I would love this movie 100% but for Hugh Herbert and his
Mr. Penny'. But first, let me get this out of the way: One of the prolific User Reviewers states that 'Mr. Penny' was the client. He wasn't. Bugs me that there i no way to communicate that to this reviewer. It's a big error. He classified the review as having Spoilers, and his review is otherwise fine, but this is a big, misleading error, and I can't do a thing about it). Don't you hate it when top reviewers who write good reviews, (I don't), make blatant errors? (I do).
I think that the estate of Hugh Herbert owes the Ed Wynn estate compensation for his utter rip-off of Ed Wynn - but without the style. Finesse, subtlety. A rip-off and a bad one.
What was the director thinking in giving Hugh Herbert carte blanch, no restraints. Were they related or something? Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' fairly kills this otherwise excellent movie, which I watch on a regular basis, (with no remote, and on VHS so I can't obliterate Hubert). And could the scriptwriters really have gotten so many yucks seeing Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' destroy all those antiques? Were they sophomoric adolescents, or did the director push for more of this destruction?
All other actors were perfectly cast and delivered 100%. The cinematography, set design, costuming, etc., is excellent. I don't recall if it was the same referenced User Reviewer who also said that the film could have been a good vehicle for Abbott & Costello. I disagree - vehemently. Save for Herbert, the film is quite elegant. Broderick Crawford's.'A. Gilmore Smith' is never an Abbott, nor a Costello in this film; it is only Hubert's unleashed nails-on-the-blackboard performance that would make anyone suggest it. (Even Costello wouldn't have been such an idiot).
Someone must be gathering all the movies where one character destroys the film, and will eventually release the movies without characters that make you feel murderous, and endings that do likewise. Let me know when this film gets the editing-out of all but the most appropriate, and short, Hubert scenes, will you?
I think that the estate of Hugh Herbert owes the Ed Wynn estate compensation for his utter rip-off of Ed Wynn - but without the style. Finesse, subtlety. A rip-off and a bad one.
What was the director thinking in giving Hugh Herbert carte blanch, no restraints. Were they related or something? Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' fairly kills this otherwise excellent movie, which I watch on a regular basis, (with no remote, and on VHS so I can't obliterate Hubert). And could the scriptwriters really have gotten so many yucks seeing Herbert's 'Mr. Penny' destroy all those antiques? Were they sophomoric adolescents, or did the director push for more of this destruction?
All other actors were perfectly cast and delivered 100%. The cinematography, set design, costuming, etc., is excellent. I don't recall if it was the same referenced User Reviewer who also said that the film could have been a good vehicle for Abbott & Costello. I disagree - vehemently. Save for Herbert, the film is quite elegant. Broderick Crawford's.'A. Gilmore Smith' is never an Abbott, nor a Costello in this film; it is only Hubert's unleashed nails-on-the-blackboard performance that would make anyone suggest it. (Even Costello wouldn't have been such an idiot).
Someone must be gathering all the movies where one character destroys the film, and will eventually release the movies without characters that make you feel murderous, and endings that do likewise. Let me know when this film gets the editing-out of all but the most appropriate, and short, Hubert scenes, will you?