On Our Merry Way (1948) User Reviews

Has A Small Child Influenced Your Life?

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 28 February 2007]

The overall plot of On Our Merry Way concerns Burgess Meredith who works in a dead end job in the want ads section of the local newspaper in Los Angeles. He cons his way into his editor's office, pretending to be an emissary from the big head of the newspaper chain. Meredith is convinced he can do a better job than the roving reporter they've got doing human interest stories.

Armed with a question that wife Paulette Goddard has given him which is the title of the review, Meredith goes out and finds three human interest stories told him in flashback for his efforts.

The first one stars James Stewart and Henry Fonda and its always cited, I think a bit unfairly, as being so much the superior of the others. It's very good though, especially Fonda who had not been this funny on the screen since Tales of Manhattan. There are quite a few laughs in store as you see Fonda trying to play a trumpet to Carl Switzer on stage. He's playing it from a rowboat under a pier and the results are similar to Debbie Reynolds lipsynching Jean Hagen in the finale of Singing in the Rain. The 'baby' here is six foot tall Dorothy Ford who plays a mean trumpet herself and really impresses Harry James.

The second one involves former silent screen star Victor Moore and movie extra Dorothy Lamour and a spoiled child star turned out to be responsible for her big break at the studio. Any chance to see Dottie in her trademark sarong is never to be passed up.

The last segment involve a pair of roguish con men, Fred MacMurray and William Demarest being taken in by a pint sized conman themselves in the person of young David Whorf. As the other reviewers remarked, the last one is definitely ripped off from Ransom of Red Chief. I'm surprised the heirs of William Sidney Porter didn't sue. Still a lot of good laughs here with city boys MacMurray and Demarest out in the woods with country kid Whorf making them look like fools.

On Our Merry Way is a pretty funny film which was co-produced by its nominal star Burgess Meredith who at the time was married in real life to Paulette Goddard. Meredith was part of the Princeton Triangle Players which is why he was able to get classmates Stewart and Fonda to play in that first segment. It was their first joint venture, it would be another twenty years or so before they did another.

All turns out well in the end for Goddard and Meredith and it turns out she's got a personal interest in those answers.

A Strange Little Movie

[kh98021 · 5/10 · 3 November 2002]

Not the "rediscovered gem from the Golden Age of Cinema" as it is proclaimed on the Kino Video DVD case, but a curiosity nonetheless. It is an anthology movie with four different stories tied together by a young Burgess Meredith asking the question "How has a child influenced your life?" The most successful sequence (directed by the unbilled John Huston & George Stevens) involves James Stewart and Henry Fonda as a couple of down-on-their-luck musicians. Not only is it great to see these two real-life pals work together for the first time, but their chemistry & easy slapstick antics are quite funny. Seeing Henry Fonda playing the trumpet while gradually getting seasick, and taking Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer down with him, is worth the whole movie. I guess the copyright on O. Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief" had expired as the Fred MacMurray, William Demerest sequence (years before they were teamed again on T.V.'s "My Three Sons") is a blatant and not very inspired rip-off.

ON OUR MERRY WAY (King Vidor, Leslie Fenton and, uncredited, John Huston and George Stevens, 1948) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 9 February 2007]

This odd, freewheeling, independently-made compendium film emerges as little more than a glorified home movie (despite the considerable talent involved) but is certainly watchable and entertaining in itself. The linking narrative revolves around married couple Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard (at the time hitched in real life): she's an artist and he a lowly employee with a newspaper aspiring to be a journalist; while attempting to flee a creditor, he meets and interviews a number of people about the influence of children in their lives.

The three 'stories' are quite nice with all the various performers contributing generous and relaxed cameos: the first concerns down-and-out musicians Henry Fonda and James Stewart and their involvement in an instrumental contest taking place in a small town (they're all too ready to appease the mayor who has promised them a lot of money if his son is allowed to win but, thanks to the intervention of trumpeter Harry James, a multi-talented girl emerges the clear winner and eventually becomes the owner of Fonda and Stewart's band!); the second finds Dorothy Lamour parodying her former image of a sarong girl (she's a bit player whose opportunity for stardom finally arises out of a disastrous stint in a vehicle for a spoilt child star); the last story, reminiscent of O. Henry's "The Ransom Of Red Chief" (later filmed by Howard Hawks), involves ex-con magician Fred MacMurray and how he and his partner William Demarest stumble upon a boy in the woods and are continually outwitted by him (he's actually fleeing from his eccentric banker uncle but MacMurray eventually discovers his true identity and, in the end, the boy and his elder sister join in on the magic act).

