The Girl Who Had Everything (1953) User Reviews

Nice send-off for William Powell and introduction to the adult Elizabeth Taylor

[TheDuchessofM · 7/10 · 22 April 2010]

Though this movie lacks the menace and seediness of "A Free Soul," it nonetheless shares the blazing sensuality that we saw between Clark Gable and Norma Shearer in 1931 in Fernando Lamas and the impossibly gorgeous 22 yr old Taylor.

When contrasted with "A Free Soul" (which is hard not to, since the film was so sexy and frank, and Lionel Barrymore's performance won him an Oscar), the story in "The Girl Who Had Everything" is pretty slim. A few reviews mentioned this was MGM's kiss good-bye to 61 yr old William Powell, who'd been with the studio since 1934, and it looks it. The sets are pretty stripped down and simple, with minimal outdoor shots--but that's not to say the movie looks cheap, because even at programmer status, the MGM gloss remained.

Taylor is perfect as a willful, headstrong Jean Latimer, and her growth from spoiled, immature flirt to a sobered woman, is powerful. Though mores of the 1950s are ever present, the double standards when it comes to female sexuality remain--a man can be a "free soul" without suffering the consequences a woman will, and Jean and her father Steve are forced to realize that she cannot live life the way he has, despite his raising her to be independent and free.

Where this film falls short in comparison to its source material is the 1950s Code Era ending, where Lamas gets his comeuppance through his gangster associations, rather than the result of Jean's honor being defended by her fiancé.

Gig Young is woefully underused here (was the movie cut down?), and Fernando Lamas, for all his intensity, is a standard Latin lover.

However, this is an entertaining film, and if anyone manages to get a hold of this and "A Free Soul," watching both is an interesting study in changing mores as well as what was permissible in the Pre-Code era.

With These Stars. It Couldn't Be Bad

[Handlinghandel · 5/10 · 5 August 2006]

And it isn't.

William Powell is a tough criminal lawyer. He may not have a lot of scruples but he has money. And he wants the best for his daughter, played by the ravishing young Elizabeth Taylor. Truly, she has hardly ever looked more beautiful than she does here.

She is, as the title suggests, spoiled. And she decides she wants Daddy's recent client, gangster Fernando Lamas. She already has Gig Young but Lamas is more dashing, if a real cad.

Everyone is good. It has a solid plot. The direction moves things along briskly. The score by Andre' Previn is exceptional.

If you don't have access to "A Place In the Sun," probably Taylor's most famous movie from this period,, catch this one. You will be knocked out by her beauty. And her acting is good, too.

Morality creep in film was not a historically linear process...

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 3 June 2023]

... and this film is a good example of that.

Attorney Steve Latimer (William Powell) defends an old client of his, Victor Ramondi (Fernando Lamas) when he is hauled before a senate committee concerning his illegal gambling operations. Steve's daughter, Jean (Elizabeth Taylor) goes with her father when he travels to Washington, and there she meets and begins dating Ramondi. Ramondi follows the Latimers back to Kentucky, rents a place, and begins courting Jean. It doesn't take long until she is in love with him and the two plan to marry. But against his lifelong principles of being "a free soul" Latimer for once decides - Not with my daughter you don't! Complications ensue.

This is a very sanitized and watered down version of the precode "A Free Soul" from 1931, which was a big hit for MGM at the time. In the original the attorney/father Stephen Ashe is a hopeless alcoholic, the gangster is somebody Ashe defended for a murder of which he was very much guilty, and when the gangster threatens the daughter if she tries to leave him, her discarded fiance kills him but lies about his motive to protect her honor. I won't tell you what does ultimately happen in this film, but I will tell you that these three aspects are missing to the point that I wondered why MGM even bothered.

The 1931 film was made during the precode era during which there was much freedom to portray human nature with all its warts. The production code ended that in 1934. Thus it was not unusual for studios to remake their precode films in such a way that they could be exhibited in the production code era. What was unusual was for them to wait until the 1950s, as MGM did with this film, to produce a remake. As a result this film just seems like there is something missing mainly because there really is. All you have left is some cautionary tale about a girl who always had her way growing up in the shadow of a father who shunned convention who, as a result, goes after the wrong kind of man. Although Vic Ramondi does tell Jean he intends to change, is going to retire from the rackets, and is initially only showing his softer side, so even the accusation that she is attracted to a bad boy does not hold water.

The acting is good in this film, and as usual, William Powell makes it look effortless. He was the reason I decided to watch it, although the other performers do the best that they can with such thin material.

