Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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

janmanuel2 After a promising beginning, this movie seemed to become tedious. The main reason is that Bette Davis' character behaved in such an idiotic manner. She treated Henreid's character as if he was made of eggshells. All anyone wanted in this movie was the truth. People became separated during the war, and their lives went on - so what! The music was lovely and Claude Rains performance was outstanding as always. I thought Bette Davis' character was so over the top with what might happen, that she began to get on my nerves in a major way. The ending wasn't very satisfactory. In my own mind, I predict that she will start to get on Henreid's nerves, too. Most normal people don't want to be over-protected the way she did to him. Plus he had such gratitude to Rains for what he did for him. Since spoilers can be subjective, I mark them as I don't want to be black listed. I watch pretty much any movie with these three actors in them, but this was a one shot deal for me.

writers_reign Watching this for the first time in 2015 the first thought that springs to mind is the rivalry between Davis and Crawford, both, in 1946, stars at Warners; what fascinates is this; was the rivalry so intense that BOTH had to co-star opposite an actor playing an outstanding classical musician - Crawford with violinist Garfield in Humoresque, and Davis with cellist Henried in this, Deception? Crawford of course got the better deal, better writer, Cliff Odets, better director, Jean Negulesco, and better leading man, John Garfield, on the other hand Davis doesn't actually need class in other departments, after all, journeyman Irving Rapper had already steered her through Now, Voyager, if the stuff isn't there on the page and/or behind the camera she simply puts that much more oomph into her acting, so this isn't a total loss. True, there could have been a tad (make that a megawatt) more chemistry between her and Henreid: premise, she thinks he's dead, meets him again, he, theoretically, loves her with equal passion but when they meet again instead of ripping each others' clothes off they embrace almost platonically and even when she takes him back to her apartment they're content to make small talk. But this IS Davis and a Claude Rains on top form which means it's a winner.

clanciai This is a film like made for much afterthought for musicians. About the music you may think what you want, but I imagine most people, and even musicians, would find Claude Rains' (Alexander Hollenius', Erich Korngold's) concerto a bit thick or difficult or heavy or pretentious or whatever, while all the other music (Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn) is more like music, that is like music should be, but never mind, music is the theme, and it doesn't matter much what concerto is performed, as long as it is massive enough as a concerto underscoring the climax of the melodrama. Paul Henreid is convincing enough as an honest musician, while Claude Rains already from the beginning gives some signals of alarm - something is wrong about this musician, he is breaking up, something has gone awry with him, which proves to be the case; but he is the star of the film outshining even Bette Davis, who as his protegée also gives some hints of having been damaged before the curtain opens, and she has, by him, and he does his best to continue doing so by preparing her for her ruin by constant volleys of mental cruelty, against which even Bette Davis is defenseless.This is a story about music, what it is all about, how it demands honesty more than just professional skill, and how dangerous it is to let personal relationships affect and interfere with the musical honesty. Claude Rains as the composer/conductor is the victim of this dilemma, Bette Davis accentuates it, while Paul Henreid, as the very honest musician he portrays, is the only one who gets through it with his wings still on. It's an excellent lesson in musical morality and how all important this is. All three are at their best, but Claude Rains definitely steals the show by his monumental tragedy, going down with flying colours.

GManfred ...Of Claude Rains' character in this picture. As has been stated, he is an older guy who loses out on Bette Davis to a younger guy. The younger guy is Paul Henreid playing a WWII survivor, thought dead by Davis. When she spots him at a concert in NYC years later, the handwriting is on the wall for Rains.The mise en scene is the world of classical music, about which I know little but which sounds, uh, classical in several pieces played during the film. Henreid plays a cellist, so the pieces for the cello leave me out completely. Rains is a master composer, a genius referred to by his last name, Hollenius, thereby cementing his genius label. Not only is he a genius, he is a vengeful genius.One does not often encounter such a high level of acting as that found in "Deception", and it elevates the film above the ordinary. All three principals are outstanding, especially Rains, whose performance towers over the other two. It is a character study and a straight drama. Speaking for myself I was not aware of any elements of 'noir', but if you are a fan of good acting, "Deception" is for you, as it is exceptional in this department.