alfvillanueva There is a lot of talent involved in this movie. They all perform as expected. the problem lies with the script, which was corny, dull and repetitive for the forties, and would have been also in the 30s, even in the 20s!! When released,it flopped, and no wonder.Ann Sheridan always said the reason was the lack of chemistry between her and Gary Cooper, but the real reason for me, a great fan of both of them is the script. It is monotonous and seems to go on forever.... The production values are all first rate: cast, sets and direction are first class A pity those responsible did not see what the result would be, in time. A pity for all concerned, including us, the audience .

utgard14 What a let-down this film was. I can see why it was such a big flop when it was released. Leo McCarey was a great director and his two films prior to this, Going My Way and Bells of St. Mary's, are bona fide classics. Not to mention his great comedies from the 1930s. So the movie is competently filmed as it should be, but it's still terrible. It has two amazing lead actors (only one of which delivers here). But the story is the pits.The plot is that Gary Cooper plays a family man who never says no to anyone. He will give the shirt off his back and let his family go hungry to help a complete stranger. Right off the bat we have a problem because there is no way possible I can see myself rooting for such a character with obviously skewed priorities. The writing is bad but the acting by Cooper isn't up to snuff either. We've all seen Cooper play down-to-earth good and decent guys before. His performances are usually grounded in a likable persona that makes him relatable. Here, he plays a character who cares more about helping strangers than his own family! His poor wife, wonderfully played by Ann Sheridan, put up with more than any reasonable person would. It was so infuriating watching Cooper's character be such a doormat. The only person he seemed able to say no to was his wife! The film tries to reconcile it all in the end with some of the people Cooper has helped out paying him back. This completely belies the entire fractured point of the film. It's clear the writers didn't even believe in their own premise. The problem with Sam is not that he helps people who don't pay him back. The problem is that he puts the welfare of others over his own loved ones. Whatever happened to "charity begins at home?" Ugh this is such a frustrating film to watch. I couldn't help but wonder at the end about Sheridan's character's future. She will have a life of perpetual debt and unhappiness because of this man and probably die of a stroke at 40. Sam, meanwhile, will become homeless and probably starve to death because every time he's got a crumb of food he'll give it away due to his obvious mental illness.When you get right down to it, this is a depressing movie. The romance is non-existent as there is no chemistry between the leads. This is partly due to Cooper's lackluster effort, I'm sure. Plus it's really hard to root for a couple when you are actually hoping the wife divorces the worthless husband. There is no comedy here, either. There wasn't one funny moment in the whole film. I'll give it a 4 because of the competent production values and because of the star power involved, which I'm sure will help some swallow this pill of a movie.

telegonus Leo McCarey's Good Sam, the story of a suburban good guy who can't say no to his friends and neighbors, should have been a masterpiece. It has many of the same ingredients as It's a Wonderful Life, and was directed and co-written by a man who was at his best Frank Capra's equal. McCarey directed the best Marx Brothers picture, Duck Soup, plus the splendid Ruggles Of Red Gap, the heartbreaking Make Way For Tomorrow, the enormously popular (if overlong) Going My Way, and its sequel, The Bells Of St. Mary's. He was even in a partnership with Capra, to produce films independently, but lost his touch after the war. Good Sam shows McCarey's brilliance with actors, all of whom (Gary Cooper, Ann Sheridan, Ray Collins, William Frawley) are excellent, but the script is convoluted and the story, an inspired idea, is, as told, hard to follow. It's worth watching, for McCarey's directorial "touches", which are wonderful, but the film is plodding and episodic, and seems to go on forever.

raypaquin This movie is a satire on the 'Capraesque' genre. It is a satire on Altruism, in the spirit of 'if you don't like the fruit, take a good look at the tree'. Most politically-correct people feel like strangling the hero people he reminds them of themselves. The ending is spoiled, however, by a desire by the Hollywood politically-correct bosses to attenuate the logical consequences to be drawn from the script. In the end, all the hero's "good deeds" are rewarded. There is much evidence that Gary Cooper intended this film to be a satire; his making of 'The Fountainhead' the following year, an extreme right-wing ideological film that was spoiled by king Vidor's misunderstanding of its philosophical contents and his testimonies at the McCarthy enquiry at around that time. Try to see that film with new eyes, at it were.