TheLittleSongbird With an interesting subject that is very much relevant today, a more than capable director who has done some decent and more films and it is hard to go wrong with talent like Clark Gable, Mary Astor and Frank Morgan, have fondness for all three. Seeing them individually in different films is always great, seeing them in the same film together is even more of a treat.'Any Number Can Play' is certainly an interesting film and does quite a good job with its serious subject. In terms of quality, everybody involved did much better in other things, especially previously, but mostly they are served well and 'Any Number Can Play' is a more than watchable and actually decent film in its own way. Some flaws here but also a lot of strengths, the film does try to do too much but the performances more than make up for it.Like said above, 'Any Number Can Play' would have been better if it tried to do less. It can have too much going on that it's occasionally a bit hasty and muddled. It would have benefitted from not having as many characters and fleshed out some of the characters more.Mary Astor and Audrey Totter should have had more to do. Astor deserved more than a cameo, but actually comes off better but she is quite touching here. Didn't really get very much from Totter, who is rather bland and her role fairly underwritten.Clark Gable however is excellent in the lead role, charming yet hard-edged. Frank Morgan, Marjorie Rambeau and particularly Lewis Stone are more than solid in support, Rambeau is a delight and Stone is quite affecting and understated. Morgan has a knack for stealing scenes without over-egging. Alexis Smith is fetching and has charm.The film is nicely shot and while the settings are few they are hardly ugly. The music doesn't intrude yet has enough presence to stop it from being bland. Mervyn Le Roy may have bring the most distinguished of all directing jobs but he keeps things moving and doesn't undermine the cast in any way.Overall the script is thoughtful and taut and the story may have its faults but the intrigue factor is high and it does a good job showing the dangers and horrors of gambling and how it affects the family without trivialising or overdoing. Didn't think that the moral was a weird one at all.In summation, interesting and worthwhile but with room for improvement. 7/10 Bethany Cox

JohnHowardReid Producer: Arthur Freed. An M-G-M Picture copyright 25 May 1949 by Loew's Inc. Released 15 July 1949 in U.S.A.; 5 December 1949 in U.K. New York opening at the Capitol: 30 June 1949. Australian release: 1 December 1949. 9,349 feet. 103 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A clean casino operator is beset by both an ungrateful family and too-grateful friends. NOTES: M-G-M production number: 1444. Shooting commenced 4 January 1949 and wound up 26 April 1949 with a few re-takes on 5 May 1949. Negative cost: $1,465,641 (including $50,000 to 20th Century-Fox who owned the screen rights to Heth's 1945 novel; $29,167 in salary to screenwriter Richard Brooks; $68,100 in fees to director Mervyn LeRoy; and $241,250 contractual payments to Clark Gable). Initial worldwide rentals gross: $3,205,000. PRINCIPAL PROBLEM: Gable disappoints. COMMENT: An extremely popular film in foreign parts, where Gable still had a very large 1950 following. Mind you, I suspect many audiences found the movie disappointing. Too much talk and too little action. And a distinct lack of budget largesse. Just under $1½ million sounds more than adequate until you examine the details. Close to $1 million gone on payments to cast and crew, doesn't leave much room for gloss after deducting studio overheads. The film opens in an admirable fashion with a wide diversity of camera angles and camera set-ups edited at a smart pace. The screenplay very skillfully and subtly imparts needed information. But later on, the script bogs down in some very tiresome domestic passages - and there is some unconvincing acting here from young Darryl Hickman. Against this, there are engrossing character portrayals by Stone, Morgan, Corey, Rober and Conrad, whom Brooks provides with some first-class dialogue. Gable's acting is efficient, but he does not make as much of the role as we would expect. Atmospheric photography and appropriately drab and realistic sets are major assets.

danielj_old999 One of the great opening scenes of any Hollywood movie projects a kind of cinematic/theatrical authority in a league with O'Neill or Odets, first we see the black man, filled with jolly self denial, buffing the crap tables, his tragedy is implicit from the first moment, believing in his heart that he is on a social par with the other white employees... and with quick, methodical grace the other supporting characters are sharply introduced - they're waiting for lefty, or godot,or the Iceman, or their savior,who happens to be Gable in one of his greatest roles...this is the refined essence of that great personality on screen...the man could simply manufacture chemistry not only with his leading ladies but with other men as well...too bad the crisp, exciting climax at the crap table does not quite live up to this glorious existential opening but it's still an eminently enjoyable Hollywood wrap up..one of the most underrated MGM movies.

telegonus A much underrated film from the late forties, it features a middle-aged Clark Gable as the owner of a gambling house, where he plays host to a variety of colorful characters. The plot is fairly foolish but at least two of the actors, Barry Sullivan and Wendell Corey, are quite good, and cast somewhat against type.Mervyn LeRoy directed, and either he or the studio bosses decided that the characters would scarcely venture out of doors for the entire run of the picture. As a result we get to explore the casino, Gable's office and home, a restaurant, a hallway, and a few other places, most of them nicely paneled and well appointed, with no sense of urgency regarding action, as we know that the next scene will also be indoors, perhaps upstairs this time, where we will have an opportunity to observe a lamp or a fine mahogany desk. LeRoy moves his people around nicely, and wisely emphasizes the film's geographical limitations (agoraphobic? agoraphilic more likely)--one might even say he revels in them.There's no sense of reality to the story, which is never the least bit convincing. Yet it has a kind of authority, due largely to the admirable professionalism of the people responsible for giving the film its look. One never mistakes such Hollywood stalwarts as Frank Morgan, Marjorie Reambeau or Lewis Stone for real people. William Conrad, in a small role as a hold-up man, does not seem the least bit menacing. I found myself smiling when he turned up. Good old Cannon.Yet for all its faults the movie has going for it something that many a larger budgeted and more realistic film doesn't have: it is watchable. One likes the people in it. There's a confidence in the way it's done; and a fine sheen to the finished product. While it fails at drama and psychology, it succeeds in being an extremely well-crafted piece of work.