This is not the sort of movie, I usually like. It's basically a soap opera about of the lives of 4 young married couples in a new community in California. What makes it stand out is the truly amazing performances of the actors - Oscar material, certainly. It's well worth the rental, if you can find it. Occasionally shown at 2am on access cable, this is a hidden gem.
36 Reviews
Notice How Modern Pat Hingle's and Barbara Rush's Performances Are
bluefly-230 April 2006
The performances of Pat Hingle and Barbara Rush seem very modern to me. When he washes the car while the rest of the community goes to church, she gently admonishes him for not going to church, but conveys to the audience that this has long been a point of contention between them, and that she understands his reasons - just as he understands her desire to have him attend church. However, like any intelligent wife, she doesn't go over old ground; she simply suggests a compromise. She negotiates with him quickly and easily by suggesting that he wash the car after church from now on. He easily agrees, and the matter is settled. In at least three other scenes,they're shown disagreeing about various issues - however, they do it calmly and maturely, and with a healthy dose of humor.
One scene explains, with charm, that they are simpatico in the bedroom, too. She doesn't make him bust his chops wooing her, and she doesn't pretend that she isn't interested, like good little 1950's girls were supposed to do,
Most moving is a scene in which they have their worst disagreement, and both actors effectively evoke their unhappiness about not being on the same page. One senses that this couple is very close, and that they derive strength from their partnership. After this worst disagreement, they attend a party at which Pat Hingle approaches his wife in a tender way, and asks her to dance. She agrees immediately, and in the following scenes, we see them dancing happily, and exchanging reassuring looks.
I think this couple's marriage depicts a healthy relationship. They're always ready to calmly discuss things, to hear each other out, and be fair. Their goal in any discussion seems to be reaching a fair agreement, and getting back to being good friends, as well as lovers.
In my opinion, Pat Hingle helms this movie. The other characters seem dated. For example, Hingle is the only one who jumps up to call the police after a crime has been committed; Hingle is the only one who is sensibly, not insanely, ambitious; Hingle is the only one who doesn't seem interested in other women; Hingle is the only one who considers his wife a partner, and values her opinion; Hingle is the one who is physically affectionate with his children; and most importantly, Hingle is the one who raises questions about racism and intellectual bigotry. And thanks to the script, he isn't a crusader. He is a man who is open-minded enough to contemplate these issues as they are presented to him, and to question the passive bigotry that he comes to realize has been ingrained in him by his family and country.
Hingle and Rush's characters ring true, and are beautifully portrayed by the actors. The other characters are broadly-drawn, one dimensional, and have not aged well.
One scene explains, with charm, that they are simpatico in the bedroom, too. She doesn't make him bust his chops wooing her, and she doesn't pretend that she isn't interested, like good little 1950's girls were supposed to do,
Most moving is a scene in which they have their worst disagreement, and both actors effectively evoke their unhappiness about not being on the same page. One senses that this couple is very close, and that they derive strength from their partnership. After this worst disagreement, they attend a party at which Pat Hingle approaches his wife in a tender way, and asks her to dance. She agrees immediately, and in the following scenes, we see them dancing happily, and exchanging reassuring looks.
I think this couple's marriage depicts a healthy relationship. They're always ready to calmly discuss things, to hear each other out, and be fair. Their goal in any discussion seems to be reaching a fair agreement, and getting back to being good friends, as well as lovers.
In my opinion, Pat Hingle helms this movie. The other characters seem dated. For example, Hingle is the only one who jumps up to call the police after a crime has been committed; Hingle is the only one who is sensibly, not insanely, ambitious; Hingle is the only one who doesn't seem interested in other women; Hingle is the only one who considers his wife a partner, and values her opinion; Hingle is the one who is physically affectionate with his children; and most importantly, Hingle is the one who raises questions about racism and intellectual bigotry. And thanks to the script, he isn't a crusader. He is a man who is open-minded enough to contemplate these issues as they are presented to him, and to question the passive bigotry that he comes to realize has been ingrained in him by his family and country.
Hingle and Rush's characters ring true, and are beautifully portrayed by the actors. The other characters are broadly-drawn, one dimensional, and have not aged well.
For grownups
marcslope12 June 2018
This 20th Century Fox expose of "the good life" in the suburbs wasn't seen by anybody much in 1957, and it's easy to see why: It probes convincingly deep into the less pleasant aspects of this clean, all-white subculture, and suburban moviegoers probably didn't want to see their worst aspects on screen, and urban audiences didn't care. Early Martin Ritt, and typically thorough of him, it explores prejudice, sexism, alcoholism, war veterans with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD, and capitalism's way of trapping young families in debt. The wide-screen black-and-white cinematography is clean and alluring, and all eight principals do well--Sheree North, groomed by 20th to be a threat to Monroe, proves once again that they didn't really give her enough chances to show what she could do. The shiny surfaces and flattering clothes and powerful cars all illustrate that "good life," and show what's wrong with it. And in comprehensively exploring the roots and hypocrisies and effects of racism at the time, it's a good deal braver than many contemporary films.
Scary truths for the 1950's
laurabethbachman1 June 2004
I caught this movie at a film festival at UCLA this week-end. It was excellent. Great screen play and acting. I almost didn't recognize Tony Randall as his nose is suspiciously larger than it seems in later films. Unlike the reviewer who felt this was essentially a "Soap Opera" that was well acted, I think that this film had an obvious dark side. It wasn't just the telling of the business of others, it was the unveiling of the dark underbelly of suburban life. Not for the sake of entertainment, but for the sake of exposure. This movie reminded me a lot of a William Inge play. An expose more-so than a side show. I loved it much more than I expected to.
Good, adult entertainment.
MOscarbradley26 October 2019
It may not be Peyton Place but this tight-knit Californian community is still plagued by maritial infidelity, heavy drinking, domestic abuse, rape and, of course, racial prejudice. Martin Ritt's "No Down Payment" benefits from being well-written, (Philip Yordan), nicely photographed in black-and-white Cinemascope, (Joseph LaShelle), and it features a good cast of up-and-coming Fox stars headed by Joanne Woodward, (very good), though it's Tony Randall and Pat Hingle who walk off with the picture. Considered very daring and adult in its day, it now seems pretty tame but it did pave the way for a number of 'grown-up' American movies in the late fifties and early sixties and is actually a very good example of its kind. Worth rediscovering.
Quite simply the finest movie ever made about late-50s suburbia
Eclectic Critic30 November 2000
The script is sharp and at times, poignant, the acting is superb, and the overall impact is overwhelming. It peels the label off of the seemingly happy suburban couples and, in so doing, provides the sharpest snapshot ever put to film about a time and place that no longer exists, the one that was written about by such giants as Updike and Cheever. The only problem with this movie is that it's only shown on TV about once every ten years and it's not available on video. One last comment. After watching this movie, you'll never look at Tony Randall in the same way.
