To rightly call a movie "awful" is fine with me. But to totally misstate part of the story is highly inappropriate. In his review here, poster aberlour36 refers to "Fonda playing drunk and Stewart with an apple stuck in his mouth...". Well, Fonda wasn't playing drunk, he was sea sick. Stewart didn't have an apple stuck in his mouth, it was a lemon, and part of the plot.
Now, as to the movie: How do you take a movie with Burgess Meredith, Paulette Goddard, James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Dorothy Lamour, Victor Moore (you'll know him when you see him), Fred MacMurray, William Demarest, Harry James, Hugh Herbert, and even Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer and turn it into a stinker? Why watch this film? Well, not to see Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart act, but perhaps to see them doing something akin to slapstick (note I say "akin", because it's not quite slapstick). Not to mention seeing Fonda play someone with a speech impediment. No, this is not Academy Award material! The film is actually three separate stories strung together by a hopeful newspaper (Burgess Meredith) reporter trying to find a good story line.
And then there is the question of the missing Charles Laughton segment. Well, though the magic of You Tube, you can see this footage. Although interesting, Laughton's performance as a failure doesn't ring true. He doesn't seem at all upset about it, but leaves his church anyway, right in the middle of a tremendous thunderstorm (which also doesn't make much sense). Laughton converts a dying man by reading -- very poorly I might add -- from the scriptures. You would think a segment starring Charles Laughton would be better than a segment (which replaced it) starring Dorothy Lamour. But at least in this case, you would be wrong. The Lamour segment is more entertaining, and actually fits the overall story line better.
The Fred MacMurray segment is downright foolish.
I can only guess that the underlying problem here is that one of the stars was producer -- Burgess Meredith. Proving once again that most actors ought to stay in front of the cameras.
Really, watch this one just to see how bad a movie can be.
Now, as to the movie: How do you take a movie with Burgess Meredith, Paulette Goddard, James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Dorothy Lamour, Victor Moore (you'll know him when you see him), Fred MacMurray, William Demarest, Harry James, Hugh Herbert, and even Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer and turn it into a stinker? Why watch this film? Well, not to see Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart act, but perhaps to see them doing something akin to slapstick (note I say "akin", because it's not quite slapstick). Not to mention seeing Fonda play someone with a speech impediment. No, this is not Academy Award material! The film is actually three separate stories strung together by a hopeful newspaper (Burgess Meredith) reporter trying to find a good story line.
And then there is the question of the missing Charles Laughton segment. Well, though the magic of You Tube, you can see this footage. Although interesting, Laughton's performance as a failure doesn't ring true. He doesn't seem at all upset about it, but leaves his church anyway, right in the middle of a tremendous thunderstorm (which also doesn't make much sense). Laughton converts a dying man by reading -- very poorly I might add -- from the scriptures. You would think a segment starring Charles Laughton would be better than a segment (which replaced it) starring Dorothy Lamour. But at least in this case, you would be wrong. The Lamour segment is more entertaining, and actually fits the overall story line better.
The Fred MacMurray segment is downright foolish.
I can only guess that the underlying problem here is that one of the stars was producer -- Burgess Meredith. Proving once again that most actors ought to stay in front of the cameras.
Really, watch this one just to see how bad a movie can be.