One of the first films to show married couple in the same bed

[zpzjones · 6/10 · 8 March 2011]

Interesting story that doesn't know where it wants to go - I won't be as harsh on this film as other posters. That's perhaps because I know a little about the personal lives of two of it's stars, Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard. I just watched this on Kino's DVD. It's one of those rare films with multiple directors and long thought lost. Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard get things started for us n the opening and make a cute couple(they were married in real life at the time) and she calls him Oliver, Meredith's real life first name. Meredith plays a newspaper guy and for some reason asks the question "has a child made a difference in your life?" He is IMO trying to get an answer to make something tick for his newspaper article and/or for personal reasons ??. Though this is a scripted film the question, one get's the feeling, is a personal one for Meredith and Goddard, for in real life in 1944 Goddard suffered a miscarriage of their child, probably devastating to both of them. Unless you know that bit of trivia you won't pay but fleeting attention to the conversation between Burgess and Paulette. As stated in the summary this film has to be one of the first motion pictures to show a husband and wife sleeping together in the same bed, which is impressive considering the Breen Production Code in effect at the time. Married couples however would continue to sleep in twin beds until TV shows like The Brady Bunch in the late 1960s. The film pairs off into too many directions first with James Stewart and Henry Fonda, then with Fred MacMurray and William Demarest. Stewart and Fonda were friends in real life and that holds something for fans of the pair but their story is aimless. The duo put on a variety show reminiscent of today's American Idol. MacMurray and Demarest would famously work together again in the mid 60s on My Three Sons, after Demarest replaced William Frawley who became ill and died. MacMurray and Demarest have their comic moments especially with a precocious(in a bad way) little boy called "Sniffles". Demarest is too old for the kind of physical slapstick he's subjected to here. All in all another aimless scene. Dorothy Lamour shows up as a cutie who later dons a sarong in a musical revue. A voluptuous piece of cheesecake, famous for playing the island girl in the Crosby-Hope 'Road' pictures, her stay is all too short. This film should have stayed focused on the interesting beginnings with Meredith and Goddard. Meredith himself is not involved enough in the linking stories to make the finale cohesive. He finds what ever answer/lesson he's looking for but the audience has been shuttled from one minor point to the next. Paulette at the close of the film reveals that she's pregnant(only in the story) and she and Meredith rejoice at end. Their story should have been the main focus of the film and dare the subject of talking about pregnancy which I get at the conclusion that that's what the story was about. Instead we're taken from one inconsequential story to the next without logical tie-in to Meredith and Goddard. That's why I think so many people miss the point and poo-poo the film. But if you know the different junctures of the film especially the part with Burgess Meredith and Paulette Goddard you should be able to enjoy the picture.

Entertaining and enjoyable ¨anthology picture¨ with all-star-cast giving top-drawer acting

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 20 May 2014]

¨A Miracle Can Happen" was the original title of this film , it deals with a down-and-out reporter called Oliver Pease (Burguess Meredith) gets a dose of courage from his wife Martha (Paulette Goddard) as she suggests him an interesting inquiry : "Has a little child ever changed your life?" . Oliver gets answers from two slow-talking musicians (Henry Fonda and James Stewart) , the second sequence Charles Laughton played a bible-reading minister , and the third part about an itinerant couple (Fred MacMurray , William Demarest) who is deceived by a child . In each case the "little child" is hardly innocent: in the first, a local auto mechanic's "baby" results out to be fully developed as a beautiful girl ; in the second , an unfortunate church Minister (Charles Laughton) teaches a grumpy father (Henry Hull) to learn kindness by Bible reading ; in the third, the family of a spoiled brat doesn't want him returned . Did You Ever See A Miracle Walking?