Make it 7.5!
JohnHowardReid19 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie offers nothing new in the plot department, but it is well acted. Admittedly, there are four plots – not just one or two – to keep our attention focused. All four, of course, are cliché ridden and, as might be expected, their resolution is banal and pat. Two are resolved by the death of one of the characters, one by the character "coming down to earth", and the other is simply presented as a fait accompli without any of the promised details telling us how the community came to accept this change. All the same, what the movie lacks in the writing department, it more than makes up for in the skill of its players. Presumably, acting is what director Martin Ritt focused on. He sure didn't worry about innovation, pacing or presentation, let alone building up interest and suspense.
Obscure Gem
humdinger29 June 2003
"No Down Payment" is truly one of the great lost Fifties movies. Released in 1957, the year that the forced integration of Little Rock and the Soviet's launching of Sputnik forced America out of it's smug complacency, this movie truly shows us another side of suburban utopia. This flick was filmed when suburban California seemed to be everyone's ideal of the good life which, from the start, this movie portrays quite well. Barbecues with the neighbors, kids playing in the yard, trimmed lawns and freshly painted houses, this neighborhood has it all. What could go wrong?
The fact that Jeffrey Hunter and Patricia Owens were, frankly, not as good in their vocation as their fellow actors, somehow works very well here. They play the new couple in the neighborhood. They're naive, filled with expectations and enthusiastic to make a home in this cozy corner of the suburbs and they manage to give the viewer a similar feeling. We want what they want - the perfect neighbors - supportive friends and caring advisers who still allow us our privacy and our boundaries. That's what this great cast has to offer...they're perfect.
But are they? Skillfully, we begin to catch on to these neighbor's individual character defects. Joanne Woodward, fresh off "Three Faces of Eve", plays her character with her usual complex aplomb. Sheree North and Barbara Rush, two Fifties beauties, are comfortable here with their good looks and their knack for understanding men..or perhaps it's manipulating men? As always, Cameron Mitchell takes his man's man character in an unexpected direction. And Pat Hingle, often the embodiment of stability in his roles, takes it all in stride or does he? Then there's Tony Randall, sidekick of Rock Hudson in all those great light Doris Day comedies. Tony Randall gives us a character we'll never forget...this performance proves Randall was and is a great, great actor.
Four husbands, four wives, eight stunning acting performances. Was the dream offered to us by "Father Knows Best" and Ozzie's family really too good to be true? Maybe not - suburban California is a far cry from the inner city tenements so many of our ancestors dwelt in...Except, this is 1957. The turbulent Sixties are just around the bend. California is about to explode into riots, war protests and hippies searching for the bum trip tent. Besides, you know what they say about something being too good to be true..........
The fact that Jeffrey Hunter and Patricia Owens were, frankly, not as good in their vocation as their fellow actors, somehow works very well here. They play the new couple in the neighborhood. They're naive, filled with expectations and enthusiastic to make a home in this cozy corner of the suburbs and they manage to give the viewer a similar feeling. We want what they want - the perfect neighbors - supportive friends and caring advisers who still allow us our privacy and our boundaries. That's what this great cast has to offer...they're perfect.
But are they? Skillfully, we begin to catch on to these neighbor's individual character defects. Joanne Woodward, fresh off "Three Faces of Eve", plays her character with her usual complex aplomb. Sheree North and Barbara Rush, two Fifties beauties, are comfortable here with their good looks and their knack for understanding men..or perhaps it's manipulating men? As always, Cameron Mitchell takes his man's man character in an unexpected direction. And Pat Hingle, often the embodiment of stability in his roles, takes it all in stride or does he? Then there's Tony Randall, sidekick of Rock Hudson in all those great light Doris Day comedies. Tony Randall gives us a character we'll never forget...this performance proves Randall was and is a great, great actor.
Four husbands, four wives, eight stunning acting performances. Was the dream offered to us by "Father Knows Best" and Ozzie's family really too good to be true? Maybe not - suburban California is a far cry from the inner city tenements so many of our ancestors dwelt in...Except, this is 1957. The turbulent Sixties are just around the bend. California is about to explode into riots, war protests and hippies searching for the bum trip tent. Besides, you know what they say about something being too good to be true..........
Attractive cast handles smooth pulp fiction material...
Doylenf30 August 2006
It's almost astonishing to see how young PAT HINGLE was in this late '50s domestic drama following the lives of four married couples at the new Sunrise Hills apartment development. And furthermore, he gives the most interesting performance among the residents, all of whom are facing financial and emotional problems.
Performances are all first rate: TONY RANDALL as a car dealer who drinks too much and whose marriage with SHEREE NORTH is on the rocks; JEFFREY HUNTER and PATRICIA OWEN as a naive young couple who just moved into Sunrise Hills; CAMERON MITCHELL and JOANNE WOODWARD as a couple not quite secure in their relationship. Mitchell, with a soft Southern accent, is especially good as tension builds in his marriage to a sloppy housewife.
A lot of contemporary social and financial issues are handled smoothly in Philip Yordan's screenplay--and, of course much of this material gives the film a dated feel. It's PAT HINGLE, as the film's most decent character, married to BARBARA RUSH, who has some of the best scenes.
Not being a JOANNE WOODWARD fan, I find her character rather annoying and obvious in a cheap way. And some of the domestic squabbles between TONY RANDALL and SHEREE NORTH are almost too disagreeable to watch for any length of time.
Still, despite some overwrought soap opera moments, worthwhile for watching a smoothly told, although somewhat dated story of the struggles young married couples have in a new housing development.
Performances are all first rate: TONY RANDALL as a car dealer who drinks too much and whose marriage with SHEREE NORTH is on the rocks; JEFFREY HUNTER and PATRICIA OWEN as a naive young couple who just moved into Sunrise Hills; CAMERON MITCHELL and JOANNE WOODWARD as a couple not quite secure in their relationship. Mitchell, with a soft Southern accent, is especially good as tension builds in his marriage to a sloppy housewife.
A lot of contemporary social and financial issues are handled smoothly in Philip Yordan's screenplay--and, of course much of this material gives the film a dated feel. It's PAT HINGLE, as the film's most decent character, married to BARBARA RUSH, who has some of the best scenes.
Not being a JOANNE WOODWARD fan, I find her character rather annoying and obvious in a cheap way. And some of the domestic squabbles between TONY RANDALL and SHEREE NORTH are almost too disagreeable to watch for any length of time.
