It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

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.

All other reviewers have largely,and, from very different prospectives, told us all about we needed to know about the story,a lurid 1910's upper Manhattan's scandal, its acute sensationalism and the 3 principals, all victims of their 'so typically' scandalous,yet, "attractive" misfortune, one of the most famous classic American tragedies in a way! But,plot aside, what bothers me the most, by reading even too patiently, all the other reviews posted so far, is how terribly quickly, all the other people poorly rated this movie. with no consideration nor understanding of the different times,immediately labeling this movie, as mostly outdated, annoying, ridiculous, boring,and even badly done! This is just an outrage! An outrage to the greater Hollywood of the Golden days: are people unable to understand that a movie filmed actually in 1955, is still a great movie,today, certainly without CGI or the visuals generated extravaganza's to which we are compulsively used (or addicted,rather?) today? I am a huge Old Hollywood films buff, but,i do indeed recognize very often a film's limits,which here are only a different narrative, that is still extremely effective, even if paced differently, and told without all the (natural) progress and maturity that the art of the craft of filmmaking has achieved, yet loosing something else forever, and that is, if i may say, that magical quality those movies, then truly owned, and, that some may still recognize today, especially, if watching such material, properly, in a restored wide screen print, and on the silver screen,where they belong! People may then be surprised of what a show they could still admire, while, also having a whole different version of a story still developed with a lot more depth, talent, and visionary creation, than what is barely left today to our always more formulaic, more modern, and more all the same, films we get, certainly, more attuned to our standards, but without any wiser basic execution! And, on top, like a few did,it is very unfair, almost a bit vulgar to me, to critique, the magnificent directorial work of true iconographic master director Richard Fleischer, his very cinematic rendition of this classic tale of American classic icons: if someone had to say something, i would ask then who could direct today with taste,such a disturbing study like this one? The direction here is exquisite, and, yes, filmed in gorgeous CinemaScope and De Luxe Color (and not Technicolor!) a more pastel version of the saturated color film stock then in use, but, primarily a classic exclusive of 20th Century Fox throughout the 1950's and 1960's up to the 1980's believe it or not! The cinematography,the rich costumes, accurate set dressing, production design, hair and make up, are all stunning, the acting adequate, with great professionals! Wooden? No. That was the way people would act before the advent of the Actor's Studio and of the new American Cinema that came a decade later, completely changing the style and the Studios themselves, and, as a proper evolution of our Time! And, Monroe pledged for the Collin's part, and with the new look for her recreated by Milton Greene, I am sure she would have been quite a sensation, believe me, i only wish i could watch today,how Monroe, with her new, and ,more adequate make up, hair, and with the direction of a better director,could have played Nesbitt! I think she would have made probably a Classic of this one, and absolutely a stunner! And, especially, as it was supposed to be, if the Granger's role, would have then been played by James Dean (Yes, did anyone know??) who'd said to be extremely interested in portraying what was in fact a juicy and perfect role for him, a part he could have brought to even higher sinister weights! While, giant Frederic March, had been rumored for the part who eventually went to Milland, and that is, when Fox, "as usual stupidly" aggravated with Marilyn for having left Los Angeles, promptly nixed to Monroe the role! A role,of course, they knew she wanted, but, almost to dictate who had the power, they said no to Marilyn, knowing that so they'd be having both Dean and March to withdraw immediately, when, gorgeous, yet virtually unknown (then) Collins was to play the lead! Fox basically spoiled an unique occasion, a memorable film just to punish the star: they were mad, since MM, after refusing to make 3 pictures, one after another (one of them,co-starring Frank Sinatra,Eve Arden,and Robert Wagner "Pink Stockings" to be directed by Hathaway, was already almost in production, and quite honestly possibly a decent romantic comedy, but, Marilyn's opinion was that Nunnally Johnson had again built an almost basically decorative role for her, without any substance in it!) had left Hollywood, preventing Fox to banquet on her! But her commitment to studying was so incredibly strenuous, that when she finally came back to work at Fox an year later,for the melancholic BUS STOP, with the patient and wise direction of the great friend Joshua Logan, a true clever director,Marilyn delivered such an incredibly modern,touching,layered performance,only the Academy of those grim years refused to acknowledge, while, even her most stubborn of her detractors, had at long last, to admit that "the Lady could act, and not just being a tramp!".

Joan Collins is Evelyn Nesbit, the beautiful "Girl in the Red Velvet Swing" in this 1955 film also starring Ray Milland, Farley Granger, Cornelia Otis Skinner, Frances Fuller, and Glenda Farrell. The film purports to tell the story of the White-Nesbitt-Thaw triangle that ended with the murder of White, the arrest of Thaw, and the testimony of Nesbit.The facts are there, but as others have pointed out, the personalities are not. White (Milland) in fact was a notorious womanizer, and Evelyn was but another conquest. And while it may surprise people that beautiful, sexy "Dynasty" star Joan Collins could play demure and innocent, Evelyn probably wasn't. The unbalanced Thaw (Granger) was also a drug addict, not mentioned in the movie.This film, which initially was to star Marilyn Monroe and later Sheree North, should have been much more exciting, given a) the story and b) the money spent on it. Unfortunately, the lack of character development holds it up. The White character remains elusive; Milland never loosens up. Granger does an excellent job as Thaw. Collins is absolutely beautiful and does a good job with the character, but the character as written doesn't give the film much of an edge.The scene on the swing between Evelyn and White is dizzying and dazzling; and the end of the film is one of the best things about it.Evelyn Nesbit overcame the trial, rejection by Thaw's family, suicide attempts, alcoholism, and addiction to morphine, living until the age of 82 in 1967. She served as an adviser on this film.