Decent Remake with Great Cast

[Michael_Elliott · 19 March 2012]

The Girl Who Had Everything (1953)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent remake of A FREE SOUL has William Powell playing a lawyer who gets his scumbag client (Fernando Lamas) off some serious charges only to live to regret it when his spoiled daughter (Elizabeth Taylor) starts to date him. The lawyer tries to talk some sense into his daughter but as the title says, he's always given her everything she's wanted so she's not willing to take his advice. This MGM production had big shoes to fill as the original 1931 version featured Lionel Barrymore playing the role of the father, which ended up getting him the Oscar and it also featured Norma Shearer as his daughter and Clark Gable in the role of the gangster. Both versions have good and bad things so it's really hard to compare the two as this one here at least changes up quite a bit of things including the ending and also missing are various courtroom scenes. It's funny to see such a powerful cast and then watch the movie and realize that this is basically a "B" picture that doesn't have any of the lavish production that you'd expect from the studio and the cast. This actually somewhat helps the film because we never get too much melodrama, although it's constantly on display. Thankfully the film runs a short 69-minutes and it doesn't overstay its welcome at that time but had this thing gone on another twenty minutes or so then it would have been a lot less entertaining. The best thing going for the movie are the three lead performances. Powell didn't get to show off his dramatic skills too often but he's very believable here and manages to turn in a fine performance. Taylor is as beautiful as always and also manages to turn in a good performance. Lamas was the real scene-stealer as he's perfect in the role of the gangster who lets his guard down. Gig Young and James Whitmore are both good in their supporting roles. As I said, there's certainly plenty of melodrama here and while there aren't as many hard-hitting scenes, this remake does offer up a few good things including a rather brutal finale that you'll see coming a mile away but it still hits home. While the movie is predictable there's no question that it's worth seeing thanks in large part to the terrific cast.

Okay despite that subliminal '50s message

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 22 November 2009]

Elizabeth Taylor is "The Girl Who Had Everything" except an exciting boyfriend in this 1953 film also starring William Powell, Fernando Lamas, and Gig Young. Taylor is Jean Latimer, the gorgeous daughter of attorney Steve Latimer (Powell) who is dating the normal Vance (Young)but falls for her dad's client, Victor Raimondi, a handsome gangster (Lamas). Steve objects - strenuously - but Jean wants something a little less predictable.

If she wanted something less predictable, she's in the wrong movie, because you know what's going to happen the minute she sees Lamas testifying on television.

The film is worth seeing only for Taylor at the height of her youthful beauty, wearing the most incredible Helen Rose clothes that emphasize her beautiful figure. Powell must have had to finish off a contract commitment with MGM.

The message here is if you're a woman, don't search for adventure - you'll only become a tramp and take up with the wrong man - stay with the steady one closer to home and listen to your elders. I suppose to be fair, though, it's implied, probably not intentionally, that you need to find out certain things for yourself. Also, your choices aren't always wrong. You won't find that message here, implied or otherwise.

My Daughter Ain't Going To Marry One

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 10 May 2007]

Although The Girl Who Had Everything is taken somewhat from MGM's earlier classic, A Free Soul, it has a few important differences in keeping with the decade it was done in.

William Powell is in the Lionel Barrymore part of the high priced criminal lawyer, but he's not representing his client in a murder trial. In keeping with the times Powell is at a Senate Rackets Committee hearing with Fernando Lamas who tells them nothing and a few Senators get some headlines and photo ops from the hearing.

As the hearing concludes daughter Elizabeth Taylor meets up with her dad and his client and they're both taken with each other. This does not sit well with Powell, who's perfectly willing to take their money, but not to let them in his life and family.

Fernando Lamas is in the gangster role, the same part that Clark Gable got his first real notice. Whereas Gable exuded some real menace and had no intention of leaving the rackets, Lamas actually wants to quit and settle down.

Of course the racism in The Girl Who Had Everything just bubbles over. Lamas apparently really does want to leave, but Powell is a snob and he's ready to violate lawyer/client privilege and testify himself before the Senate hearing as to Lamas's criminal enterprises. This would in fact get him disbarred in any state in the Union and the District of Columbia, a fact the film doesn't mention.

As for Lamas's associates, they take the attitude of once in, never out and deal with it accordingly. Wrongly in my opinion, but that's the fault of a very confused script.

This rehash of A Free Soul is only 69 minutes long, my guess the shortest feature film Elizabeth Taylor was ever in. She tries, but does not come close to what Norma Shearer did in the original version.