Still, despite some overwrought soap opera moments, worthwhile for watching a smoothly told, although somewhat dated story of the struggles young married couples have in a new housing development.
young families/post ww11 housing and getting back to American life
Heartofglass5226 April 2005
I grew up in a post ww11 housing development, and all the characters of No Down Payment were our neighbors and family. Right down to the racial discriminating, only Mexicans were the people our neighborhood discriminated against. A pity. The buying of new cars,and ex-servicemen unable to find their niche, still living their war glory days. And young women who weren't really ready for married life,like the character portrayed by Joanne Woodward. The actors playing the characters were so believable, Pat Hingle even looked the part of the put upon successful man, Tony Randle played a depressed alcoholic,Jeffrey Hunter was an excellent college educated young man. I knew all these characters while growing up in a post ww11 housing development. Now I want to buy a copy of this excellent film.
Chronicle of the Times.
rmax30482326 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scene of David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" gives us generous shots of a happy small town, the friendly firemen waving from their truck, the tulips blooming in glossy color, and then the camera slowly focuses in on a grassy lawn, and then underneath the grass, revealing a horde of buzzing and repulsive beetles and ants. "No Down Payment" takes that concise metaphor and expands it to feature length.
Hunter and Owens are a married couple who move into a ranch-style house on a bland street in a blank California housing development called Sage Mews or Elysian Fields or whatever it is. The neighbors are right affable though. Let's see. There Pat Hingle, manager of a modest department store, and wife Barbara Rush. He's a right-enough guy who plays it safe. (He's on the City Council.) Then there are Tony Randall and wife Sheree North. Randall, it's quickly shown, has a problem. He loves his family but he's an overly ambitious used car salesman filled with wild dreams about The Big Break that will make him a millionaire. Really. Meanwhile, to ease his torment, he drinks like a fish and makes a fool of himself.
Then there are ex Marine Cameron Mitchell and wife Joanne Woodward who describes herself correctly as "a good-natured slob." She's sort of happy-go-lucky and is a hillbilly from Tennessee, like her husband. But if she's loosey goosey, Mitchell is twisted into a pretzel by his anger and paranoia. The uneducated Mitchell longs for the glory days when he crawled through the mud of Guadalcanal and Luzon and holds in contempt Jeffrey Hunter, who spent the war as an electrical engineer at Los Alamos.
Mountain View or Pinyon Pointe may seem like a happy place but it's pustular with problems. It all leads to several acts of violence. I don't know if I'd want to live there. It's a Paradise in which the rules are pretty strict. No washing you car in your driveway on Sundays when you should be in church. (Everybody, and I mean everybody, attends the same church.) Get a little tipsy at a party and someone will suggest with a casual smile that maybe you should switch to coffee. No Japs allowed, even if they served in the infantry. At a casual backyard barbecue, the men wear suits and ties, and the women wear cocktail dresses.
This was the end of the 1950s, when it was perfectly reasonable to want to move to a peaceful smog-free bedroom suburb if you could afford it. Everybody wanted to do it and many did. Yet it was on the cusp of -- and partly the cause of -- an enormous change in the nature of our society.
The middle-class white moved to the Gardens of Babylon housing development, taking their taxes with them, and left the cities to become what they became ten years later. And there is a perfect absence of feminine independence. The wives are there to run the home, raise the children, have dinner ready, and support their husbands. Not a word about a wife getting a job, even when additional income is desperately needed. All this turns the movie into an historical curiosity, like an episode of "The Honeymooners" expanded and transported to Chestnut Valley Homes.
Martin Ritt, the director, has done some splendid work with small ensemble casts -- "Hud," "Norma Rae," "Hombre" -- but this was only his second feature film and there wasn't much he could do with a script so schematic and uneven. By "uneven" I mean that some of the characters change radically with no reasons given. Barbara Rush turns from a pragmatist who wants to keep the Japanese out until the end when she reverses her position. Mitchell turns from a stern but helpful neighbor into a drunken rapist. How does a man who is drunk rape anyone? Pat Hingle, City Council member, changes from a play-it-safe fellow to an activist who presumably gets his Japanese employee a place in the sun, without any tedious exposition.
All the ladies have an opportunity break down into a cascade of agonized sobs, at least once. Joanne Woodward does it most convincingly. Patricia Owens, even with her beauty and her anthracite irises, isn't believable. Cameron Mitchell had only a few good roles, two of them, including this one and the washed-out sheriff in "Hombre" among his best. He could act, given a chance to play something other than a schmuck or an outright villain.
See it by all means, if you're interested at all in the social and economic history of America.
Hunter and Owens are a married couple who move into a ranch-style house on a bland street in a blank California housing development called Sage Mews or Elysian Fields or whatever it is. The neighbors are right affable though. Let's see. There Pat Hingle, manager of a modest department store, and wife Barbara Rush. He's a right-enough guy who plays it safe. (He's on the City Council.) Then there are Tony Randall and wife Sheree North. Randall, it's quickly shown, has a problem. He loves his family but he's an overly ambitious used car salesman filled with wild dreams about The Big Break that will make him a millionaire. Really. Meanwhile, to ease his torment, he drinks like a fish and makes a fool of himself.
Then there are ex Marine Cameron Mitchell and wife Joanne Woodward who describes herself correctly as "a good-natured slob." She's sort of happy-go-lucky and is a hillbilly from Tennessee, like her husband. But if she's loosey goosey, Mitchell is twisted into a pretzel by his anger and paranoia. The uneducated Mitchell longs for the glory days when he crawled through the mud of Guadalcanal and Luzon and holds in contempt Jeffrey Hunter, who spent the war as an electrical engineer at Los Alamos.
Mountain View or Pinyon Pointe may seem like a happy place but it's pustular with problems. It all leads to several acts of violence. I don't know if I'd want to live there. It's a Paradise in which the rules are pretty strict. No washing you car in your driveway on Sundays when you should be in church. (Everybody, and I mean everybody, attends the same church.) Get a little tipsy at a party and someone will suggest with a casual smile that maybe you should switch to coffee. No Japs allowed, even if they served in the infantry. At a casual backyard barbecue, the men wear suits and ties, and the women wear cocktail dresses.
This was the end of the 1950s, when it was perfectly reasonable to want to move to a peaceful smog-free bedroom suburb if you could afford it. Everybody wanted to do it and many did. Yet it was on the cusp of -- and partly the cause of -- an enormous change in the nature of our society.
The middle-class white moved to the Gardens of Babylon housing development, taking their taxes with them, and left the cities to become what they became ten years later. And there is a perfect absence of feminine independence. The wives are there to run the home, raise the children, have dinner ready, and support their husbands. Not a word about a wife getting a job, even when additional income is desperately needed. All this turns the movie into an historical curiosity, like an episode of "The Honeymooners" expanded and transported to Chestnut Valley Homes.
