Watch Undercurrent For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

You won't be disappointed!

Waste of time

The acting in this movie is really good.

For attractive spinster Katharine Hepburn, the sudden introduction to the handsome Robert Taylor sweeps her off her feet and leads her straight into matrimony. She's got family present. He doesn't. The sudden revelation that he has a brother whom he hates begins to disturb the new Mrs., and several other factors raise suspicions for her that all is not well. A certain concerto Hepburn plays disturbs Taylor violently, and questions about the missing brother's whereabouts raise more suspicions. Others get testy every time that the brother is mentioned, leading to a dark conclusion where having curiosity proves to be quite a dangerous trait.All four of the great stars (Hepburn, Crawford, Davis, Stanwyck) went from playing strong will and independent women to ladies in jeopardy, evidence that times were changing post World War II. Hepburn seems to be stretching the truth in trying to make us believe that she could be anything but formidable. Taylor's moody and neurotic, so most of the mystery surrounds him. All of the questions seem to have answers to them on the way when Hepburn meets Robert Mitchum, the caretaker of a woodsy cottage owned by the family, but those answers aren't what she's expected. This is the only film noir that Hepburn ever did, and the only one directed by Vincent Minnelli, an odd choice for this assignment.A talented supporting cast includes Edmund Gwenn as Hepburn's lovable father, Marjorie Main as their longtime housekeeper, Clinton Sundberg as the bookkeeper for Taylor's company and Jayne Meadows as a nosy socialite who quizzes Hepburn on Taylor's brother but obviously knows more than she's letting on. "I Love Lucy" fans will be delighted to see Kathryn Card in a showy small part. The film is fairly intriguing, only slightly convoluted and glossy to the max. Hepburn and Taylor lack spark, hence their only film together, although I wouldn't have minded seeing Hepburn paired again with Mitchum, especially in their older years.

Pure melodrama (not noir) and not very good at that. Looks great, not satisfying cinematically. I'm shaking my head at all the people saying Mitchum was cast against type. This early in his career, he didn't really have a type.Totally not believable that Hepner's character goes from professional, competent and self-assured to the frightened, clingy female the plot requires of her.It drags, it's predictable, and it's bloated and boring. Bleah! With this cast, I was wondering why I'd never heard of it before. Now I know. Save yourself!

If you can stick with the plot through a long, drawn-out first half, the second half generates at least some dramatic interest. But that first half is a trial, one that tests the endurance and bravery of even the most fortified fans of glossy, dull, dreary 1940s melodramas.The plot ordeal is made worse by the miscasting of Katharine Hepburn as a shy, demure, self-effacing young woman named Ann, who jabbers loquaciously through almost every scene of the film, and in that grating voice that Hepburn is so well known for. How torturous! Could we not at least have had an intermission?Then there's nondescript Robert Taylor, who plays Alan, a middle-age man of means and mystery, who wants Ann in marriage, but for what ulterior motive? Only the scriptwriter knows for sure, as the plot veers, meanders, and winds through assorted scenes that exist seemingly just to highlight his motivational ambiguity.Finally, in the second half, the plot picks up. And the viewer is rewarded with an interestingly strange, if not quite believable, climax. But I could have wished for a quicker, less serpentine route.The film's B&W visuals and the nondescript background music are soft and glossy, in sync with the melodramatic story. Alan's wealth propels him through a clique of haughty characters, off-putting in their vanity and self-importance, the worst being Sylvia Burton, played by icy Jayne Meadows. Not surprisingly, costumes are mostly high fashion and showy.If most of the first half had been cut out, if the script had been less talky, and if different actors had been cast in the lead roles, then "Undercurrent" might have been worth watching. As is, it's mostly an example of what can go wrong when a poor script and bad casting collide.

A mousy pushover with no self-confidence (Katherine Hepburn !??) finds herself married to a Senator with a hidden past (Jane Eyre?), who seems to be trying to kill her (Hitchcock's "Suspicion?"). She is NOT to go near his other house, NOT to ask about his brother, and NOT to play that piano piece (Rebeccca?). Hepburn (not talented) and Minelli (talented) are on their individual genius tracks, and are not about to be constrained by a mere Noir genre piece. They both become too distracted by self-expression, to turn in a good product. Undercurrent comes out flat & inept. Having allowed Hepburn to be miscast, Minelli demurs and allows her to stamp her "strong woman in pants" thing on everything in sight. Likewise, from his history of allowing men to become standard-issue, receding wallflowers in a series of women's films, he doesn't notice that his leading man (Robert Taylor) brings too little firepower to offset Hepburn. Taylor is completely two-dimensional and adrift, and he's blown off the screen every second they're paired up. He's totally "second banana" material. The most rapt viewer cannot correct that imbalance in their head, and we never perceive any threat in the scenario. Ultimately, the story goes such run-of-the-mill places that it never validates the star power it's hired. It just kind of sits there taking forever to make its point.