And Gig Young as her society boyfriend repeating the role that Leslie Howard had, has very little to do but look concerned and issue grave warnings about getting mixed up with those kind of people.

Dore Schary was unloading all of MGM's big stars from its golden era and The Girl Who Had Everything was the kiss off to William Powell. He looks plain bored with the whole thing and who could blame him. He had two more films in him as a free lance star, How to Marry a Millionaire and Mr. Roberts both infinitely better than this.

Filler

[jhkp · 4/10 · 27 February 2016]

Back then, the studios made a lot of films, they were film factories; some films were given special treatment, those are most often the ones we see today. There was also a great deal of product that was ground out like sausage. The Girl Who Had Everything falls somewhere in the middle, as it has big stars and one of MGM's reliable (though not very artistic) stalwarts at the helm, Richard Thorpe. But it plays more like a B picture nobody cared about too much. It couldn't have taken very long to film it. It's mostly comprised of dialogue scenes and shot at MGM.

Basically it's a remake of A Free Soul, a brilliant melodrama from the studio's early days. If they had just done a fairly close remake of that one, in an updated form, they probably would have had a compelling film, what with William Powell in the Lionel Barrymore part and Elizabeth Taylor, Fernando Lamas, and Gig Young in the roles first taken by Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, and Leslie Howard.

Instead, it's a very watered down version of that picture. For example, a central plot point of A Free Soul is that daughter Norma will give up gangster Gable if alcoholic dad Barrymore will go on the wagon. There's nothing like this in the remake. Powell drinks, but he can handle it. Every interesting dramatic point is thrown away while keeping the bare bones of the original story, so there is no real dramatic tension. See the two films back to back for yourself.

A Free Soul takes place during Prohibition and Gable's character is a gangster who owns a speakeasy and gambling den, and Barrymore's character is a lawyer who frees him from a murder rap. It's topical, exciting, and fits together neatly. In the loose remake, Lamas is a racketeer and Powell is his lawyer, and that's about it. Well, see for yourself. It never gets a dramatic head of steam going. The acting is good, but that's about it.

William Powell's MGM Swansong

[Neal99 · 5/10 · 28 February 2003]

This film is a good example of standard MGM output in the early 1950s - still glossy, with good production values, but dramatically no great shakes. It is perhaps most notable as being William Powell's final film at MGM. Although it must have been appealing to Powell to play the same part that won Lionel Barrymore an Oscar in 1931 (for A Free Soul), the writer of this film let Powell down with a routine script. Also notable is André Previn's score, which seems unnecessarily lush at times given the routine nature of the production.

Jean is either an idiot or a screwball!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 19 September 2015]

Steve Latimer (William Powell) is a hotshot defense attorney. However, problems develop when his daughter, Jean (Elizabeth Taylor), becomes fascinated with a scum-bag gangster that her father is defending. Steve advises her to keep away--he knows that Victor (Fernando Lamas) is bad news. But Jean is either really stupid or has some really bad personality defects and soon is chasing after this charming creep. Regardless why, she seems willing to give up on her nice-guy boyfriend, Vance (Gig Young), and live life on the wild side. Her permissive father is alarmed...but also not about to demand she call off this relationship. What's next?

While the idea of a seemingly nice girl hanging with a scummy gangster might seem ridiculous, there are folks like this. I used to work with prisoners as well as do counseling and saw many seemingly normal ladies being swept off their feet by evil men. I don't get it, but it isn't really that unrealistic and I can't fault the movie for this plot line. It's very possible that Jean has a Borderline Personality--and folks like this crave excitement even if it is very harmful and stupid!

So is it any good? Well, the acting is lovely---and I love William Powell's seemingly effortless performance. He's the best thing about the film. Sadly, this film is William Powell's last film with MGM and he'd only go on to make two more films before retiring. Apparently he had some cognitive slippage and was having more and more trouble remembering his lines. It's a shame, as he was a heck of an actor and always made it look so effortless. But at least he knew when to call it a day.

Overall, I'd recommend this one. It's slickly made, well written and offers little to complain about...and I usually LIKE to complain! It was tough and enjoyable throughout...especially the ending. An excellent film.

Tripe in fancy dress clothes

[jjnxn-1 · 5/10 · 18 December 2011]

This is tripe dressed up in fancy clothes. A loose remake of "A Free Soul" this silly melodrama is a painless time waster and not much else. What was once a racy provocative drama has become an empty potboiler.