Martin Ritt, the director, has done some splendid work with small ensemble casts -- "Hud," "Norma Rae," "Hombre" -- but this was only his second feature film and there wasn't much he could do with a script so schematic and uneven. By "uneven" I mean that some of the characters change radically with no reasons given. Barbara Rush turns from a pragmatist who wants to keep the Japanese out until the end when she reverses her position. Mitchell turns from a stern but helpful neighbor into a drunken rapist. How does a man who is drunk rape anyone? Pat Hingle, City Council member, changes from a play-it-safe fellow to an activist who presumably gets his Japanese employee a place in the sun, without any tedious exposition.
All the ladies have an opportunity break down into a cascade of agonized sobs, at least once. Joanne Woodward does it most convincingly. Patricia Owens, even with her beauty and her anthracite irises, isn't believable. Cameron Mitchell had only a few good roles, two of them, including this one and the washed-out sheriff in "Hombre" among his best. He could act, given a chance to play something other than a schmuck or an outright villain.
See it by all means, if you're interested at all in the social and economic history of America.
Amazing performances!
JulJoAnnicgraith26 September 2002
I'm so glad I bought this movie. The acting is superb, and as someone before said, it's definately Oscar-worthy. Although Joanne Woodward won an Oscar for another movie ('The Three Faces Of Eve') the same year, she should have been nominated for this one as well. This movie is SO well-acted I can't even believe it. I expected a riveting, stand-out performance from Joanne Woodward, because you can always count on her for that. But I didn't expect the rest of the cast to give wonderful performances as well. The one thing that got me is I never knew which characters to like. They all had their good points and their bad.
If for nothing else, see the movie for Joanne Woodward. If you're ever feeling doubtful about the acting ability of some of today's actors, go watch a Joanne Woodward movie. She'll renew you. I'm so amazed by that girl's talent.
If for nothing else, see the movie for Joanne Woodward. If you're ever feeling doubtful about the acting ability of some of today's actors, go watch a Joanne Woodward movie. She'll renew you. I'm so amazed by that girl's talent.
This Will Make Any City Dweller Glad to Stay Put
ldeangelis-7570816 February 2023
I always knew the suburbs weren't for me, and this movie reinforced that! Behind that idyllic facade that has been pushed on so many people since the 50's, lies a whole lot of crap!
There's alcoholism, racism, anger, infidelity, rape and a whole lot of other unfortunate human traits and frailties. You can feel sorry for some of the characters, like Joanne Woodward, who drinks too much and flirts too much to forget her unhappy marriage and the baby she gave up for adoption. Others you can't feel any sympathy for, like Cameron Mitchell, who plays her husband, obsessed with his war years, and the idea that being a veteran should entitle him to any job he wants, whether qualified or not. He also considers himself entitled to any woman he wants, whether she's willing or not.
Then there are those you can't make your mind up about, like Tony Randall's character, dreaming of success, money and power, when he hasn't the talent to go with the dreams, and Sheree North's portrayal of his wife, who tries to get him to face reality, but goes too far in giving him no space for dreams.
A pretty sorry bunch, in a pretty sorry way of life.
There's alcoholism, racism, anger, infidelity, rape and a whole lot of other unfortunate human traits and frailties. You can feel sorry for some of the characters, like Joanne Woodward, who drinks too much and flirts too much to forget her unhappy marriage and the baby she gave up for adoption. Others you can't feel any sympathy for, like Cameron Mitchell, who plays her husband, obsessed with his war years, and the idea that being a veteran should entitle him to any job he wants, whether qualified or not. He also considers himself entitled to any woman he wants, whether she's willing or not.
Then there are those you can't make your mind up about, like Tony Randall's character, dreaming of success, money and power, when he hasn't the talent to go with the dreams, and Sheree North's portrayal of his wife, who tries to get him to face reality, but goes too far in giving him no space for dreams.
A pretty sorry bunch, in a pretty sorry way of life.
Interesting historical commentary
thguru23 April 2006
I just saw this movie on cable TV (2006). This movie, for some reason, escaped me in my past movie viewing history. However, I thought it was a good social commentary of life in the 1950's, living in suburbia USA. Young couples were trying to get ahead in life; not happy living in "cookie cutter" houses. It all centered around not having enough money and "keeping up with the Jones next door" syndrome. All the actors / actresses in this movie did an okay job. But, I have seen them all do better in later movies. This is one of those movies that I would like to see again in a few years to remind me of what it was like in that era. Interesting to see the 1950's cars, houses, furniture and ladies clothes.
Worth a Closer Look
dougdoepke12 April 2011
Catch that opening scene of housing developments arrayed along a busy freeway, with the young couple looking starry eyed.
Anyone curious about the so-called American Dream and the Cinderella decade of the 1950's should check out this 1957 flick. Critics might pass the screenplay off as just another studio soap opera. But that neglects a key aspect of the film— namely, that the drama is rooted in one of the emergent and defining features of that Ozzie & Harriet decade: life in the suburbs.
Now, Hollywood of the period didn't have much time for mundane subjects like tract houses with their ordinary families, ordinary lives, and routine absence of anything approaching dramatic material. Thus, despite its many drawbacks, Payment is an exceptional film that does try to mine the mundane subject of life in the suburbs, and just as importantly, at a time when that new fabric was emerging from the historical loom.
One key thing to note— the screenplay focuses on four couples instead of the more conventional one couple, thus demonstrating the movie's sociological intent. There're several advantages to this departure. For one, by spreading the script over eight characters the dramatic opportunities are greatly expanded; at the same time, four couples establish a more comprehensive collective experience instead of a possibly skewed single-family experience. Then too, the fact that the screenplay is adapted by a leftist (Ben Maddow) means some critical points will be raised.
The cast is well chosen for their parts. Clearly, the attractive and clean-cut Martin's (Hunter & Owens) are the easiest couple to identify with. They come across as presenting the positive future of suburban living. The businessman Kreitzer's (Rush & Hingle) amount to steadying influences, suggesting the solid roots being put down. The other two couples, however, are more dysfunctional, picking up on the more negative aspects. Salesman Jerry Flagg (Randall & North) has a drinking problem, while the misfit Boone's (Mitchell & Woodward) are on a destructive path that injects heavier drama into the narrative.
Now, mix these folks around that emblem of 50's suburban life, the backyard bar-b-cue, and all kinds of possibilities arise. It's no accident that the setting is Southern California, the capital of newly forming suburbia and magnet of post-war migration. Note that the common concern of the couples is that perennial hazard of home ownership—the 30-year mortgage. They joke, but the concern is real since ownership requires a steady level of well-paying employment and the kind of stability that none of them can guarantee. So, in that sense, each couple is locked into a future of debt servitude, that is, unless a better paying job is gotten or ownership is given up.
