Let's Do It Again

Once I realized that Ray Milland was doing a poor imitation of Cary Grant's mugging in the original screwball comedy, "The Awful Truth," I knew why the film failed to sparkle as a comedy. Added to the comedy are some musical interludes that fall as flat as the dialog. The whole film leaves you feeling that it's a silly waste of time.

And in the central role of a woman determined to win her hubby back, Jane Wyman is dressed to kill but looks more like an uptight woman too prudish to display herself in such a lavish wardrobe. Only when she lets loose pretending to be Milland's hyperactive sister and demonstrates some of her flair for musical comedy does her performance come to life. Otherwise, you keep expecting those tears to flow.

The story may have worked in the '30s when screwball comedy was supreme and was handled with comic dexterity by a sparkling cast. But here it gets a flat reception from an uncomfortable looking Ray Milland, a miscast Wyman and an equally out-of-his-element Aldo Ray.

Summing up: A bad remake of a popular screwball comedy, it falls far short of the mark in every department--writing, acting, direction. Only Tom Helmore (the scheming husband of "Vertigo") manages to look and act as urbane and distinguished as the part demands with the proper comic flair.

It's always fraught with danger when you re make something that's considered a classic, and this one is no exception, but I suppose with colour becoming the norm by the 1950's, as now, they tried a re make for newer generations. Don't think Ray Milland wanted to do it, but he was contracted to the studio. I certainly don't agree with the reviewer who said he was no good at comedy, that was his main stock in trade, and his breezy, suave comedy style brightened many a film over the years, wish there was someone half as good today. Jane Wyman could hold her own in a musical, she'd just made a couple of films with Bing, if you don't step up to the plate with Der Bingle, you look pretty shabby. The trouble wasn't with the players, it was the fact that the script wasn't as good as the original, and it doesn't pay to compare anyway, it's pleasant enough on it's own merits, no classic, but an enjoyable enough bit of fluff, carried by two veteran stars!

Hey, people ! Lighten up ! Here are 2 dramatic stars giving more than serviceable performances in admittedly classic roles. But the bonus for me is a whole bunch of songs that I have loved for years. I don't understand how people can't like this tuneful score. I especially love "Takin' A Slow Burn" and "It was Great While It Lasted", but I love the whole score. Can you imagine a full batch of good, original tunes in a movie TODAY ??? Those days are gone forever, so I'll continue to enjoy pleasures like this one. Jane does indeed look gorgeous in her luxurious wardrobe, and that '50s pseudo art-deco apartment is great. Jane's "spastic gall bladder " scene is priceless, and Milland & Helmore in the closet with the hats (no, not THAT closet !) is a delightful bit of business. I'll take this flick any day instead of all these "blowin' up stuff" movies we can't seem to get away from.

Jane Wyman is beautiful and her wardrobe wonderful. Ray Milland seems out of place in this comedy - and I don't know who provides his singing voice. From the opening scene if you are a Cary Grant fan you will recognize it as the plot of "The Awful Truth", and the awful truth is - except for being in color and Ms. Wyman's clothes this remake falls sadly short of the chemistry and snap of the original. Aldo Ray played his best role in Pat and Mike and the casting director should have considered his accent before trying to make him out to be a back-woods boy. When music and dance are added to a plot to try to beef it up in some way it should serve as a red flag for viewer to beware.

In 1937, director directed a clever romantic-comedy, "The Awful Truth". It starred Cary Grand and Irene Dunne and the film was often wonderful--one of the better films of its type in the 1930s. Now, in 1953, the much less famous director Alexander Hall is given the unenviable task of doing the remake--with lesser actors in the leads and a lot of unnecessary singing and dancing tossed into the mix. Is there any possible way he could even come close to the original in quality or laughs? Well, the answer is an obvious NO--and I pretty much figured this out before the movie began. After all, the only reason to remake a movie is if the original was somehow seriously flawed and the remake corrected this. But the original was awfully good, so polished and featured amazing actors at their best--so how could Ray Milland and Jane Wyman hope to recapture the magic. Plus, the new script certainly isn't any better-in fact it's much worse (the film just didn't know when to end--and the final song by Wyman was god-awful). It seems that the one relatively minor flaw I saw in the original was still in this one...that the wife really did have reason to divorce because it's implied that the husband really WAS cheating on her. And, cheating is certainly NOT a subject that makes a film romantic. Now a misunderstanding causing the divorce, that probably would have worked better.

The bottom line is see the original and only see this remake if you are bored and there's nothing better on the television. Not a bad film--just an unnecessary one.