True it does have Elizabeth Taylor at the peak of her beauty and that's always worth seeing. Additionally she is a much more relaxed and natural actress than Norma Shearer ever was. But she is handed a part that has been diluted from the original which is true of the entire picture.

William Powell, a welcome presence as always, isn't given the flashy part that Lionel Barrymore won an Oscar for in the original just a disapproving father without any real bite. No wonder he left MGM after this if this is the best they had to offer.

The real problem is the casting of Fernando Lamas in the old Clark Gable role, with Gable and his animal magnetism you could understand Norma's desire and willingness to stray with him. With Lamas, attractive though he may be, there is none of that and he comes across as a cheap hood made good and an oily one at that and Liz's headstrong determination to be with him makes her seem a foolish, spoiled nitwit.

For fans of the stars, and of course this being an MGM film they are beautiful dressed and the surrounding sumptuous, it's worth one watch but that will be more than enough.

If you have everything, you can do what you want

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 1 March 2014]

MGM producers have taken a routine gangster picture and repackaged it as a melodrama. In this case, they have churned out a more emotional remake of the studio's earlier hit A Free Soul. This time, instead of Clark Gable, suave Fernando Lamas plays a notorious criminal on trial for running an illegal gambling outfit. His lawyer, played by William Powell in the role that earned Lionel Barrymore an Oscar, manages to help him escape prosecution.

Soon, Lamas' character is involved with Powell's daughter (Elizabeth Taylor taking over the part originated by Norma Shearer). To be expected, the lawyer disapproves of the relationship between the unsavory client and his daughter. Feeling he must prevent an impending marriage, he decides to turn the gangster over to the feds.

It is all fairly entertaining, but one has to ask why MGM did not just re-release the original, since it is much better and this is not a Technicolor upgrade. Perhaps it is because the studio that has everything can do what it wants?

Ho-hum!

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 31 March 2018]

Producer: Armand Deutsch. Copyright 27 February 1953 (in notice: 1952) by Loew's Inc. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. No New York opening. U.S. release: 27 March 1953. U.K. release: 13 July 1953. Australian release: 25 May 1953. 6,242 feet. 69 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Jean Latimer, daughter of a wealthy criminal lawyer, falls in love with one of her father's clients, Victor Ramondi, the crooked head of a gambling syndicate. Latimer warns his daughter against Ramondi, but she is determined to marry him. On the day before the wedding, Ramondi learns that Latimer intends to bring him before a Senate crime investigation committee. NOTES: A re-make of A Free Soul (1931).

COMMENT: Mediocre romantic drama. Were it not for the beautiful presence of Elizabeth Taylor, beautifully photographed and attractively costumes, the rating would be even less. William Powell looks old and tired and just goes through the motions on this last film of his M-G-M contract, while Fernando Lamas and James Whitmore are totally unable to convince us they are ruthless gangsters.

Thorpe's direction is at its best in the gangsters' action sequences (the senatorial hearing with flash-bulbs popping), but shows evidences of hasty shooting in the dialogue scenes (Miss Taylor is inadequate in the long take in which she tells Powell she is going back, though the camera is skilfully placed). Production values are not lavish. The film was obviously designed for the lower half of a double bill.

OTHER VIEWS: This Hollywood-lush tale has been handled by Richard Thorpe with routine competence but no imagination; dialogue and incident are of the same monotonous order. Of the cast, William Powell turns in a familiarly wise-slick portrayal and Elizabeth Taylor, decoratively satisfying, plays a limited character with limited skill. The whole adds up to a graceless pattern of screen melodrama. - Monthly Film Bulletin.

Mediocre remake of a juicier pre-code film with glossy MGM production.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 12 December 2011]

Who better to take on the role of Norma Shearer's heroine of 1931's "A Free Soul" than Elizabeth Taylor? 22 years after that film (starring the queen of the studio at that time), MGM remade it with one of their three reigning queens of the early 50's (Ava Gardner and Lana Turner being the others). What they did to Adela St. John's story was shrink it down to 69 minutes and taking a bite out of it that leaves it seeming a bit inconclusive.

In "A Free Soul", rebellious society girl (Shearer) got involved with a gangster (Clark Gable) leaving her fiancée (Leslie Howard) high and dry and upsetting her attorney father (Lionel Barrymore) who once defended Gable. That story remains with Taylor, Fernando Lamas, Gig Young, and William Powell in the roles, listed by actor in the order of the characters in the synopsis above. Taylor and Powell, reunited from 1947's "Life With Father", are perfect replacements for Shearer and Barrymore (who won an Oscar for his powerful performance), and leave the other two actors on the skids. Lamas tries to make his character multi-dimensional, but he is too easy to see through. It is understandable that two extremely attractive people like Lamas and Taylor would fall into bed with each other (left to the imagination here), but how Taylor, much feistier than Shearer, would consider marrying such an obvious scumbag makes her more "The Girl Who Had Everything but Smarts".