Now that may sound like an unappealing situation, but keep in mind the country was coming out of a long period of considerable sacrifice, from the Great Depression to the big war in Europe to the nasty little war in Korea. By the mid-50's, however, the economy is taking off, there's no more rationing at home or shooting war abroad; at the same time, government programs have put home ownership and a college education within reach of the average person. So, settle in to family life, a promising job, and a home of your own. That's what Sunrise (new day) Hills promises to the multitudes eager to move in.
Several notable features of the early suburbs emerge in the screenplay. Note the subtle undercurrents of required conformity placed on the Kreitzer's, in particular. For example, Herman should go to church because everyone else does and might think him odd when he doesn't; also, Herm as a city councilman should not insist on a non-white moving into what's in fact an all-white enclave. (Gutsy of the screenplay to make the outsider a Japanese so soon after the war, but a black would have been even gutsier though probably too controversial for the time.) Then too, note how women's roles are clearly defined as stay-at- home wives and mothers. No women's lib here. (This also implies that husbands were paid enough to support a stay-at-home wife, something that's changed over the years.) Also the defining notion of no-down-payment proffers a new age of consumer goodies that can be had on a credit card, as it were, which can also backfire as the shabby couple finds out. It really is a new day for ordinary Americans.
Unfortunately, having as many as eight individual characters means none can be treated at length. As a result, several stereotypes do emerge. Nonetheless, it's a tribute to the actors that they breathe as much life into these stock characters as they do. Woodward and Mitchell do really well as the Boone's, still it's too bad the screenplay makes them into southern rednecks. In my view, that choice prejudices the final outcome even as it underscores the script's notion of suburban conformity. Surprisingly, Tony Randall's Jerry steals the film with his charming, if unscrupulous salesman, never at a loss for words even when confronted with his devious skullduggery. For me, however, the highpoint comes with Jerry's long- suffering wife (Sheree North in a fine, overlooked performance) once she realizes (in a long, silent take) that she's trapped in an "average" setting with a wayward husband who refuses the reality of being suburban average.
Anyway, I agree with the reviewer who dislikes the movie's final descent from character study into melodramatics—a concession, I suppose, to studio commercialism. Of course, the movie has since slipped into understandable obscurity. But, for those curious about the formative 50's, the movie has much to offer. I would also suggest another revealing film of the time, Bachelor Party (1957), which deals effectively with life in the city. To me, some soap opera movies really do amount to more than simple soap opera. And this is one of them.
Anyone curious about the so-called American Dream and the Cinderella decade of the 1950's should check out this 1957 flick. Critics might pass the screenplay off as just another studio soap opera. But that neglects a key aspect of the film— namely, that the drama is rooted in one of the emergent and defining features of that Ozzie & Harriet decade: life in the suburbs.
Now, Hollywood of the period didn't have much time for mundane subjects like tract houses with their ordinary families, ordinary lives, and routine absence of anything approaching dramatic material. Thus, despite its many drawbacks, Payment is an exceptional film that does try to mine the mundane subject of life in the suburbs, and just as importantly, at a time when that new fabric was emerging from the historical loom.
One key thing to note— the screenplay focuses on four couples instead of the more conventional one couple, thus demonstrating the movie's sociological intent. There're several advantages to this departure. For one, by spreading the script over eight characters the dramatic opportunities are greatly expanded; at the same time, four couples establish a more comprehensive collective experience instead of a possibly skewed single-family experience. Then too, the fact that the screenplay is adapted by a leftist (Ben Maddow) means some critical points will be raised.
The cast is well chosen for their parts. Clearly, the attractive and clean-cut Martin's (Hunter & Owens) are the easiest couple to identify with. They come across as presenting the positive future of suburban living. The businessman Kreitzer's (Rush & Hingle) amount to steadying influences, suggesting the solid roots being put down. The other two couples, however, are more dysfunctional, picking up on the more negative aspects. Salesman Jerry Flagg (Randall & North) has a drinking problem, while the misfit Boone's (Mitchell & Woodward) are on a destructive path that injects heavier drama into the narrative.
Now, mix these folks around that emblem of 50's suburban life, the backyard bar-b-cue, and all kinds of possibilities arise. It's no accident that the setting is Southern California, the capital of newly forming suburbia and magnet of post-war migration. Note that the common concern of the couples is that perennial hazard of home ownership—the 30-year mortgage. They joke, but the concern is real since ownership requires a steady level of well-paying employment and the kind of stability that none of them can guarantee. So, in that sense, each couple is locked into a future of debt servitude, that is, unless a better paying job is gotten or ownership is given up.
Now that may sound like an unappealing situation, but keep in mind the country was coming out of a long period of considerable sacrifice, from the Great Depression to the big war in Europe to the nasty little war in Korea. By the mid-50's, however, the economy is taking off, there's no more rationing at home or shooting war abroad; at the same time, government programs have put home ownership and a college education within reach of the average person. So, settle in to family life, a promising job, and a home of your own. That's what Sunrise (new day) Hills promises to the multitudes eager to move in.
Several notable features of the early suburbs emerge in the screenplay. Note the subtle undercurrents of required conformity placed on the Kreitzer's, in particular. For example, Herman should go to church because everyone else does and might think him odd when he doesn't; also, Herm as a city councilman should not insist on a non-white moving into what's in fact an all-white enclave. (Gutsy of the screenplay to make the outsider a Japanese so soon after the war, but a black would have been even gutsier though probably too controversial for the time.) Then too, note how women's roles are clearly defined as stay-at- home wives and mothers. No women's lib here. (This also implies that husbands were paid enough to support a stay-at-home wife, something that's changed over the years.) Also the defining notion of no-down-payment proffers a new age of consumer goodies that can be had on a credit card, as it were, which can also backfire as the shabby couple finds out. It really is a new day for ordinary Americans.
Unfortunately, having as many as eight individual characters means none can be treated at length. As a result, several stereotypes do emerge. Nonetheless, it's a tribute to the actors that they breathe as much life into these stock characters as they do. Woodward and Mitchell do really well as the Boone's, still it's too bad the screenplay makes them into southern rednecks. In my view, that choice prejudices the final outcome even as it underscores the script's notion of suburban conformity. Surprisingly, Tony Randall's Jerry steals the film with his charming, if unscrupulous salesman, never at a loss for words even when confronted with his devious skullduggery. For me, however, the highpoint comes with Jerry's long- suffering wife (Sheree North in a fine, overlooked performance) once she realizes (in a long, silent take) that she's trapped in an "average" setting with a wayward husband who refuses the reality of being suburban average.
