User reviews

This movie starts out like the kind of romantic comedy that Hollywood often does well. Susan Hayward is a powerful publisher who wants to discredit an army general (Kirk Douglas) in her magazine. For the first part of the movie, while their relationship is more adversarial, the film moves along fine and is both amusing and enjoyable. However, as the relationship changes and the story gets more complicated, the movie starts to run out of steam. This is a strange phenomenon, as one can almost pinpoint the exact moment when the air starts to go out of the balloon.

On the plus side, the film has two top-notch stars and a fine supporting cast including Paul Stewart and Jim Backus. But since, in my opinion, the film gets weaker instead of stronger as it goes along I can only give it a marginal recommendation.

With the powerful energy and sex appeal present in both Kirk Douglas and Susan Hayward, isn't it strange that when they finally made a movie together, it was a comedy? It's an oddball comedy, a supposed battle of the sexes that doesn't really hit the mark of any target, but if you want to see both their energies up on the silver screen together, you've got to rent it.

Kirk is a war hero, a general up for a big promotion. Suzy is a journalist, in charge of a great deal of publicity (good or bad) in the country. She doesn't know him and doesn't like him, and she plans to turn a seemingly harmless interview into a damning reputation crusher. Kirk arrives at her house with his faithful sidekicks, Paul Stewart and Jim Backus, and his precise regime of eating, exercise, bedtime, and moral etiquette immediately irritate Suzy. What does she do when she realizes there's no legitimate dirt to find? She forgets she's a journalist and remembers she's a woman; in other words, she fights dirty.

Even though this is far from a romantic comedy, some naughty bits made it through the censors and amused audiences. In order to be alone with him, Suzy says she gets "inhibited with more than one man in the bedroom," effectively sending Jim and Paul away. When she's particularly mad, Kirk reminds her she can't yet make good on her threat to kill him, because "generals die in bed," and in that scene they're nowhere near a bedroom. There were some funny moments, and some more dramatic moments, but all in all it felt like a waste of their talents. Since we all know they're capable of making better movies, have one of your favorites on hand for next weekend.

Solid performances by both Hayward and Douglas and a nice turn by Jim Backus in this battle-of-the-wills comedy. Hayward is head of a Time/Life-style empire that attempts to smear the record of war hero general Douglas. As worthy opponents the sparks are subtle and adult, especially for the time. It avoids politics in an obvious way while showcasing why Kirk Douglas had legions of female fans, and why Susan Hayward was the thinking man's movie fave. Not a knee-slapper, but fairly realistic as a smart comedy. Worth a watch and better than Leonard Maltin thinks it is.

Susan hayward is Dot Peale, publisher. Lady of means and power. when her own candidate doesn't make the grade for a certain job, Dot brings General Goodwin (Kirk Douglas) to her home to try to get the goods on him, catch him being "too military". You'll recognize advance man Colonel Gooch... Jim Backus (Mr. Howell!) keep an eye out for Charles Lane, right at the start; he held the record for the most roles under his belt for the longest time; maybe he still does. and of course, Dot and the General have both under-estimated each other. lots of talking. they both think they have the upper hand, but do they? what have they won? can they come to an understanding? it's good. pretty low key. lots of talking and arguing. directed by Hank Potter. no oscars, but directed some biggies, like Mr. Blandings. Novel by John Marquand.

This project was previously designed for Bogie and Bacall, nevertheless the malignat disease is about to win the battle against a hard smoking Bogie, thus the couple decided quit, they were replaced by Susan Hayward & Kirk Douglas, intriguing that Kirk already paved a solid career, but somehow he was casting as second billed, should be Susan enough great than Kirk Douglas??

The plot is engaging and pleasant to watch, with humor oriented through the funny character of the clumsy Col. Gouch (Jim Backus), a tycoon of high profile magazine Dorothy Peale (Susan Hayward) lobbied on backstage to nominee a civil person to Atomic Energy Committee, to her dismay the office went to war hero Major General Melville A. Goodwin (Kirk Douglas) a hard line soldier, over such defeat Dorothy has an insight, inviting Melville for an interview at her house in order to besmirch his reputation vis-à-vis to the public, the outcome is whatsoever foreseeable as Hollywood always did.

Due the poorest votes and reviews this picture seemigly didn't had any impact at its release time, that I recollect never hear a thing over this picture, maybe for a lack of chemistry between them, Hayward seems so prudish, well dressed and behaved, it ain't Kirk's kind of woman, I expected something hot, peppery, sounds a family movie,more suitable to Rock Hudson & Cary Grant (those guys that used to kiss the chins of the actress, sorry sounds a bit offensive) also the storyline is far-fetched, whoever heard an interview which takes ten days to be done, apart these minors flaws it won't bother anyone!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 2021 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

For movie goers of the 1950s, "Top Secret Affair" was an entertaining film starring Kirk Douglas and Susan Hayward. As a comedy romance, it's about as far-fetched a plot as many such films are. And, that's where some of the enjoyment comes from. The comedy is fair with a screenplay that has a tough time swinging the leading lady back and forth as a villain, then lover, then villain, then lover.

Susan Hayward's Dottie Peale is a publishing tycoon who first wants to torpedo Maj. Gen. Melville Goodwin (Kirk Douglas) as new head of the Joint Atomic International Commission. The best of the comedy comes in her various failed attempts to get him on tape and film in bad positions. After they have a night's romance, that doesn't last, to her dismay, she goes back to plan one. This happens a couple times

The movie borrowed some from a 1951 novel, "Melville Goodwin," by John Marquand. But that was mostly the names with major revisions in the characters and story. It's mostly fluff, but enjoyable stuff for the stars and their supporting cast.

