This movie started with such promise...then....yuck! It begins with a wonderful premise. Rosalind Russell plays a woman who is seeking out five men that lived due to her husband's sacrifice during WWII. He died so these five men might live. However, what exactly she plans on doing when she sees all of them is unknown, as she is hit by a vehicle while crossing the street to see the first man! An alcoholic news reporter (Melvyn Douglas) learns about this accident. However, his decision to see the injured lady is because he was one of the five names on her list--as he'd been saved by her husband. So far...a wonderful premise.

When Douglas enters the hospital, the film starts to go downhill. First, the doctor firmly declares that Russell is able to walk--even though she insists she can't. This is odd, as she seems to have just been brought in to the hospital after the accident--and yet the nasty doctor yells at her and tells her she is okay! This might have made sense if she'd been in the hospital a few days--plus despite being hit by a car, she seems to have no injuries!! But, it gets worse, as with Douglas' help and a few pills, Russell starts to have out of the body experiences where she magically meets the families of the five men who were saved--and sees how their lives impacted the lives about them. Seeing the extended impact of the man's sacrifice is a nice idea--but doing an out of the body traveling gimmick really was dumb. It came off as preachy...very, very preachy.

Now I am NOT insensitive to the sacrifices made by people in war. And, I do appreciate the other reviewer, as the film was very personally touching to them. But it just came off as too weird, too contrived and silly--when, using the same basic story idea, it could have been wonderful. Too bad...I think the film makers' intentions were good--but the script was just strange and, at times, a bit ridiculous.

Loved the premise for 'The Guilt of Janet Ames', back when the fascinating subject of psychiatry was very much fashionable to portray on film and stage. It has always been a brave one and interesting from a psychological standpoint. A further interest point was the opportunity to see Rosalind Russell and Melvyn Douglas in atypical roles, darker and more tortured and not the sparkling comedy or debonair kind of roles they were better known for.

'The Guilt of Janet Ames' is not a perfect film, can see why it is not to others' tastes, and is not on the same level of relatively similar themed films that have already been named such as 'Spellbound' and especially 'The Snake Pit'. 'The Guilt of Janet Ames' still struck me as very interesting and atmospheric, and although the first half is better than the second it always engaged me enough and deserving of more credit.

Am going to start with naming what could have been done better. The whimsy in the dream sequences for my tastes was overdone at times. Will agree with others that Sid Caesar was out of place, and not in a slight way but a case of when he appeared it took me out of the film and didn't gel tonally.

It got a little too melodramatic and silly towards the end.

However, 'The Guilt of Janet Ames' has so many good things. It looks great, being in particular beautifully and atmospherically shot. It is also beautifully scored, in a haunting and at times melancholic sense. The direction is always taut yet sympathetic. 'The Guilt of Janet Ames' also benefits from an on the most part thought-provoking script that is very insightful in what it has to say about guilt postwar and the consequences of paranoia.

Which is depicted harrowingly often, and this is evident in the story which is often suspenseful and poignant. The characters are strongly defined and both Russell and particularly Douglas provide hard hitting portrayals of true intensity and raw emotional power without being overwrought.

Overall, good if not great. 7/10.

I'm afraid that for one to appreciate The Guilt Of Janet Ames one would have to have seen the Gary Cooper film Peter Ibbetson which came out from Paramount a dozen years earlier. I think that in 1947 there were probably new adult moviegoers who did not get the reference.

Based on a Daphne DuMaurier novel Peter Ibbetson is the story of a paralyzed and imprisoned man who meets and has a whole life with his true love through dreams.

In this film Rosalind Russell plays an embittered war widow. Her husband was killed by jumping on a live grenade and saving five others around him. Russell feels that none of these people could have been worthy of the sacrifice he made that got him the Congressional Medal Of Honor. She resolves to meet them all to confirm her suspicion.

One of them is Melvyn Douglas who has become quite an alcoholic since his war service. He was the editor of a newspaper and a crusading journalist before the war.

Russell gets hit by a car and his name is found in her pocket along with the other four. Nothing too serious in physical injuries, but she has a hysterical paralysis now. Douglas is sent for when they find the scrap of paper and he's known to the hospital staff.

Knowing who she is, but her not knowing him, Douglas stimulates her imagination and she discovers what the others could be like with some small bits of information. The fantasy scenes are really quite good, the best being a young Sid Caesar in a standup routine about psychological films of which this is surely one. Thinking of the recently released Spellbound, I wonder what Alfred Hitchcock must have thought when he saw Caesar's routine. It's worth seeing the film for that alone.

In the end Russell and Douglas learn a good deal about each other and themselves. The Guilt Of Janet Ames is not on par with a film like Spellbound, but it does have its moments and the stars acquit themselves well.