This is a sketches movie full of humor , fun situations , entertainment and amusement . Interesting screenplay by Laurence Stallings and Lou Breslow based on original story by Arch Oboler . The picture is made up of many vignettes featuring many capable stars , it belongs to sub-genre about ¨anthology film¨ ; movies like "Flesh and Fantasy" and "O. Henry's Full House" used large casts to tell several interlocked stories , though "Tales of Manhattan" is the best of the anthology films , it follows the adventures of a tuxedo's tailcoat as it passes through the hands of several diverse people , being also starred by Laughton and Fonda . This ¨A miracle can happen¨ consisted of three short stories , about 20-25 minutes each , linked by the Burgess Meredith character. Titled "A Miracle Can Happen", this film debuted on February 3, 1948 at the Warner Theatre in Manhattan , during February, the feature also opened in Philadelphia and Detroit ; in June, when released nationally, the picture ran nine minutes shorter than its original 107 minutes, and the film's name had been changed to "On Our Merry Way," thus avoiding any religious connection that moviegoers might assume by seeing the word "miracle" in the title . Nice acting by Burguess Meredith as a misfit journalist pursued by a creditor , he writes lost pet notices and looking for a good scoop he tricks the editor of the newspaper . Sensational duo formed by Henry Fonda and James Stewart , they are fabulous as an amusing couple become involved into a funny contest . Charles Laughton plays masterfully an unlucky Minister ; however, this segment was eliminated in some copies with a parody of an actress whose roles usually feature a sarong as Dorothy Lamour's South Seas movies , as the powers-that-be decided to drop this 'religious' story altogether and it was replaced by a more comic one . Independent producer David O. Selznick offered to buy the film in order to issue the Laughton sequence as a short, scrapping the rest of the picture ; Selznick's plan was rejected by producer Benedict Bogeaus and producer-star Burgess Meredith . In Spain, "A Miracle Can Happen", complete with the original Laughton sequence intact but of course without the alternative Dorothy Lamour story , as it has been released on DVD there, and retains the English-language soundtrack, the movie can now been seen as it was originally intended .

Extraordinary support cast formed by notorious secondaries such as Harry James , Victor Moore , William Demarest , Hugh Herbert , Eduardo Ciannelli , Henry Hull , John Qualen and Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer . The film has an atmospheric cinematography carried out by four prestigious cameramen as Joseph F. Biroc , Edward Cronjager , John F. Seitz and uncredited Ernest Laszlo . Evocative and appropriate original musical score by Heinz Roemheld . The motion picture was well directed by four classic Hollywood filmmakers as King Vidor, Leslie Fenton and, uncredited, John Huston and George Stevens . Rating : Good film , 6'5/10 .Well worth watching .

More details about the deleted Laughton sequence referred to in Trivia.

[kerrison-philips · 3/10 · 2 October 2007]

As the "Trivia" section states, Charles Laughton was in the original version of this film under its title "A Miracle Can Happen". His was a sequence of 20 minutes or so which came between the Fonda/Stewart story and the one with Fred MacMurray which ended the movie. During the war, Laughton had taken to reading from great works of literature, including the Bible, to invalided US servicemen. He continued to give reading tours after the war and his appearance in "A Miracle Can Happen" was clearly an attempt to put one of his Bible readings on film. He played a washed-out minister who bores his congregation to tears, but one rainy night a small boy asks Laughton to visit his sick father. In an attempt to boost the dying man's spirits, Laughton rises to the occasion with an over-the-top delivery of the Saul and David story that completely revitalises the father. It then turned out that the little boy who invited Laughton in, but who has now disappeared from the scene, had died some years earlier. So, as Laughton told Meredith at the end of the sequence, "a miracle happened."

For whatever reason, the Laughton sequence was deleted from the US release but not before prints has been sent abroad to other countries. Consequently, it has long been known that, for example, a Spanish version of "A Miracle Can Happen" - with Laughton and all the others dubbed into that language - has been seen on TV in Spain and is now available there on DVD, complete with the original English dialogue.

