When I see the name, Henry Armetta on a film's credits, I cringe in my seat. And when that name is posted not fifty-sixth but third in a movie's billing, I rush – not walk – to the nearest exit. Armetta had 23 roles in 23 movies in 1934 alone. Hopefully in the other 22, he was not as vigorously or determinedly hammy as he is in this one, in which he has obviously been encouraged by the director, William Nigh, to seize upon every one of his lines as a shower of gold and to work it up at the top range of his voice and gestures. When they can get a few scenes in edge-ways, Neil Hamilton and Miriam Jordan come across with a reasonable, if somewhat over-subdued competence, although the rather less than sparkling script by Albert DeMond and Dorothy Canfield does not help them a great deal, nor does, as said, the determinedly plodding, totally uninspired direction by William Nigh who previously did such marvelous work promoting Joan Crawford at the expense of the movie's nominal star, Ramon Novarro, in "Across to Singapore" (1928). Speaking of silent stars, Betty Blythe has a small role here as Mrs. Agnes Walker. Available on a less than standard quality TV print from Alpha DVD.
5 Reviews
Almost...and a re-write would have made this an exceptional film.
planktonrules21 September 2019
"Two Heads on a Pillow" is a cheap B-movie. Today, many folks think any low budget film is a B, but the term actually referred to the lesser film shown during a double feature. The A-picture was the larger budgeted and more prestigious film....and always made by an honest to goodness studio. As for the Bs, many were made by so-called "Poverty Row" studios...a term used to refer to outfits that rented out studio space from the big production companies. And, to secrue space, most Bs were made at night when the major studios were finished shooting for the day.
So were Bs bad? Not necessarily. There were some great B films. But the problem was that with low budgets, lesser named actors and filming at night didn't allow much time for re-writes. So, if a script had plot problems, it was often shot anyway...logical or not! This, sadly, is the problem with "Two Heads"...it really needed a re-write and some editing of the script would have made it a lovely movie. Instead, it's got a lot to love....and a lot to hate.
When the story begins, newly married John and Evelyn Smith are having a huge fight...so bad that soon they divorce. Seven years pass and now Evelyn is in John's life again. This is because they are now both lawyers and her client is sueing his! Where does all this go? See the film is you'd like.
The story has a lot of good in it. But too often, the writer seemed to think that folks go from cooing and being in love to practically murdering each other--like this is normal. And, again and again, the Smiths look like they are making up...only to have them screaming at each other over nothing. It really was NOT very good and ruined all the fine moments in the picture. In many ways, it's a lot like the lovely Hepburn/Tracy film "Adam's Rib"....but without the fine writing.
So were Bs bad? Not necessarily. There were some great B films. But the problem was that with low budgets, lesser named actors and filming at night didn't allow much time for re-writes. So, if a script had plot problems, it was often shot anyway...logical or not! This, sadly, is the problem with "Two Heads"...it really needed a re-write and some editing of the script would have made it a lovely movie. Instead, it's got a lot to love....and a lot to hate.
When the story begins, newly married John and Evelyn Smith are having a huge fight...so bad that soon they divorce. Seven years pass and now Evelyn is in John's life again. This is because they are now both lawyers and her client is sueing his! Where does all this go? See the film is you'd like.
The story has a lot of good in it. But too often, the writer seemed to think that folks go from cooing and being in love to practically murdering each other--like this is normal. And, again and again, the Smiths look like they are making up...only to have them screaming at each other over nothing. It really was NOT very good and ruined all the fine moments in the picture. In many ways, it's a lot like the lovely Hepburn/Tracy film "Adam's Rib"....but without the fine writing.
Lawyers divorced and wed
bkoganbing20 September 2019
After seeing Two Heads On A Pillow I'm certainly glad we have Tracy&Hepburn to
give us a much better film on the subject. This is hogs liver next to the filet
mignon of Adam's Rib.
Neil Hamilton and Miriam Jordan play a bickering couple who get divorced. One fine day lawyer Hamilton gets a big surprise. The ex-wife has gone back to school, passed the bar and she too is now a member of his profession. I think you can see where this is going.