Powell is still dashing almost 20 years after teaming with Gable and Myrna Loy in MGM's 1934 gangster classic "Manhattan Melodrama". He gives the film's best performance, but sadly, it lacks the trial scene that Barrymore won the Oscar for in the first place. The ending here comes too swift to be satisfying. While at the height of her young adult beauty, Taylor is forced to wear far too much eye makeup, which hides the natural beauty of those violet peepers. Gig Young's character is never fleshed out enough, making him a one dimensional opposite of Lamas's scoundrel. The film is too well cast to be one of MGM's "B" outputs of the early TV era, and that makes it obvious why this is considered no classic. Still, the MGM gloss shines through, and any film with Taylor and Powell is worth a viewing or two.

no rooting interest

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 24 November 2021]

Jean (Elizabeth Taylor)'s father, defense lawyer Steve Latimer (William Powell) is defending playboy gambler Victor Y. Ramondi (Fernando Lamas). She pushes off her boyfriend Vance Court (Gig Young)'s marriage proposal and becomes interested in bad boy Victor.

I really have no one to root for in this movie. Elizabeth Taylor is magnetic but I don't care about her character. I don't care about her relationship with either men. This may work better if Victor's violence can be accentuated earlier. That would have raised the tension and this movie needed that.

Not a bad little movie

[imdb-24 · 9/10 · 3 February 2003]

A bit of an old fashioned drama, but entertaining if you like movies about simpler times. The plot is simple and not overly cluttered. The cast is superb. If you like to watch movies instead of analyzing them, then just sit back, watch and enjoy.

Liz learns that a woman's place is in the home.

[David-240 · 2/10 · 12 January 2003]

In this loathsome piece of 1950's propaganda, a luminously beautiful Elizabeth Taylor learns that striving for adventure and excitement in life is a mistake. A woman can't really be happy flying around the world with a handsome Latin lover, what she really wants to do is stay home, have babies, and darn her husband's socks! Furthermore Lorenzo Lamas learns that if you're born in the gutter then that is where you should stay. Striving to rise above your station, especially if you are not an Anglo-Saxon male, is not to be encouraged in any way.

What such intelligent and gifted actors as William Powell, Gig Young and James Whitmore are doing in this rubbish is hard to fathom. The scenes set in a Senate inquiry into Lamas' business operations are reminiscent of the real House Un-American Activities inquiries that were happening at the time, but in this movie I think we are supposed to be on the racist senators' side! Sexist, racist garbage - I wonder what Liz thinks of it now!

The father of the bride.

[dbdumonteil · 6 June 2010]

this is a very short movie and one of the most obscure in Elizabeth Taylor's filmography.Obviously it's not one of her best but she is really gorgeous .

She portrays a rich kid "who has everything" (the title tells no lies),with a rather over possessive father -who has excuses ,for he is a widower and she is his only child- and a good-looking but bland and boring fiancé .Enter a shady handsome Latin lover type man (Lamas)and the girl falls heads over heels in love.The most interesting side of this Harlequin Romance is its reactionary side:for the distinguished father ,the hunk will always be worse than a nouveau riche ;he will never be part of the respectable circle of gentlemen and the more he tries to start all over again,to redeem his soul -"even God would give me a second chance"-,the more he fails ,for he's got two kind of enemies now: the fine upstanding people and his former partners from his racy past.

Taylor plays a joke on her fans

[mollytinkers · 4/10 · 8 November 2021]

Beautiful sets. Beautiful Elizabeth in beautiful clothes. Beautiful Fernando. Wreck of a film. I'm a huge fan of Taylor, but this is one to skip. As a matter of fact, I wish I had skipped it.

I don't care if this was supposed to be a remake or not. That's irrelevant. It's just plain flat, lifeless, and one to file away in the "fail" file. I blame the script and the production. All those involved should have known upfront it wouldn't work.