With Laughton having been deleted, the Dorothy Lamour sequence was added in as a replacement, and the film was duly re-titled "On Our Merry Way." I agree with the sentiments expressed by others who find this film an embarrassment all round. Fonda and Stewart are no masters of farcical comedy and neither are any of the other principals. As for Laughton in the original film, his hamming up of the Bible story has to be seen to be believed. Nevertheless, both versions are of some interest because of the talents involved but I agree with anyone who says that once you've seen either version you're not likely to want to see them again!

babes turn loser men's lives around

[maurice_yacowar · 7/10 · 16 December 2013]

You never know what gems the vaults will deliver. The 1948 musical comedy On Our Merry Way has a self-reflexivity 60 years ahead of its time.

The main and three subplots show women commanding the character and strength that saves their men. They play on various forms of a "baby." In one two roving conmen (Fred Macmurray, William Demarest) are trapped by the evil 10-year-old they hope to return home for a cash reward. Shades of O. Henry's "Ransom of Red Chief." The brat's older sister is the only sane, competent member of the family, including the crazed bank manager uncle.

Then a spoiled rotten child star is shown her selfish ways and atones by boosting the careers of a washed-up old actor (Victor Moore) and a pretty starlet who blossoms when she dons a sarong. The starlet is Dorothy Lamour, who performs a spirited parody of her usual musical (and saronged) numbers.

In the best episode (directed by uncredited John Huston and George Stevens) Henry Fonda and James Stewart star as broke swing bandleaders who set up a rigged talent contest to get the money to fix their bus. Their plan is torpedoed when their mechanic's daughter, Baby, turns out to be a hot beauty who blows every mean horn, impressing judge Harry James. The two leads have a charming ease together that supports the very broad comedy. In their happy ending the Babe takes over their band, the bus mobile again, but she invites them to stay.

The main plot works round to a happy ending too. The editor brings Oliver Pease (Burgess Meredith) a job offer just as their furniture is being repossessed. Wife Martha reveals she's expecting a baby. As it turns out, the looming baby — through its mother's initiative — has transformed the daddy from a duplicitous loser into a sensitive, effective reporter. More than a child affecting the plots, that other secondary type, the woman, is the motive force that in each story is responsible for the success. Martha has been on to Oliver all along.

In addition to that irony and the recurring parody, the film also provides that rarity, the actor's direct address to the viewer. Meredith's Oliver confides to the audience that he has lied to his wife, that he's going to come clean even if her loses her, and defines us as companions on his adventure. This is not a great movie but it is a knowing one, enjoying the liberties it takes with the studio film conventions. John Ohara and Arch Oboler had a hand in the stories. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.

Ho-Hum...

[nicholas-salerno · 3/10 · 12 May 2006]

Before I committed to buying the DVD of "On Our Merry Way," I got it from Netflix and happy I am that I did so, for it's not likely I'd ever want to watch it again. "On Our Merry Way" is an anthology film in the manner of "O. Henry's Full House," but while the latter has a no-nonsense framework with John Steinbeck introducing the episodes, "On Our Merry Way" uses the gimmick of Burgess Meredith talking directly to the camera every so often. It doesn't work; it seems more like a vanity project for Meredith and his then wife Paulette Goddard.

Nor do the stories work. They are shaggy dog stories that bore you long before they reach a conclusion. The Henry Fonda-James Stewart and Fred MacMurray-William Demarest episodes are simply not funny. "On Our Merry Way" is full of overacting (especially from Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer) and shtick (from Victor Moore and Hugh Herbert). Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand,comes off extremely well both as an addle-pated secretary and then with a song that satirizes her own career; for Lamour it's a triumph over inferior material.

John O'Hara is credited for one of the stories, O. Henry is not, even though his "The Ransom of Red Chief" serves as the basis for the MacMurray-Demarest episode; for comparison, watch the Fred Allen-Oscar Levant take on the same story in "O. Henry's Full House." It's only minimally better but it moves faster.

It's inconceivable to me that so many great directors, credited or un-, would produce such a mess.

One can't help be grateful to Kino for clearing the copyright problems which had long kept the film in limbo; after all, we do want to preserve the work of our great stars, no matter how bad. But once our curiosity is satisfied, "On Our Merry Way" becomes a shelve-it-and-forget-it film.

For a much better pairing of Meredith and Goddard, I'd recommend Jean Renoir's English-language version of "The Diary of a Chambermaid."