Hayward is a clichéd stereotype--the tough as nails lady who really just needs a man! Because of this, you KNOW where the film will eventually go. If you think about it, this is the sort of woman she ALSO played in "The Conquerer", "Where Love Has Gone", "David and Bathsheba" and countless other films.

The movie begins with a VERY one-dimensional lady publisher (Hayward) deciding to do a hatchet piece on a famous general. In other words, while she would pretend to be fair, she already decided to make the article very negative regardless of how their interviews go. So, she invites him over to her house to stay for a few days--and again and again, she tries to trip him up and get him to say something she could twist and take out of context. As for the General (Kirk Douglas), he's almost as one-dimensional--way too perfect, sexist and in control to be real. I am surprised after this inauspicious beginning that I actually continued watching the film--especially since I knew what would happen next. After all, the fact that the movie is called "Top Secret Affair" made this deduction pretty easy! Basically, she tries again and again and again (without luck) and in the process falls in love with the guy. Is there more to the film than this? Not really.

Considering that at the time, Douglas and Hayward were top stars, it is surprising they'd be put into such a mediocre B-movie plot. Despite the budget, it's not a particularly good film and it's not surprising that the film isn't particularly famous. A must-see for die-hard fans of Douglas or Hayward but no one else.

By the way, I read one time that Kirk Douglas didn't like folks knowing he was 5'9" (which, by the way, is a perfectly fine height). In many films, they either hired very short actors or put them in trenches to make him appear taller. In the film, he even says he's 6' tall!

Imagine if an undertaker, or a Methodist parson, or the head of the local chapter of the DAR decided, on a whim, to sit down and write a comedy script. This movie would be something like what they would come up with. I cannot understand a 6.3 rating for a movie whose supposed humor is so forced, so wooden, so brittle. Comedies must have some credibility in their comic premises but everything here is so preposterous that one simply can't buy it. The head-spinning gyrations in the relationship between Douglas and Haywood's characters simply destroys the movie's comic premises. And since neither Douglas nor Haywood excelled at comedy, one wonders just who decided to cast them here. Both actors were sufficiently in demand that they could be choosy with their material, so one wonders what prompted to sign on to this dreck. Jim Backus excelled at comedy but even he can't do anything with what he is given here. I suffered through to the end just to see how it would turn out; because I suffered, you don't have to.

In "Top Secret Affair" both Kirk Douglas and Susan Hayward were allowed to do the things that they did best. They were respectively cast as intense, inner directed, talented people in search of soul mates. their initial antagonism (primarily on Hayward's part with Douglas oblivious to it) is based on her misunderstanding of Douglas' true character and personal qualities. In reality both are highly patriotic , driven individuals with only the good of their country at heart. They are perfect partners with matching vitality and values. This is one instance where Hollywood started over from scratch, ignoring the contents of a good book but creating an original piece of light entertainment in the process.

This was inspired by John P. Marquand's 1951 novel "Melville Goodwin: USA." The book was about an Army general's affair with a prominent woman, and it was one of Marquand's most entertaining. Unfortunately, the movie retains almost nothing of the original story except for the names of the two romantic leads. In the book, the general is already married, and making him a bachelor in the movie simply changes everything. The movie even eliminates the narrator of the book, who supplied much of its humor. Readers of the book can watch the movie with no sense of what will happen next. The two are that different, and the movie is undeniably inferior.

I first saw this picture on television around 1970, in the middle of the Vietnam War, and found it confusing to my early teen sensibilities. Here were Kirk Douglas and Susan Hayward playing everything straight, yet it was supposed to be a "comedy," and a romantic comedy at that -- instead the plot lurched back and forth, mostly built around the Hayward character's alternating hate-love-hate-love feelings toward ramrod straight two-star general Kirk Douglas (who was specifically depicted as no desk-jockey, but a highly decorated combat officer, now moving on to a prominent administrative post). There are some strained attempts at humor involving the two leads, but what humor there is comes mostly courtesy of Jim Backus as a put-upon colonel in public relations and Paul Stewart as Hayward's one almost co-equal confidante. And if that were all there were to this movie (which started out as a vehicle for Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall), if would be a mildly amusing feature. But woven into the story is an absolutely savage look at the nature of the post-war press corps -- and publishers who think they can influence presidents and Congress -- and a tacit widespread suspicion of (if not outright hatred for) the military, doubly so from the members of the US Senate who are depicted (principally a fatuous, headline-hunting committee chairman played by Roland Winters). It was all difficult for me to understand in 1970, and having seen it again in 2018, I still can't figure out what the writers and producers had in mind for "entertainment," or if they were onto something about our society, or they were just telling a story with no relationship to reality. And if this is an accurate portrayal of where we were in this country in the second half of the 1950s, then perhaps we almost deserved the rot that would set in during the 1960s.

Susan Hayward was a contract player at Warners and di a fww brief shots in WB films. Beautiful Susie left WB and went to Paramount where she got some plum roles such as Gary Cooper's Beau Geste, Frederic March I Married A Witch and Loretta Young in And Now Tomorrow

This film was set to be aBogey-Bacall film but the great Bogie developed cancer and both Bogie and Mrs Bogart aka Lauren Bacall droped out and Jack Warner asked Susan Hayward to return to WB where Susie was given a star Bungalow on the WB lot and her fave cinematographer Stanley Cortez (Cortez did the great train shot with Jennifer Jones and Robert Walker in Since You went Away), and her fave costume exec Charles LaMaire. Susan looks beautiful in this Carrolton Production her own production company named after her adopted town in Georgia (Susan married Floyd Eaton Chalkley a former FBI agent who was a strong Catholic and Susan converted to Catholicism and both Chalkley and Susan are interred in the Church graveyard.

Kirk Douglas replaced Bogart in this beautifully filmed movie.