Did you people see the same film I saw?

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

It is popular to either praise this film to the heavens or to dismiss much of it as style over substance, depending on whether you think Welles was a genius or not.I think you should watch the film and make your own mind up. It seems to me that the end result is a bit of curate's egg, i.e. it is good in parts. Perhaps this is symptomatic of how things were for Welles at the time; his marriage to Hayworth was in the process of disintegration, and his professional life was chaotic; the aims of the studio were very different from Welles, and they had control over the finished item. His rough cut was shortened by an hour, and a lot of what was left was supplemented with expensive and time-consuming reshoots, and edited to barely resemble the original. The music was also changed, much to Welles' chagrin. The result was that the film was delayed by a year and went over budget; by the time of release, Welles' relationship with both Hollywood and Hayworth were each well and truly over. The plot is convoluted, confusing, and in some parts nonsensical. Whether it would have been much different in the original cut is open to debate, but I doubt it. It is nearly always interesting to watch; the camerawork, the acting, Hayworth's beauty, the location shooting are all very engaging. By contrast Welles' Irish accent is more than a bit dodgy and the film has clearly suffered in the edit.This is an interesting film, certainly, but as it stands a brilliant one, probably not. Not as bad as the knockers would make out, but not as good as some reckon, either.I enjoyed it, but as with most of Orson Welles' films, one is left wondering what might have been, under other circumstances.

. . . especially effective at showing how an honest, intelligent man will make the stupidest choices when lured by snakes. People say this movie is confusing -- I say look at the simple, personal, ugly-beautiful movie that it is and not what you imagine.Welles's fake-Irish stands up okay. Hayworth's negative capability never more apparent. Everett Sloane plays the sh*t out of one Cinema's purest evil, of the type who like to own and destroy people, slowly.Fans always rave about the funhouse mirrors finale, but so many astonishing set pieces to relish -- my fave is the Chinese theater sequence.And of course, 'Lady from Shanghai' is one in the must-see canon.

I was impressed with the way the Bannister character walked, with the two canes, especially in the courtroom scenes. Was Sloane paralyzed, or did he take on this walking style just for this movie? I saw nothing in the bio on Sloane to indicate he was paralyzed. I just watched this on TCM...I found it to be a rather typical Wells's movie...even saw some similarities with The Third Man-the lack of clarity as to who was who, and who was guilty. But, overall I found it to be quite good. I even kinda liked Wells's accent, although I agree with others that it did not seem totally accurate. I would recommend this movie, along with the third man.

Just about every film buff knows Orson Welles's masterpieces "Citizen Kane" and "Touch of Evil". But lesser known is "The Lady from Shanghai". It is probably safe to call this movie one of the greatest examples of film noir. I interpreted the mirror scene as a metaphor for everything that happens in the movie (showing two of each person implies duplicity). And it goes without saying that Rita Hayworth oozes sensuality as naturally as she breathes.If the movie has any problem, it's Welles's voice. The Irish accent is just not one that most actors know how to impersonate (can't they just cast Irish people in those roles?). But that doesn't weaken the movie at all. The acting, camera work and editing coalesce into one of the greatest pieces of work ever put on screen. It reaffirms Orson Welles as one of the greatest directors ever (maybe THE greatest). I also recommend "The Third Man" (a film noir in which Welles starred but didn't direct).