How Does A Child Change A Movie

[DKosty123 · 6/10 · 14 January 2016]

This movie is done in sequences and cobbled together later which makes it different than most films. It has 4 Directors listed including some top ones and an A-List cast that includes some folks from the silent era as well as some top stars. Headliners are Paulette Goddard and Burgess Meredith, but in the late 1940's there are some other films that have casts stacked like this. Meredith is the only actor whose role ties together the entire movie.

This has a scene with William Demarest and Fred McMurray which reminded me of all the scenes they do together in MY Three Sons much later. Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda in the same film is a rare thing, we have that here. Harry James from the big band era, and a young Burgess Meredith as a reporter.

This movie is rich with character actors and the script is written by some top screen writers. So is it perfect? It is an experiment back in this era and because of the cast it is worth a view. Each sequence varies in quality and you will like some of them better than others. At least that is what I did.

It starts out so promising...

[AlsExGal · 4/10 · 10 January 2022]

And then just sinks into boredom.

Martha Pease (Paulette Goddard) demands that her husband Oliver (Burgess Meredith) tell the newspaper where he works as the "Roving Reporter" that he be allowed to pick his own subjects. She will know if he did that by reading the next edition's Rambling Reporter column and seeing that his idea - How has a small child influenced your life? - is the theme of the column.

After leaving his apartment that morning Oliver confesses to the audience that he is not the Roving Reporter. He is in fact just a classified ad clerk, but that he told his wife this lie before they were married and hasn't had the heart to tell her the truth ever since. As a result he has been lying about his salary and thus he is in peril of having his furniture repossessed and he owes gambling debts. This is all very interesting, but then it just bogs down. And that is hard to believe when one of the vignettes involving people on the street actually being interviewed includes James Stewart and Henry Fonda, good friends in real life, on screen together.

When I first sat down to watch this I wondered why I had never heard of this one. By the time it finished I knew the answer to that question. Avoid.

Oh, Baby!

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 17 January 2015]

I only saw the first half of this film so can't comment on it as a whole, but do not be deceived into thinking that this is some uncute story about cute babies, mother love, and sacrifice. The only two directors who shot successful sequences involving babies are Howard Hawks and Sergei Eisenstein. Well, Charlie Chaplin in "The Kid", if you want to stretch the definition.

Burgess Meredith wakes up one morning with his wife Paulette Goddard -- sleeping in THE SAME BED. Already, you can envision how disgusting and vulgar this movie will be. Not really, of course. The same-bed business broke one of the movie code's rules in 1948 but the stories are innocent. At any rate, this introduction is frenzied and excessively chipper. Meredith and Goddard constantly run, shout loudly, and sing during a shower. It's exhausting to watch.

Meredith, a reporter pursued by bookies, imitates one of those inquiring photographers of the period. This is Los Angeles at a time when newspapers were the chief source of news, and they were ubiquitous. I was interviewed by a representative of the New York Daily News while I was eating a knish on the sidewalks of Springfield Avenue in Irvington, New Jersey. The question had to do with the transfer of the Dodgers' franchise from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. I didn't know the meaning of the word "franchise." When it showed up in print I sounded like the financial manager of a professional ball team.

Where was I? Yes, the movie. Meredith dreams up his question of the day: "In what way has a baby influenced your life?" The first story that Meredith gets from ordinary people is about the song "Melancholy Baby." The episode features Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart as itinerant musicians who've been force into staging a musical contest on a pier and rigging it so that the mayor's son wins, though he can't play anything on the trumpet but clinkers. The plan is for trumpeter Fonda to play the song from a rowboat under the pier while the mayor's son just tries to finger the valves. It works until the boat begins to bob up and down. Fonda's playing is increasingly erratic. The judge, Harry James, winces. The scenes is hilarious, with Stewart trying to lead the band and help the phony candidate. He winds up with a lemon stuffed into his mouth.

It's good to see Fonda and Stewart together. They work perfectly off one another and were pals in real life despite their opposing political positions, Stewart conservative, Fonda liberal. They shared quarters early in their careers in Provincetown and were plagued by stray cats. They painted one of the cats purple, hoping it would scare off the rest. Instead they wound up with the same dozen cats, only now one of them was purple.

Meredith gets the story in his notebook and takes off, still pursued. He stumbles into the house of a movie star, Dorothy Lamour, and asks her if she's ever had a baby. "It's not true," she replies spiritedly, "I only met him twice."

