looked older than Bergman but was exceedingly handsome and incredibly elegant).A fascinating detail of upper-crust luxury living we'll never experience was in that night scene where from the moment they leave the theater and start walking fully in love with each other and her chauffeured personal Rolls Royce --black and white-- silently and slowly keeps pace with them at their disposition whenever they could decide to stop walking...Wow!! (They arrived at her place walking all the way from the theater (she was a famous actress), totally oblivious of the Rolls, that stops silently in front of her building, its chauffeur waiting for new orders). ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** Since we discovered that Grant's character had the nerve to coldly lay out his theory of enjoying women without the responsibility of marriage and children suffocating his bachelor freedom, invents a wife impossible to divorce as a pretext to always escape any uncomfortable situations (why he cannot get a divorce, is never explained in the script) poor Bergman would be socially ostracized because they... HAD SEX!!! (not on the screen please, one only gathered that by seeing a softly closing door (bedroom door) with both of them behind it) and that scene dimming down to black, probably to allow you to recover your breath after watching such salacious and daring situation.And since the male star protagonist of this kind of movies couldn't possibly end the film as a total villain (enjoying women without..., etc, etc.), everything is finally explained and they get happily married!! Isn't that nice? Wow! and I watched the whole concoction to the bitter end!!! (I was forced to, since a friend asked me very politely to watch this movie that previously he enjoyed immensely).Yes, it was superbly played by everybody involved in the film, the sets were gorgeous, the women dresses were out of this world, everybody's manners SUPERB (from that point of view one aches to return to those gone with the wind days) but otherwise, compared with practically ANY contemporary movie... it's just another Doris Day movie, but with Ingrid Bergman replacing her.One thing that stroke me from the very opening scene was the close up of those magnificent roses... being ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS!!! Same in another scene where he sends her a bouquet of flowers and they are again ARTIFICIAL!!!Why? they worked with a superb budget, certainly could afford two dozen of beautiful REAL roses. I could only understand such a situation in the Latin American movies of the time, where we were accustomed to these type of faux pas as part of very-very low budget movie making, but unpardonable in a De Luxe Hollywood product.Like in a Puerto Rican film with the Argentinian Libertad Leblanc as protagonist where she wears a sleeveless polyester déshabillé with the price ticket dangling from the gown's armhole!! (did they snatched it at a basement sale?!), leans over to smell the bouquet of flowers sent her by an admirer... and the flowers are...PLASTIC!! (it was a serious crime-drama film) we felt down from our seats screaming with laugher in utter delight!! Basta! watch this movie for the beautiful people involved, the beautiful sets and even the beautiful fake flowers, but forget about real life situations because you won't find that here.

You call this romantic comedy? What a farce. Cary Grant, a known womanizer plays a NATO Representative who meets the sister-in-law of a fellow diplomat. Ingrid Bergman is that woman and in the movie she portrays a well-known theatrical actress.The two fall for each other quickly, but Grant is married and supposedly cannot get a divorce. Remember I said the word supposedly.When the Bergman character learns the truth she plots to fix Adams (Grant) but good, but that plot falls apart as well as the picture.This story could have been told in about 20 minutes. Probably, the best part of the movie is when Bergman and Grant participate in a Scottish dance. Grant really kicks up his heels. Bergman is no slouch either, but her silly way to get even is just inane.

Out of Warner Brothers, Indiscreet is directed by Stanley Donen and stars Ingrid Bergman & Cary Grant, with support coming from Cecil Parker, Phyllis Calvert, David Kossoff & Megs Jenkins. It is based on the play "Kind Sir" written by Norman Krasna. Plot sees Bergman as Anna Kalman, an accomplished actress who can't believe her luck when she finally meets the man of her dreams, Philip Adams (Grant). However, Phillip is keeping a secret, a secret that Anna finds out about and promptly sets about getting even with him for.Indiscreet is a very simple movie. Grant and Bergman re-team again 12 years after making Notorious with Alfred Hitchcock. Their chemistry is again sparkling and Donen utilises it to the maximum by naturally building the film around the charismatic stars. There's no hidden agendas here, the movie knows it is breezy and understands that good writing (edgy at times) and two comfortable actors can make for good entertainment. It starts off slow, but the character build up pays off once Grant & Bergman start their romance, in fact the comedy is indeed thin on the ground for the first half of the film. But once the secret at the core of the plot is out, the comedy kicks into gear, with a dancing party sequence joyous and alone is worth watching the film for.Also note worthy is the London location which provides a fitting back drop to the well mannered, well to do, coupling of Anna & Phillip. While the costumes too are pleasing and hang nicely off of the two aesthetically safe-in middle-age actors. It's no screwball, far from it, so any expectation of that will surely disappoint newcomers. And true to say it's very old fashioned and of its time as regards its romantic ideals. But that's OK, we like light hearted well written comedy, especially when it's performed as smooth as it is here. 7/10