Anyway, I agree with the reviewer who dislikes the movie's final descent from character study into melodramatics—a concession, I suppose, to studio commercialism. Of course, the movie has since slipped into understandable obscurity. But, for those curious about the formative 50's, the movie has much to offer. I would also suggest another revealing film of the time, Bachelor Party (1957), which deals effectively with life in the city. To me, some soap opera movies really do amount to more than simple soap opera. And this is one of them.
no down payment
kpaletz-112 June 2018
Great Late 1950s Suburban Drama
mrb198010 August 2005
Call it a soap opera if you like, but "No Down Payment" is a riveting slice of late 1950s life from Surburbia, USA. This movie follows the intertwining lives of several suburban families in a generic U.S. city, and is fascinating to watch.
We've all seen the characters in our own lives: the bookish engineer (Hunter), the quietly desperate alcoholic car salesman (Randall), the town official with nothing but excuses (Hingle), the violent type that settles everything with his fists (Mitchell), and so on. Great acting by all concerned, along with Ritt's sure direction, make this a winner.
My only complaint is the women's roles. Joanne Woodward produces a great performance, but all the other women's roles are somewhat one-dimensional, and involve spending all day keeping house or setting the dinner table. I guess it's a reflection of the 1950s, but it's still disappointing.
Fine performances, particularly from Woodward, Hunter, and Randall, produce a grade-A effort. Watch it with the 1950s in mind.
We've all seen the characters in our own lives: the bookish engineer (Hunter), the quietly desperate alcoholic car salesman (Randall), the town official with nothing but excuses (Hingle), the violent type that settles everything with his fists (Mitchell), and so on. Great acting by all concerned, along with Ritt's sure direction, make this a winner.
My only complaint is the women's roles. Joanne Woodward produces a great performance, but all the other women's roles are somewhat one-dimensional, and involve spending all day keeping house or setting the dinner table. I guess it's a reflection of the 1950s, but it's still disappointing.
Fine performances, particularly from Woodward, Hunter, and Randall, produce a grade-A effort. Watch it with the 1950s in mind.
Offering a Different "take" on a fine period piece
A_Different_Drummer28 January 2017
Many other IMDb members have accurately and passionately identified this film as well-written and well-played period piece about 1950s suburbia.
Others have hinted (which is also true of the book on which it was based) that there is an underlying current here which suggests that, as good as the 50s were -- and many still regard the 1950s rightly or wrongly as the best decade in American life! -- there was a hint of trouble to come at its core, and those hints would ultimately blossom into the problems of the 60s and later years.
This reviewer however prefers to showcase this films as a sort of "pre-Breakfast Club" for adults, presenting some of the best known actors of the 60s and 70s to us before they found their stride and and their niches.
Tony Randall demonstrates tremendous dramatic talent, but this might be one of the last times audiences would see it, because by the mid-60s he had become typecast (trapped?) in light and eccentric comedic roles.
Jeffrey Hunter even at this early stage in his career bursts with good looks and testosterone that seem an ill fit with conventional backyard life. In fact, he would go to do "hero" roles for almost the remainder of his career, everything from war movies to "sword and sandal" epics.
Pat Hingle also seems an ill fit here, and gives no hint that he would have one of the longest careers of the entire bunch, carving out for himself a niche playing high officials, whether judges or officers, with a special gift for western parts.
Barbara Rush would remain "eye candy" even to the 70s, effortlessly providing sex appeal for an endless series of TV dramas.
Sheree North would never completely escape the fact the studios had groomed her originally as a Monroe replacement, and she would pop up in the oddest films (Bronson films, Lee Marvin films) at the oddest times.
Cameron Mitchell would carve out a career as the "king of the Bs" doing more B movies than anyone else in the group. Whereas Joanne Woodward would go in the opposite direction. Woodward was careful in the parts she accepted and never once provided a performance that was less than stellar.
An interesting film on many levels and -- believe me, I don't say this often -- a film that could really benefit from someone spending the money to "colorize" it, so it could attract a wider audience in years to come.
Others have hinted (which is also true of the book on which it was based) that there is an underlying current here which suggests that, as good as the 50s were -- and many still regard the 1950s rightly or wrongly as the best decade in American life! -- there was a hint of trouble to come at its core, and those hints would ultimately blossom into the problems of the 60s and later years.
This reviewer however prefers to showcase this films as a sort of "pre-Breakfast Club" for adults, presenting some of the best known actors of the 60s and 70s to us before they found their stride and and their niches.
Tony Randall demonstrates tremendous dramatic talent, but this might be one of the last times audiences would see it, because by the mid-60s he had become typecast (trapped?) in light and eccentric comedic roles.
Jeffrey Hunter even at this early stage in his career bursts with good looks and testosterone that seem an ill fit with conventional backyard life. In fact, he would go to do "hero" roles for almost the remainder of his career, everything from war movies to "sword and sandal" epics.
Pat Hingle also seems an ill fit here, and gives no hint that he would have one of the longest careers of the entire bunch, carving out for himself a niche playing high officials, whether judges or officers, with a special gift for western parts.
Barbara Rush would remain "eye candy" even to the 70s, effortlessly providing sex appeal for an endless series of TV dramas.
Sheree North would never completely escape the fact the studios had groomed her originally as a Monroe replacement, and she would pop up in the oddest films (Bronson films, Lee Marvin films) at the oddest times.
Cameron Mitchell would carve out a career as the "king of the Bs" doing more B movies than anyone else in the group. Whereas Joanne Woodward would go in the opposite direction. Woodward was careful in the parts she accepted and never once provided a performance that was less than stellar.
An interesting film on many levels and -- believe me, I don't say this often -- a film that could really benefit from someone spending the money to "colorize" it, so it could attract a wider audience in years to come.
Compelling drama of unhappy lives in Fifties suburbia
mlraymond31 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film is truly a gem that deserves to be made available to more viewers. It's a real period piece that gives an authentic, contemporary feeling of what life would have been like for married couples in a post-war housing development. A large number of what we now think of as Fifties clichés are shown in their simple, day to day reality, such as the cocktail parties and barbecues, the raising of children the new modern way, ( one mother is constantly quoting her pediatrician on everything from too much television to not enough orange juice in kids' lives), and the desire to get ahead warring with the need to conform. ( Barbara Rush is upset that husband Pat Hingle never attends church, and washes the car on Sundays, where all the neighbors can see him).
Excellent performances from all the cast, with especially strong turns by Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell. The real surprise is Tony Randall. He plays a character who seems just a few degrees removed from his later neurotic comic persona, but a lot more down to earth and uncomfortably real. He seems both the classic alcoholic in denial, and also one of those dreamers, like Willy Loman, whose grandiose talk of success is clearly never going to be fulfilled. He's actually disturbing to watch, when he literally runs out the back, leaving his embarrassed wife to deal with his embarrassed employer, who has come to get back the money from a car sale that should never have been made in the first place. He never again played such a believable, flawed character, but settled for a niche as a nervous, fussy little man in largely forgettable comedies.
