krdement I will not provide yet another synopsis. However, the story is told by a sailor (who we learn is Swede) to a watchman late one night on a foggy wharf as a flashback. I thought the movie moved slowly, with none of the clever dialog necessary to sustain a high level of interest in this kind of "talky" plot.The story has enough side plots to keep things interesting. After their falling-out Grant's ex-partner is clearly not to be trusted. But, until the end, the scheme that he has hatched is unclear. This subplot maintains a good level of dramatic suspense. Grant is forced to flee from his associates who try to break down a door to get at him. He then uses his old friend and shipmate, Swede, to convey to Laraine Day the gambling proceeds he has saved from the clutches of his old gang. Charles Bickford is quite good as the faithful friend, occasional medic and stoic but ultimately sentimental shipmate, Swede. (As an aside to another commentator: I have no idea how you conceived of Swede as ever being menacing! I think you must have seen another movie!)It is the love story subplot that doesn't work well in this movie. Cary Grant and Laraine Day never seem to connect. I never really felt any chemistry between them. Consequently I was never gripped by the hope that they would get together - except possibly for the sake of Laraine Day's longing.I am a fan of Laraine Day (whose eyes are mesmerizing, as has been observed), and she was never more beautiful than she is in this role. I liked her in this film.I am a bigger fan of Cary Grant, and I found this role rather interesting. But the movie ultimately fails to satisfy because of Grant's acting (possibly due to the director). His role, Joe, is a male counterpart to the con artist played by Barbara Stanwyck in The Lady Eve. But Stanwyck's growing emotional involvement with her "mark," Henry Fonda is palpable. We see her struggle to reconcile her emotions with her other competing motives. By contrast Grant fails to convey any sense of GROWING emotional involvement with Laraine Day. Grant really appears to be concerned only with his fraudulent scheme to launch his gambling boat - ultimately at Day's expense. It is only when they arrive at Day's old Maryland family home and he hears her confession of love that he seems to suddenly convey any emotional involvement with her. Thus, it seems like a forced reaction. Later, at the film's climax he doesn't seem to dance with her at the "charity ball" with anything on his mind other than how to unweave the web he has spun. He doesn't convey any sense of emotion toward Day or any notion that it might be the last time he will ever hold her in his arms. He has other serious concerns, to be sure (which he conveys well), but there is no sense that she is also in his thoughts, much less in his heart. It is only in the scene toward the end when he pulls away from the dock (and away from the tearful Day) that he seems to express his emotional involvement in a very heart-felt way. By contrast, Day's involvement with Grant evolves gradually. We see her warm to him, even while rejecting his idea for a gambling night gala. And when he tells her the fabricated story about his family in Greece, struggling against the German invasion, we see Day's attitude shift. Her emotions begin to swell visibly for him after that.As one commentator has noted, perhaps audiences in 1943 laughed at times during this film. I may have smiled a couple of times at those junctures. As a 53-year old viewer in 2007, I must disagree with the characterization of this film as a comedy. Perhaps people characterize it as such because they can only think in terms of comedy or tragedy. This is NEITHER - it is a drama. For my tastes, I didn't find it melodramatic in the least. Nor did I find it heavy or depressing. This is simply a light, romantic drama - full of more tense moments than comedic ones.IF this movie were a comedy, the scene in which the police detectives sent by Laraine Day's father (Henry Stephenson) to Day's office might have been very funny. Instead, it is played straight and serious, with Day and Grant transformed into a couple of spies communicating in impromptu code (actually "Australian" slang, which is really rather interesting).The best scene is Cary's "repentance" in the church. The priest reads him a letter addressed to the dead man whose identity he has assumed. It is a scathing, heartbroken letter from the man's mother, and Cary listens to the priest, realizing it could have actually been written to him.Decent story, decent acting, very good cinematography all under the guidance of a director who didn't seem to have a steady hand at the tiller. I really wanted to like this movie a lot. Instead, I found some of its elements interesting, but the movie as a whole disappointing - though definitely watchable. (I wasn't tempted to rush out and buy the DVD!)

Piltdown_Man This is really a wonderful and somewhat surprising film. Grant plays against type, at least if you think his type is the suave, urbane lover boy who has never taken a false step...The real surprise for me, though, is how strong Day is in this film. She is photographed beautifully; the cinematographer made sure she had a strong eye light in nearly every scene and she looks stunning. But more than that, she just seems totally on her game and involved. Perhaps some of that credits goes to Grant, who seems to be having fun with the whole thing.Ron

bkoganbing Along similar lines to Suspicion, dapper Cary Grant plays a gambler confidence man with two problems that he solves in what he thinks is a masterstroke. The army is out to draft him so he has another crook with high blood pressure, Paul Stewart, pose as him at the draft physical. He also takes the name of a dead Greek sailor on a gambling boat that was raided. Of course when it turns out that the sailor had a lengthy criminal record including three felony convictions, that's not so good.On to a big score however. Grant offers his services to a war relief committee that is run by Park Avenue dowagers like Gladys Cooper and Florence Bates with the idea of doing a Las Vegas Night and stealing the take. Of course when pretty Laraine Day who's also involved in the committee comes on the scene, Grant reassesses himself. Especially after he gets a letter for the dead Greek sailor and has Greek Orthodox priest Vladimir Sokoloff translate it.MGM did a similar story about a draft dodger in For Me and My Gal which was Gene Kelly's debut film. That one was a good deal lighter than Mr. Lucky yet the plot line about being redeemed by the love of a good woman is the same.Mr. Lucky was one of RKO's biggest hits that year and it's clear that they knew what they were doing by not letting Cary Grant remain a heel. Try as he may, Grant had a lot of difficulty in getting studios to see him as anything other than the good guy. Eventually he surrendered to studio wishes, whatever studio it was.Besides those mentioned, Mr. Lucky also has good performances by Charles Bickford as the boat captain and amateur surgeon who saves Grant's life and by Alan Carney as Grant's driver and man Friday. It's definitely worth a look when next on TCM.

ccthemovieman-1 The story here was just a little too boring and the humor just not funny enough. It added up to a film that was too boring to watch. That was further surprising because the cast was good: Cary Grant, Lariaine Day, Charles Bickford and Henry Stephenson. Grant may be the only big "star" in that group but I've always found Bickford and Stephenson to play interesting guys and Day had to have about the prettiest eyes I've ever seen. They just sparkle and it makes her face mesmerizing at times.Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to make me impressed over this film. It's simply too dated, humor-wise. I don't know how it was received in 1943, whether audiences laughed a lot at this but, unlike dramas, westerns, crime movies, etc., comedies can look very dated very quickly and today's audiences would not laugh at this.