This is a glossy melodrama (scripted by Charles Brackett, who also produced, and Walter Reisch) about a famous early 20th century crime of passion. The love triangle comprises Ray Milland (ideally cast but who isn’t particularly stretched by his role of architect Stanford White), Joan Collins (in one of her better Hollywood parts – by the way, the real-life Evelyn Nesbitt acted in a few Silents herself and served as a consultant on this film!) and Farley Granger. The latter is a revelation: usually playing self-effacing types, here he’s arrogant, temperamental and possessive; he reminded me of Robert Ryan’s equally neurotic millionaire in Max Ophuls’ CAUGHT (1949). Besides, Granger’s jealous probing into Collins’ past relations on their wedding night basically replicated a scene from Luis Bunuel’s EL [1952]; and, likewise, his murder of the Milland character over Collins presents a similar situation to a subplot in the Pre-Code BABY FACE [1933] – which, interestingly enough, I watched the very next day! Fleischer handles the proceedings efficiently enough (he was certainly adept at real-life crime stories, as his later dramatizations of the lives of other infamous murderers such as Leopold and Leob, Albert De Salvo and John Christie – in COMPULSION [1959], THE BOSTON STRANGLER [1968] and 10 RILLINGTON PLACE [1970] respectively – can attest) but, here, he’s somewhat bound by the commercially-minded formula approach of the studio system which, for instance, necessitated the inclusion of corny musical numbers…even if Collins’ character does start off as a dancer in a variety act. Unfortunately, too, the courtroom scenes aren’t the most compelling ever put on film – but they’re nonetheless elevated by Luther Adler’s presence as Granger’s defense attorney. Another valued appearance is that of author Cornelia Otis Skinner: this was one of only 4 films she did (which include the classic ghost story THE UNINVITED [1944], also with Milland, and the existentialist drama THE SWIMMER [1968], starring Burt Lancaster); she has one interesting scene towards the end where Granger’s mother recounts his overly-protected childhood to Collins, and which inevitably marked his character forever. Collins’ mother, then, is nicely played by veteran character actress Glenda Farrell.While THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING has been a regular on Italian TV over the years, I had first watched it as a kid; I decided to check the film out again now in view of Fox’s upcoming SE DVD, as part of THE JOAN COLLINS COLLECTION. By the way, the final scene – with Collins doing the titular stage act for impresario Emile Meyer, who’s eager to exploit her new-found notoriety – ends the film on a satisfyingly ironic note.

I first saw this movie years ago. The older I got the more I got it. Collins played Gibson Girl Evelyn Nesbitt Todays version of the Super models. So it is not surprising that is exactly the way she acts. She hangs out in nightclubs. Goes out with rich and famous men, some married some not. One day she double dates with one of her co workers and she meets Sanford White the very famous, very married, very rich architect, whose apartment the date takes place. She is smitten at once, he just seems like a lecherous old man. Evelyn lives with her mother, but for some reason her mother disappears and moves back down to Pittsburgh.So Evelyn is living on her own. In the meantime she catches the eye of a younger man. The very rich and very spoiled Harry Thaw. We know he is smitten with her but she doesn't really notice it because she is so taken with Sanford White. We know that they are sleeping with each other because of a very metaphoric scene which involves this velvet swing White has in his apartment. The swing is definitely used as some sort of seduction tool. And when Evelyn's mother returns home she remarks that Evelyn has not picked up her messages in days. So we know they are past the kissing and hugging stage. She is obsessed with him and she admits that she will do anything to see him. After a while Sanford admits to Evelyn that he loves his wife as he does her, but he can't see her anymore. So he sends her away to a finishing school. Where because she is separated from Sanford has a nervous breakdown.Now to me this movies veers off to Splendor in the Grass meets Back street. In Splendor young Natalie Woods has a nervous break down because of her break up with boyfriend Bud. Back street because Rae the main character will do anything and go anywhere to be with her rich married boyfriend. Instead of Sanford saving her we see Thaw coming to get her out of the Finishing school. She decides to take a trip with him overseas. This is racy stuff for a 50's movie. Now all am going to say is that the story picks up until the climax of the movie.This incident was touched upon in the movie Ragtime. Norman Mailer played the Sanford White role and Elizabeth McGovern played Evelyn. We learn more about Evelyns fate from the movie Ragtime. Farley Granger IMO was very good in this movie. He usually plays namby pamby types, but in this movie because of his boyish looks he plays a psychopath to the hilt. He was truly scary. Ray Milland is one of the great actors. According to reports Sanford White was a ladies man. I think Mr Milland played him very well. He looked like the lecherous old man he was. I hear complaints about Ray Milland in this movie, but his part was not the showy part. Milland was the type of actor that wanted to act and because of this he made many movies that did not help, but this was not one of them. Joan Collins was playing Joan Collins. She was good enough, even though she looked a little too old for the part of the teenage Ms Nesbit I think Elizabeth McGovern played her more true to the character. This a very entertaining movie. If you can get past the innuendo's you will see this is a very racy movie too. All in all a good movie. BTW watch Ragtime to see more of the trial and what happened to Evelyn.