For anyone interested in Fifties lifestyle and popular culture, and a genuine historic snapshot of those times, this is a fascinating movie.On the level of fine performances alone, it deserves to be seen as an absorbing drama of love, ambition and disillusionment, that does not cop out into a happy ending.
Excellent performances from all the cast, with especially strong turns by Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell. The real surprise is Tony Randall. He plays a character who seems just a few degrees removed from his later neurotic comic persona, but a lot more down to earth and uncomfortably real. He seems both the classic alcoholic in denial, and also one of those dreamers, like Willy Loman, whose grandiose talk of success is clearly never going to be fulfilled. He's actually disturbing to watch, when he literally runs out the back, leaving his embarrassed wife to deal with his embarrassed employer, who has come to get back the money from a car sale that should never have been made in the first place. He never again played such a believable, flawed character, but settled for a niche as a nervous, fussy little man in largely forgettable comedies.
For anyone interested in Fifties lifestyle and popular culture, and a genuine historic snapshot of those times, this is a fascinating movie.On the level of fine performances alone, it deserves to be seen as an absorbing drama of love, ambition and disillusionment, that does not cop out into a happy ending.
Good Period Piece
jbarnes-106 October 2015
There is a lot of good in "No Down Payment". Excellent on location shots of southern California in the late 1950's showcases the flight to the suburban tract housing built for the white Truman middle class of that time. You will not see one minority in the entire movie, not even in the background.
While this backdrop is very interesting to watch, the actual story and social norms of that time, and in that place, are painful. The husbands in the film are all miserable. Stuck in jobs they hate and buried in debt. Their relationships are boring and restricted by the 1950's conformist norms of the time. In one scene a husband is scolded by his wife for washing his car on Sunday morning instead of going to church, ugh.
The women are no more happier. Each hopes that no one finds out how dysfunctional their families really are. They spend most their time and energy trying to be just like everyone else and their misery can be seen in their faces.
The performances are all very good except for Joanne Woodward who's southern accent and "trailer park background" just does not work for me. I think she could have played the role as a naive housewife married to a cad using her own voice much more effectively. It diminishes the performance and I just found her to be irritating.
Hats off to Tony Randall for playing a really unlikable character unlike I have ever seen him play, this was a step out for him and he does it well. This is worth watching but it does make me thankful that I'm not living in the prison of that time.
While this backdrop is very interesting to watch, the actual story and social norms of that time, and in that place, are painful. The husbands in the film are all miserable. Stuck in jobs they hate and buried in debt. Their relationships are boring and restricted by the 1950's conformist norms of the time. In one scene a husband is scolded by his wife for washing his car on Sunday morning instead of going to church, ugh.
The women are no more happier. Each hopes that no one finds out how dysfunctional their families really are. They spend most their time and energy trying to be just like everyone else and their misery can be seen in their faces.
The performances are all very good except for Joanne Woodward who's southern accent and "trailer park background" just does not work for me. I think she could have played the role as a naive housewife married to a cad using her own voice much more effectively. It diminishes the performance and I just found her to be irritating.
Hats off to Tony Randall for playing a really unlikable character unlike I have ever seen him play, this was a step out for him and he does it well. This is worth watching but it does make me thankful that I'm not living in the prison of that time.
The Demons of Suburbia
bkoganbing11 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
No Down Payment was a catchphrase of the Eisenhower 50s when people taking
advantage of easy credit to buy a home in the newly developing suburbs. Many
got there through the GI bill and were able to afford good living. The film takes
a look at a quartet of couples that Producer Jerry Wald got for director Martin
Ritt and we see some real flaws in their marriages and outlooks on life. The
alcohol flows freely with a few of them.
Tony Randall who usually played many a comic role takes a serious turn here as a man who is always looking to make a quick buck with get rich quick schemes. He's an amiable drunk whose fear is not failure, but humdrum mediocrity. He won't settle for that as wife Sheree North tries to bring him down off his high horse schemes and just concentrate on raising a family.
Jeffrey Hunter has a reverse problem. He's an engineer who helps design product. But the money is in sales and wife Patricia Owens wants some better living. Hunter doesn't like selling. I can appereciate that, it's a job I would feel uncomfortable doing. She finds out what a solid guy he is though.
Pat Hingle may be the most materially successful at the moment. Hingle is a manager of a Walmart type store in that newest of phenomenons of the time, the suburban mall. I imagine people who started working at Walmart when it started and stuck with it are pretty well fixed. He's also on the new town council. That position is what is giving him the grief he brings home to Barbara Rush.
The dirty secret of suburbia is also that people tried to keep it nice and white so when one of his workers Ake Aleong wants to buy a house there, he runs into quite a bit of resistance. Hingle is given that choice and he's reinforced by his wife Barbara Rush to take a stand against discrimination. Aleong was a Nisei veteran of World War II as well and it is really egregious that in peace people would deny him a share of the American dream.
Hingle's other problem is Cameron Mitchell who is also a World War II veteran and I'm trying to figure out why he didn't just stay in the army and make that a career. He and wife Joanne Woodward are from the south and are less educated than the others. He runs a gas station franchise and wants an appointment as chief of the newly forming police department. Hingle pushes him, but is unsuccessful. That sets off a whole other dimension and it ends badly.
Mitchell and Woodward are also heavy drinkers. But where as Randall is an amiable but sad drunk, Mitchell can get violent. Demons of the war no doubt. Then again all eight of our cast members have demons. Woodward who got an Oscar that year for Three Faces Of Eve has a lot of demons. Mitchell and Woodward are the unhappiest of the four married couples without a doubt.
This is a great ensemble cast with Mitchell and Woodward getting the meatiest roles and making the best of them.
No Down Payment is a real sleeper of a film, I can't recommend it high enough.
Tony Randall who usually played many a comic role takes a serious turn here as a man who is always looking to make a quick buck with get rich quick schemes. He's an amiable drunk whose fear is not failure, but humdrum mediocrity. He won't settle for that as wife Sheree North tries to bring him down off his high horse schemes and just concentrate on raising a family.
Jeffrey Hunter has a reverse problem. He's an engineer who helps design product. But the money is in sales and wife Patricia Owens wants some better living. Hunter doesn't like selling. I can appereciate that, it's a job I would feel uncomfortable doing. She finds out what a solid guy he is though.
Pat Hingle may be the most materially successful at the moment. Hingle is a manager of a Walmart type store in that newest of phenomenons of the time, the suburban mall. I imagine people who started working at Walmart when it started and stuck with it are pretty well fixed. He's also on the new town council. That position is what is giving him the grief he brings home to Barbara Rush.
