There is some of Ophuls' graceful camera movement, and the film sets up an intriguing conflict. But "reckless" is an understatement. Joan Bennett's actions are so utterly bone-headed that for the rest of the film I was against her. I also had problems with James Mason's character, whose developing affection for Bennett never rings true. Worthwhile for the cinematography, slow tension and unusual social commentary, but definitely flawed.

Not much of a noir, but like pizza or sex, there's virtually no such thing as really bad noir. Still, you'd hope for more from what seems like a match made in heaven. Ophuls' elegant camerawork and brilliant B&W cinematography, working in a "genre" defined in large part by its heavy chiaroscuro? But while the visuals are what you'd expect, it lacks the edge or inspired plotting of the best noirs, with some rather iffy character development and undercooked tension. Okay, but nothing more.

I'm just not down with Ophuls. Yeah, he moves the camera like a boss, but I don't see anything else going on.

#796

731

Joan Bennett was never better!

# 626

749

Decent, but ultimately forgettable. Watch Ophüls' brilliant 'Letter from an Unknown Woman' instead.

It's interesting the plot summary here doesn't fully match what happens in the movie. Anyway it's a funny title because there seem to be more than a few reckless moments in this movie. It's somewhat naive but not unintelligent. Nothing special but fine nonetheless.

Of such a tragic beauty that only Ophüls could conceive.

Maybe I just don't understand recklessness but the motivations of the two main characters didn't make any sense two me at several points throughout the film. It's not a bad film, but I found it really uninteresting and occasionally frustrating.