Spence&Kate were sooooooooooooo much better.
Neil Hamilton and Miriam Jordan play a bickering couple who get divorced. One fine day lawyer Hamilton gets a big surprise. The ex-wife has gone back to school, passed the bar and she too is now a member of his profession. I think you can see where this is going.
Spence&Kate were sooooooooooooo much better.
Two married lawyers divorce, then represent opposite sides in an annulment case.
MoviesManBill29 September 2011
After Jack Smith (Neil Hamilton) and his wife (Miriam Jordan) divorce, she completes her legal education, and they oppose each other in a courtroom in a case involving damages over an annulment forced by a meddling mother-in-law. The case itself reflects the root cause of their own divorce (a meddling mother-in-law). Whether love wins over the "battle axe" dowagers in either case is the basis for the plot of this little comedy.
In some ways this film is a precursor to "Adam's Rib," but Hamilton and Jordan, of course, can't rival Tracey and Hepburn. Even so, there are some notable features making a viewing worthwhile. First, Jordan does a pretty good job of portraying a competent, self-assured and successful layer at a time when women attorneys were rare. Second, she also makes a worthwhile and (relevant to our own times), albeit brief, statement about the credentials as a true American of the son of the immigrant businessman Henry Populopulini (played fabulously by Henry Armetta, who stole every scene he was in). Third, the film offers a case study about attitudes toward marriage, in-laws, and class consciousness in 1934.
Although stagy, with a somewhat abrupt and unsatisfying ending, we can be grateful to the Library of Congress for restoring this film.
In some ways this film is a precursor to "Adam's Rib," but Hamilton and Jordan, of course, can't rival Tracey and Hepburn. Even so, there are some notable features making a viewing worthwhile. First, Jordan does a pretty good job of portraying a competent, self-assured and successful layer at a time when women attorneys were rare. Second, she also makes a worthwhile and (relevant to our own times), albeit brief, statement about the credentials as a true American of the son of the immigrant businessman Henry Populopulini (played fabulously by Henry Armetta, who stole every scene he was in). Third, the film offers a case study about attitudes toward marriage, in-laws, and class consciousness in 1934.
Although stagy, with a somewhat abrupt and unsatisfying ending, we can be grateful to the Library of Congress for restoring this film.
Cute and short; Hamilton seems tightly wound and Jordan smug
pronker27 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Jordan and Hamilton are divorced for seven years with no apparent contact when they meet as attorneys for opposing sides of an annulment. It's telling that the Code which came into force was played a little with because the first scenes show the two pre-divorce in one bed, no twin beds pushed together scenario, but we do not see their faces during their marriage. Jordan arise and pokes her husband familiarly to rouse him; he wanders in to the bathroom in their cramped apartment, they quarrel without us seeing their faces, then the story evolves to indicate their divorce. A mother in law who interferes is present in both their divorce and the annulment case. A great deal of physicality in the Hamilton/Jordan pairing, with slaps and pushes and implied volatility in their bed. As other reviewers mentioned, Tracy and Hepburn in Adam's Rib played similar characters in a similar plot.
Jordan appears calm and collected at their reunion and they both are successful, so why do they start up old arguments again? They do not know how to be happy together, yet the film ends with them squabbling and planning to remarry. Hamilton pushes for remarriage and children after visiting Armetta, the father of the bride in the annulment case, because he gets sentimental. I don't know how their romance winds up or if it does; the story seemed pretty typical to me. I did enjoy the Liberty Films history after researching it.
Jordan appears calm and collected at their reunion and they both are successful, so why do they start up old arguments again? They do not know how to be happy together, yet the film ends with them squabbling and planning to remarry. Hamilton pushes for remarriage and children after visiting Armetta, the father of the bride in the annulment case, because he gets sentimental. I don't know how their romance winds up or if it does; the story seemed pretty typical to me. I did enjoy the Liberty Films history after researching it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
