terrible... so disappointed.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

A once-idealistic doctor from a small mining town sells his integrity for a big city practice treating wealthy dowagers. If you said to yourself "That sounds like an incredibly dull premise for a noir," give yourself a gold star. Nothing to see here but a bunch of heavy-handed speechifying and simplistic class distinctions. I've never cared for Charlton Heston (with the possible exception of TOUCH OF EVIL) and here he does a lot of jutting out his chin and looking handsome and delivering his lines with zero conviction. Lizabeth Scott is an actress I run hot and cold on... in this case, quite cold. She's entirely uninteresting as a "bad girl" whose primary vice is a mild materialist streak. I was also rather annoyed by Mildred Dunnock, playing Heston's hand-wringing mother. The script is just awful and photographically, the film is a dud, with a few instances of noticeably poor shot continuity (not a deal-breaker, but a pet peeve of mine). There's no tension, no real conflict, no doubt about how everything's going to turn out okay in the end. Bad for you, bad for me, bad for everyone.

Usually my rating comes pretty close to the "group" rating here. But this time I must disagree and give this film a considerably higher "7".I was not expecting much, partially because since Charlton Heston's NRA rants he had fallen out of favor with me, although I still believe his performance in Ben-Hur was one of the great performances in cinematic history. But there have been few other films I really enjoyed him in. But, Heston's performance here is top notchAs one other reviewer here pointed out, it isn't far into the film before we know that the basic plot is that a doctor who is tempted to a rich practice for hypochondriacs will, eventually, return to his true calling. Okay, but then again, we figure out the gist of most movies pretty quickly. What makes a film interesting is the way it gets to a conclusion we've already figured out. On the one hand, some aspects of the story -- such as the coal mining aspect -- are a little different. There are also some aspects of the film that just don't ring true...such as the mother's reluctance to have her son be successful; that is a bit overdone. And, I don't think the screenwriters did Lizabeth Scott's role any favors; she's too callous. But, at least she's interesting here. Dianne Foster as a dedicated nurse was good, and it's always nice to see Mildred Dunnock (here as the mother; too bad the role was not more realistic). Arthur Franz is excellent as a dedicated young doctor. It's always a plus to have veteran character actor Ray Collins in a film, and he is wonderful as ever here. Same for Marjorie Rambeau as a rich, matronly type. Lester Matthews and Rhys Williams do fine as a slick city-type doctor versus a country doctor.So, from my perspective, this is a pretty decent movie. Perhaps not one for the DVD shelf, but definitely worth a watch (or two...as I did).

This Columbia film is an abbreviated reworking of MGM's THE CITADEL (1938). In THE CITADEL a young doctor treats miners in Wales, but then sells out to treat rich hypochondriacs in London, before rediscovering his ethics in the end. In BAD FOR EACH OTHER, it's miners in Coalville vs. rich women in Pittsburgh. There are many other similarities, although BAD reshuffles the plot elements into a shorter running time. A mine disaster sequence, common to both films, is egregiously duplicated in BAD, including some shots which are near-identical. It's close to plagiarism. THE CITADEL is a great film, while BAD is merely entertaining. Just don't watch them within a month of each other, as I accidentally did.

In between his two DeMille blockbusters, Charlton Heston did a bunch of films of varying quality, some for Paramount and some as a loan out. For this medical soap opera, Heston went to Columbia to appear opposite Lizabeth Scott. Bad For Each Other is kind of like Not As A Stranger in reverse. If you'll recall in that one Robert Mitchum had nurse/wife Olivia DeHavilland, but had a roving eye for the sultry socialite Gloria Grahame. In this one Heston starts out going big time for Scott, but there is also idealistic nurse Dianne Foster in the picture as well.Heston's character is an army doctor on leave, fresh from Korea and in Coalville, Pennsylvania to visit his mother, Mildred Dunnock. He gets a nice offer from the town doctor Rhys Williams to move in and gradually takeover his practice. But when Scott comes with a better offer in more attractive packaging, Heston's libido takes over and he leaves the army to work in a high priced clinic for the rich and powerful in Pittsburgh.It's not just hormones talking here, the only thing about Coalville Heston liked as a kid was saying goodbye to it as he didn't want to wind up in the mines like most of the town. There's a cave-in at the mine for a climax and I think if you've seen enough medical dramas you have some idea where this is going. The stars and supporting cast are all comfortable in the parts they are playing, but no new ground is broken in Bad For Each Other.