The baby in this story is a Shirley Temple figure who is petty and demanding while a movie is shooting. Lamour gets to sing two song in a sarong. One of them echoes her personal history -- born in New Orleans, elevator operator in Chicago, and so forth. This episode, too, is funny, especially the climax, a parody of Lamour's 1937 movie, "The Hurricane."

That's about as far as I got. It's a light-hearted and fast-paced comedy. You'll probably enjoy it.

Worth a look

[robertllr · 5/10 · 24 June 2007]

This three-vignettes-in-a-frame movie is not all bad. Indeed, the first segment features Henry Fonda and James Stewart in a brilliant comic pas de deux which leaves you wondering why they didn't become a cinematic pair. Given that the plot-ette they work with is unremarkable, their joint performance is even more of a miracle and a treat. Also fun is the little jazz score, which features not only Stewart doing his own tasteful piano comping, but also a guest appearance by Harry James, who not only provides the behind-the scenes music of the trumpet-playing "babe" but actually puts his mug in as well.

The second story is a bit weaker, though Dorothy Lamour does a song and dance number that sends up contemporary Hollywood clichés in a wittily sophisticated manner.

The last sequence, however, is truly lame: the pacing is slow and all the actors (especially child actor David Whorf) are annoying. The zany Hugh Herbert nicely finesses a small role but his little performance can't save the segment.

The frame itself is also uninspired, but not so deadly that it drags the film down.

Had the last two segments been as marvelous as the first, this entire movie would have been a classic. But in any case, you simply must see it for the Steward-Fonda collaboration. They command the film from the moment the camera turns on them and never disappoint.

On Our Merry Way

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 5 January 2023]

Burgess Meredith is quite good as the henpecked "Oliver Pease". He makes a career out of writing the lost pet notices for his local newspaper. One day, he manages to get the editor to let him do something more substantial and so he must ask three different people whether or not a child has ever changed their life. His first contributors are musicians "Slim" & "Lank" (James Stewart and Henry Fonda); then he asks "Gloria Manners" (Dorothy Lamour) and finally Fred MacMurray ("Al") and his pal "Floyd" (William Demerest). It seems that each of them have either made or lost their way as a result of experiences with children and we learn how each scenario plays out. Stewart/Fonda are on good form with some excellently synchronised musical fraud (and one gets a wetting); Eilene Jackson is Temple-esque as the rather odious "Peggy" and I personally would have shot the final brat of the three - "Zoot" (Carl Switzer) whose voice drove me mad right from the outset. It's not a great film this, the anthology nature doesn't always work and "Mrs. Pease" (Paulette Goddard) could have featured just a bit more - but it's as much a right of passage for the journalist as it is for any of the sprogs, and at times it is entertaining. It's probably most notable for the scene shot with Charles Laughton ending up on the cutting room floor! It was deemed too gritty for this otherwise fluffy affair.

A big let-down

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 5 August 2009]

This review is for the version without the Charles Laughton sequence, as this was the one shown by Turner Classic Movies recently.

The film stars and was co-produced by Burgess Meredith. Considering that he mostly got supporting roles after this and only a few other producer credits, it is probably safe to assume this film was responsible for this.

The film consists of various small films that are tied together by an overall theme. You see, Meredith wants to get a job working as a reporter and each time he interviews someone, their story is dramatized. The question he asks each of the people is "how did a child influence your life?". Surprisingly, the vignettes have various big-name Hollywood stars, such as Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda and Dorothy Lamour--perhaps Meredith and his wife/co-star Paulette Goddard got a lot of their friends to be in the film.

The first stars Fonda and Stewart. It's about a small-time traveling band that is stranded and puts on a talent show to get the money to get their bus fixed. However, the contest is fixed, as the mayor only let them put on the show if his son (who is a no-talent) is given the award. The film features Alfalfa Switzer (from Our Gang) as the no-talent as well as a surprise cameo at the end by big band leader, Harry James. The film is supposed to be kooky and was an odd waste of the talents of Stewart and Fonda, as the acting and writing were too broad to be taken seriously.

