Wow! Such a good movie.

hyped garbage

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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

Having never seen this particular vintage picture (from 1945) before today, I had certainly heard plenty about it from those who hold it up highly in a special, nostalgic fondness that they have for films which come from this so-called "Golden Era" in Hollywood movie-making history.Since this picture is now 70+ years old, I am really trying to be as fair as I can be with my rating and comments of it. But, the honest truth is, To Have And To Have Not was barely passable entertainment regardless of it starring Humphrey Bogart and its strategic position in film-making history.What also seriously influenced my lower score of this certain film was the glorification of the "Eddie" character who nothing but a useless, bungling drunk. I know that Eddie was being presented in the story as comic relief, but, from a modern perspective on the ways of a chronic alcoholic, I found Eddie's clueless, drunken shtick to be utterly repulsive in the worst possible way.All-in-all- This film did not come anywhere near to living up to the lofty position that it holds for itself in the realm of classic, Hollywood movie-making.

Humphrey Bogart plays an American who reluctantly gets mixed up with resistance fighters in a French overseas territory during World War II. Gee, where have we seen this before? As successful as Casablanca was you can't blame a studio for wanting to churn out a Casablanca imitation. But where Casablanca is undeniably a classic film To Have and Have Not comes up somewhat short. The story is not as compelling, the characters not as engaging. It's a decent film but in going so out of its way to be like Casablanca in every respect this film can't help but suffer in comparison. All the elements of Casablanca are here but all those elements worked better in the earlier film.This time rather than Morocco we're in Martinique. Bogart plays fishing-boat captain Harry Morgan. Before the client to whom Harry's been renting his boat can pay him complications ensue. And now Harry is mixed up in something he wants nothing to do with. Meanwhile a pretty young woman shows up and you just know she's going to complicate things further. Harry quite begrudgingly agrees to help the resistance fighters with their cockamamie plans. And meanwhile he falls in love with the young woman. Much of the film takes place in a nightclub with a piano player warbling away because, well because that's how they did it in Casablanca. Much as the Bogart-Bergman interactions made Casablanca spark to life here it is the chemistry between Bogart and young Lauren Bacall which perks things up. They make for a great couple but the movie which surrounds them lets them down somewhat. The story is just not all that interesting. So similar to Casablanca yet for whatever reason the story here just doesn't grab you the way it did back then. No romantic rival for Bogart here along the lines of the Paul Henreid character in Casablanca, that removes some tension this film could have dearly used. Could have used someone to fill a Claude Rains kind of role too. This movie is so focused in on Bogart and Bacall. This famous couple does a fine job but they could've used a little help. They have to carry pretty much the entire weight of this film on their shoulders. Their back and forth provides some great moments. But there are not enough great moments to make this a great movie.

This film is nothing more than a quickie commercial vehicle for the main actors, using a borrowed plot. Bogie was a sure bet at the box office, and Bacall was promoted by her discoverer, Howard Hawks.It's a cheap remake of Casablanca, but ends up more like Jack Benny's "To Be Or Not To Be". In this one, the Greenstreet and Lorre characters were played by cheap doubles.Casablanca was a minor gem, where you really identified with all the characters and which left you feeling inspired about life, as you left the theatre.Don't get me wrong, it is also highly watchable just for the intriguing personalities of the star leads, but you end up as a voyeur contemplating more about their talents, careers, and private life, than you do about the borrowed plot. The rest of the cast were poorly developed and eminently forgettable stereotypes, as were the sets, especially, as another reviewer has pointed out, The Bar, supposedly an exotic locale, reeking of foreign intrigue, but it looks more lake a studio canteen at lunchtime.I give it 6 out of 10 for it's two stars.It's movies like this that makes Casablance so great.

Skipper Harry Morgan (Humphrey Bogart) reluctantly transports a French Resistance leader and his wife, running afoul of evil police captain Renard (Dan Seymour). He also makes time with sexy young singer Lauren Bacall.Bogart is great as usual. Bacall shines in her film debut. Quite possibly her best role. Their chemistry and legendary scenes together are the film's main selling points. Walter Brennan is memorable as Harry's drunkard sidekick Eddie. Yes, the plot is bare bones similar to Casablanca and yes, it bears little resemblance to the Hemingway novel. But so what? It's a classic movie with great dialogue, nice pacing, and fun characters. A must-see for Bogart fans or anybody really who enjoy good movies.