The dirty secret of suburbia is also that people tried to keep it nice and white so when one of his workers Ake Aleong wants to buy a house there, he runs into quite a bit of resistance. Hingle is given that choice and he's reinforced by his wife Barbara Rush to take a stand against discrimination. Aleong was a Nisei veteran of World War II as well and it is really egregious that in peace people would deny him a share of the American dream.
Hingle's other problem is Cameron Mitchell who is also a World War II veteran and I'm trying to figure out why he didn't just stay in the army and make that a career. He and wife Joanne Woodward are from the south and are less educated than the others. He runs a gas station franchise and wants an appointment as chief of the newly forming police department. Hingle pushes him, but is unsuccessful. That sets off a whole other dimension and it ends badly.
Mitchell and Woodward are also heavy drinkers. But where as Randall is an amiable but sad drunk, Mitchell can get violent. Demons of the war no doubt. Then again all eight of our cast members have demons. Woodward who got an Oscar that year for Three Faces Of Eve has a lot of demons. Mitchell and Woodward are the unhappiest of the four married couples without a doubt.
This is a great ensemble cast with Mitchell and Woodward getting the meatiest roles and making the best of them.
No Down Payment is a real sleeper of a film, I can't recommend it high enough.
No Down Payment
CinemaSerf1 April 2023
You can easily imagine the land of opportunity in the late 1950s with new family homes being built full of all the mod cons. Ideally for upwardly mobile couples and families. This film follows four such couples who live in their suburban utopia only to find that each of them have foibles that range from booze to infidelity, brutality to racism - indeed each of these pairings has something of the unsavoury about them which all comes out in the wash as we watch their lives unravel before us. For it's time, its quite specific about the single event that serves to focus the attention and force them to recalibrate their somewhat shallow lives and it's probably Joanne Woodward ("Leola") who stands out most amongst a cast that includes Jeffery Hunter, a rather effective effort from Tony Randall as the unscrupulous car salesman and Cameron Mitchell as the brutish "Troy". It runs a little too much to melodrama for me, the gradual decline of their dreams is all just a bit predictable and at times, just a wee bit contrived. It does serve well as a microcosm of society, of values and ambition however, and it also clearly demonstrates just how the "if your face fits" mentality prevailed at the time. Worth a watch on that basis, and for an on form Woodward too.
Please, everyone, try to see this film and salute it as masterly
john-ezard19 November 2005
Author Mrb1980 is in the right direction, but this film is a small masterpiece. It remains rare in dealing with the tragedies of consumerism as a way of life ruthlessly led by the nose by the big companies and the advertising industry.
Though it's subject is a serious one, No Down Payment has more narrative drive and excitement than most thrillers. I still remember the shatteringly moving central performances of Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell nearly 50 years later. The film was - and is - revelatory about what intelligent popular cinema could and can do. It made a tremendous evening at the pictures.
As I think about it, I could weep for the state of America film now. Far worse than McCarthyite blacklisting (which presumably caused one scriptwriter to be credited under a false name) is Hollywood's effective blacklisting of writers and directors with any true perceptions of real life, so that modern equivalents of No Down Payment such as Groundhog Day are a rarity and cynically connected feel-good rubbish is the norm.
NOTE to IMDb: your scale of marks up to Excellent is not good enough. Some films are more than Excellent
Though it's subject is a serious one, No Down Payment has more narrative drive and excitement than most thrillers. I still remember the shatteringly moving central performances of Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell nearly 50 years later. The film was - and is - revelatory about what intelligent popular cinema could and can do. It made a tremendous evening at the pictures.
As I think about it, I could weep for the state of America film now. Far worse than McCarthyite blacklisting (which presumably caused one scriptwriter to be credited under a false name) is Hollywood's effective blacklisting of writers and directors with any true perceptions of real life, so that modern equivalents of No Down Payment such as Groundhog Day are a rarity and cynically connected feel-good rubbish is the norm.
NOTE to IMDb: your scale of marks up to Excellent is not good enough. Some films are more than Excellent
Not Much In The Way of Rewards, Either
Handlinghandel14 September 2005
Four couples in a community of look-alike houses. On the outside they seem attractive and up-and-coming. Inside they are in bad shape.
Tony Randall and Sheree North are one unlikely couple. To be honest, keeping tack of all the couples was a bit difficult. The characters were not well differentiated.
The most interesting is Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell. He is a very angry person. Mitchell looks uncharacteristically beefy and brawny but his performance is excellent. He does a pretty terrible thing, which has repercussions for many in the community.
Many of the performers did far more interesting work elsewhere. Pat Hingle, one of the husbands, for example. But the characters and characterization are as generic as the houses.
(I was interested, as a total aside, to note that all the houses seemed to have paintings on their walls. This seemed unlikely.) Mitchell and Woodward stand out, though. And their story is truly moving.
Tony Randall and Sheree North are one unlikely couple. To be honest, keeping tack of all the couples was a bit difficult. The characters were not well differentiated.
The most interesting is Joanne Woodward and Cameron Mitchell. He is a very angry person. Mitchell looks uncharacteristically beefy and brawny but his performance is excellent. He does a pretty terrible thing, which has repercussions for many in the community.
Many of the performers did far more interesting work elsewhere. Pat Hingle, one of the husbands, for example. But the characters and characterization are as generic as the houses.
(I was interested, as a total aside, to note that all the houses seemed to have paintings on their walls. This seemed unlikely.) Mitchell and Woodward stand out, though. And their story is truly moving.
Still excellent and a fine period study
caa8213 June 2007
A friend had a copy of this film, and I recently saw it again, after a period of several years.
Seen now, 50 years after its release, it has a more nostalgic feel for the 1950's - still in the "post-war/Cold War period," before the turbulent 60's - and it presents a superb snapshot of young marrieds of this era.
As others have pointed-out, one aspect is the excellent performance of Tony Randall, with a character in contrast with his frequent second-banana/best friend/never-gets-the-girl/lighthearted and light-weight persona in many of his other flicks.
Most of the actors are gone or retired; the two we saw most in the 90's were Sheree North and Pat Hingle - both forty years older and forty pounds heavier than here.
All-in-all an excellent film, now as originally, and more so for the historic/nostalgic feel it provides today.
Seen now, 50 years after its release, it has a more nostalgic feel for the 1950's - still in the "post-war/Cold War period," before the turbulent 60's - and it presents a superb snapshot of young marrieds of this era.
As others have pointed-out, one aspect is the excellent performance of Tony Randall, with a character in contrast with his frequent second-banana/best friend/never-gets-the-girl/lighthearted and light-weight persona in many of his other flicks.
Most of the actors are gone or retired; the two we saw most in the 90's were Sheree North and Pat Hingle - both forty years older and forty pounds heavier than here.
All-in-all an excellent film, now as originally, and more so for the historic/nostalgic feel it provides today.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