The next stars Dorothy Lamour and Victor Moore (an odd combination). They are both struggling actors who have a run-in with a bratty child actor. The kid deliberately ruins their scene they are working for in the film and she thinks this is funny. However, when Moore and Lamour are fired, the kid feels bad and vows to help them with a screen test. The producers love Lamour but are less thrilled about Moore. In the end, however, she hires Moore as her agent. The segment ends with a long dance number. Yes, it did relate to Meredith's question but the style seemed odd and ended very abruptly. Also, the song and dance number seemed out of place.

The final segment starred Fred MacMurray and William Demarest (who, you may remember, co-starred together on "My Three Sons" on TV). The film begins with the two being thrown out of town by the cops. The are a couple of grifters in search of some new pigeons (i.e., con-men who want to cheat some unsuspecting people). Oddly, their first potential victim is a little kid with a piggy bank! The kid turns out to be a devilish little prankster, as he makes their lives miserable. In many ways, the story is a lot like a slight reworking of O. Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief" and the film makers neglected to credit him for the story idea. It is fun watching the kid tormenting the two men but I just wished they'd stuck closer to the original story or just made a film of the O. Henry story--and not all the rest of the vignettes.

In the end, Meredith writes his human interest story and goes to see the editor--at which point, the response is not at all what Meredith had expected! But it all works out fine in the end.

Overall, not a terrible idea for a film but the film never worked because the first two stories didn't work out well. The biggest negative is bad writing and the only good part was stolen from a famous writer (William Sydney Porter, also known as O. Henry). It's a curious film and is watchable but don't expect it to be much more than a time-passer.

peeeee-yeeeew

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 5/10 · 31 January 2015]

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.

Anemic trio of stories featuring guest stars...witless in all respects

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 1 August 2009]

Down-on-his-luck newspaper ad-man, working the lost-and-found desk, creates a reporting opportunity for himself wherein he polls everyday citizens with an innocuous yet potentially interesting question, "What affect has a child had on your life?" (this is immediately rectified to 'baby' when posed to two jazz musicians). In the prologue, co-producer and star Burgess Meredith is awfully pushy trying to ingratiate himself to the audience; he and Paulette Goddard make for a curious married couple (to say the least), but they're not around enough to cause too much damage. Still, this overlong compendium involving stammering music-partners, a would-be movie actress, and two traveling showmen fails to touch upon anything personal or provocative. It is initially nice to see Henry Fonda and James Stewart sharing the screen, yet their comedic episode is silly and annoying. Production vales high, cast is game, but there are so few laughs that one may think the filmmakers were actually trying for something meaningful. Sadly, there is no substance or depth on display. *1/2 from ****

Truly awful

[aberlour36 · 1/10 · 10 March 2009]

There is a mystery here somewhere: Why was this film made? It is a terrible embarrassment for fans of all the otherwise great actors involved. I saw it the other night on TCM and could not believe my eyes. The "comic" scene between Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart is surely one of the weaker moments in Hollywood history! Fonda playing drunk and Stewart with an apple stuck in his mouth are not exactly hilarious. As for the babe supposedly playing trumpet (it was, of course, Harry James really playing), someone might at least have told her that the mouthpiece smears one's lipstick. At the conclusion of this scene, the Harry James band files off the stand--quickly. One can understand why! Burgess Meredith and Hugh Herbert are not at all amusing. And as for Dorothy Lamour, well, she should have stuck with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. On her own she best belongs in a small town chorus. You get the picture: At all cost avoid this movie.

Why was it made? In one shot we see written on a wall: "Kilroy Was Here." Explain that in 1948! In fact, explain anything about this production.

so weird

[danerboy-66452 · 5/10 · 1 April 2024]

Read someone else saying it was ridiculous, basically, but I thought since full of good actors in really strange rolls, it might be interesting. It was as if someones unprofessional relative was producing, directing it, and all of the actors went along with it just for fun? Or something? I am a big enough fan of old movies and great actors that I am willing to go along for the ride. I got further along this time, than the first time. I generally look into the actors bios as I watch an old movie that I am unfamiliar with. The young woman in the bathing suit, playing the trumpet, was 6'2", I looked her up, bc I thought she looked very tall. I actually laughed a few times throughout the thing, but would not recommend it to anyone. I am just a diehard old movie, great old actor fan.