Not Great, but Not Bad Either

[beadbud5000-236-262376 · 5/10 · 12 March 2014]

William Powell as the girl's Father, was very good and it was his third to last film. He retires in 1955, two years later. Elizabeth Taylor is building her "acting chops" in this film. She is good. Think of this film as leaning towards being a melodrama. At 69 minutes long, it is short but with good cinematic tension. Fernando Lamas is fine as the hoodlum, love interest. Both Fernando Lamas and Elizabeth Taylor look incredibly beautiful and sexy! James Whitmore is surprisingly good as the best friend but a part of the syndicate . This is one of his early films but he carries himself wonderfully! This film is not heavy on depth as many of the classic films of the 1950's are known have. I enjoyed myself. The film held my interest. 5 out of 10 stars!

Not a very good film despite an amazing cast.

[buystuffrnh · 5/10 · 15 April 2018]

Not a very good film despite an amazing cast (with exception of James Whitmoor who is badly miscast). It is just another B movie melodrama from 1950's.

Taylor & Lamas Burned Up the Screen!

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 19 August 2004]

If you are a fan of the once beautiful Elizabeth Taylor and her great acting skills, this is a film to sit back and ENJOY! There is lots of sexy sax playing and the musical score of Andre Previn creates the mood for this picture. Elizabeth Taylor,"The V.I.P.'s,'63, is the daughter of William Powell,"Another Thin Man",'37, who is a very successful lawyer who had represented the gangsters of NYC and wants to retire. However, he is a heavy drinker and tries to protect his daughter, Elizabeth Taylor from Fernando Lamas,"The Lost World",'60, the kingpin of the hoods. Gig Young,"Game of Death",'78 is very much in love with Taylor, but she is putting him on the back burner, so to speak! It was great to see how young and beautiful Taylor and Lamas were together and in one scene near the pool, the director showed how sexy they could be for a 1953 film! Gig Young had a great supporting role and it was unfortunate that he had to take his own life and his new bride in a tragic ending in NYC!

Makes women look stupid or makes them look heartless

[nomoons11 · 5/10 · 25 September 2011]

I know this is suppose to be a remake of "Free Soul" but the old version just felt different. This one makes you feel like most women are either heartless and would leave the man who's courted them for a long time just to be with a guy who's obviously a thug and screw the other guys feelings...or...that women are too stupid to think for themselves because they fall in love with the first guy that's just too handsome so they can't think of anything other than...it's love.

This one really irritated me cause of the above mentioned aspect of the film. The title is not really part of the film. Elizabeth Taylor doesn't have everything. I think it was suppose to be a reference to a girl who just does whatever she wants at any cost...regardless of what it does to anyone else.

If your thinking about screwin your boyfriend or future husband over, then watch this film. If your not, then skip this one...it's not worth the watch.

Gutless

[drednm · 27 June 2017]

Botched on all levels, this remake of A FREE SOUL from 1931 takes the basic plot of that searing classic and turns it into a bland love story.

Elizabeth Taylor has the Norma Shearer part. Here she's a snotty young woman who tosses daddy and beau aside to run after a gangster. There's no chemistry between Taylor and Fernando Lamas (the Clark Gable role) so it's impossible to buy her reckless actions.

William Powell has the Lionel Barrymore role that won him an Oscar. Here, Powell is sidelined into an empty role that gives him nothing to do. In the original film, Shearer fights to save Barrymore (who in turn comes to the rescue in the finale). Here, Powell just disappears into the woodwork. Gig Young plays the Leslie Howard role. As with Powell, Young disappears as well.

So 20 years after A FREE SOUL was a critical and popular hit, the story has been gutted and remade for no reason at all but to present the young Taylor in an adult role. At 69 minutes, they also turned it into a B movie.

Weak version of classic!

[hemisphere65-1 · 3/10 · 20 November 2021]

The performances were pretty weak, although Lamas did a good job.

Story was lame and obviously geared to 50s flag-waving racism and sexism!

A Free Soul is a much better movie and worth watching; this is not!

No such thing as "Neutral"

[Sheila_Beers · 10/10 · 11 April 2006]

Obviously, this is one movie people either love or hate -- there is no in-between. I loved the movie because Elizabeth Taylor's character must choose between (1) her attachment to her boyfriend and (2) the moral obligation to do the right thing. In other roles Taylor portrayed young women who defied their fathers in regard to relatively minor issues; in this role, the character defies her father to follow a potentially deadly path.

Fernando Lamas (the late father of Lorenzo Lamas) does an excellent portrayal of the charming Latin lover; however, the character has a dark side involved with the criminal element.

In the end, the female lead (portrayed by Taylor) must make a choice between (1) the good she sees in her boyfriend and (2) her obligation to justice.