Four's a Crowd

Someone posted that this film was 'a silly screwball comedy'. Of course it is: if a comedy isn't silly, it's not screwball. This one may not be a classic, but all the elements are there: pompous rich people, scheming reporters and a love triangle, er...square. It also has the comic supporting actors to make sure it all works. The rich weren't very popular in the depression so they were easy targets. The public's obsession with celebrities was already in full force and another easy target. And love mix-ups have been the basis for comedy since that original screwball - Willie Shakespeare.

Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland may not be Cary Grant and Carole Lombard but they do perfectly well and Ros Russell is a screwball icon. Patrick Knowles does a fine job and Flynn's foil. Walter Connolly, as the grumpy oligarch repeats his performance from "It Happened One Night". Melville Cooper, (the fourth member of the cast from 'The Adventures of Robin Hood': he was the comically villainous Sheriff of Nottingham) is his butler. Franklin Pangborn shows up as Knowles' manservant. Hugh Herbert is a justice of the peace and Margaret Hamilton is Connolly's housekeeper.

This one is way in the background of Flynn's career and not the kind of movie he's famous for but it's a solid piece of entertainment anyway. The great stars of the Golden Age made many such films and it's fun to look back and discover them and get a complete picture of their careers.

'Four's a Crowd' could have been a great film, and should have been a great film. With a cast like Errol Flynn, Olivia De Havilland and Rosalind Russell and a director like Michael Curtiz, 'Four's a Crowd' promised much.

While not a terrible film, far from it, the promise wasn't completely lived up to due to try-too-hard execution. There are strengths in 'Four's a Crowd'. It looks good, very nicely shot in black and white and attractively mounted. The music suits well and pleasant to hear in its own right. The script does have its funny moments, especially in the first fifteen minutes and the ending's a good surprise.

Most of the cast do a good job. Flynn does show a charismatic, witty and easy-going flair for comedy, while Russell blisters in her best moments. Walter Connolly is amusingly eccentric, and Patric Knowles looks more comfortable than usual.

Less good is De Havilland, who is cast against type as a ditz and is all childish annoyance and no charm. Curtiz's direction is uneven, good in some of his direction of the actors and in the first fifteen minutes but tends to lose control when the film gets busier.

The script's humour doesn't come consistently and lacks bite, due to being over-stuffed and over-cooked, a few parts a little repetitive. The story is too busy and has too many complicated schemes, hindered even further by the hurriedly frenetic pacing which makes the busiest moments borderline confused.

Overall, watchable and most of the cast do well but too over-stuffed and over-complicated, hence what was meant by try-too-hard execution. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Four's a Crowd (Michael Curtiz, 1938) is a really fun screwball comedy that pits a newspaper reporter against millionaire Walter Connolly and his daughter, a la It Happened One Night and Libeled Lady. The first 15 minutes are blisteringly funny. Journo Rosalind Russell schemes to get editor-turned-PR-man Errol Flynn to return to his ailing paper, which the managing director (Patric Knowles) is trying to close down. Flynn agrees, and wages war against Connolly, hoping to turn him into the most-hated man in America, so he can repair his reputation via a publicity campaign. After that, the plotting goes a bit awry, spending quite a bit of time in Connolly's country mansion, where Flynn ends up trying to steal butter whilst mollifying heiress De Havilland and being chased by dogs. Well, I said it went a bit awry. Still, while the screenplay hops from one situation to the next without stopping to consider its internal logic, it moves so fast and so funnily you'll probably be swept along. Flynn and Russell are both near peak form, and they make a delightful team.

Because I found watching 'Four's a Crowd' great entertainment (there were quite a number of scenes where I was laughing out loud) I was wondering why the film never reached the status of a classic screwball comedy - something if not as brilliant as 'My Man Godfrey' (1936) then at least like 'You Can't Take it With You' (1938) or 'Hands Across the Table' (1935). After all, 'Four's a Crowd' has some big stars, with Errrol Flynn demonstrating considerable talent as a comic actor and Olivia de Havilland and Rosalind Russell playing along with verve. Also, there are stalwarts such as Franklin Pangborn and Walter Connolly who normally as good as guarantee success. I have come up with one potential explanation for why the film is more or less forgotten today (30 user reviews as of late April 2022 is not a lot): The greatest screwball comedies all start out from fairly simple situations that lead to logical consequences, and they all focus on relatively few main characters. By contrast, the plot of 'Four's a Crowd' is overly convoluted. There is simply too much going on, with all those intrigues and attempts at double crossing. Also, it is almost an ensemble cast film, with Flynn, Havilland and Russell having practically equal screen time and Patric Knowles not much less. For all that, this is by no means a bad film. If you can spare one and a half hours, there are much worse ways to spend them than watching 'Four's a Crowd'.

In this film, Errol Flynn plays a publicity man and ex-newspaper editor, Patric Knowles plays the owner of a newspaper, Rosalind Russell a star reporter and Olivia DeHavilland plays...well,...an idiot. While I could try to explain the plot as well as how all these characters come together in the film, I'd rather not--as the film is a super-frenetic mess. I am a huge fan of Errol Flynn as well as Olivia DeHavilland, so it came as quite a surprise that I enjoyed this film as little as I did. The biggest problem was that despite all the star power and the direction of the great Michael Curtiz, the overall effort is pretty awful and is only saved by a few moments here and there (provided mostly by Flynn and Walter Connelly). The stars and script try too hard--making the film very shrill and pushy. This is because the film is too high-paced and the script too busy--often resulting in all the main actors talking loudly over each other (not a fun experience at all). Now SOME films with these qualities work (such as MY GIRL Friday or BRINGING UP BABY), but this one does not because the script is poor plus Miss DeHavilland is cast in one of her worst roles ever. While Miss DeHavilland was wonderful in roles in such notable films as CAPTAIN BLOOD and GONE WITH THE WIND, here she plays against type. Instead of the usual sweet character, here she plays a ditsy dame and it just never works and seems, like the rest of the film, very forced. Katherine Hepburn could pull this off, DeHavilland could not.

The bottom line is that the stars of this film made much better films and you should see them instead. In particular, Flynn, Knowles and DeHavilland all appeared in one of the greatest films of the era, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. So it's obvious with better direction (sorry, Curtiz just doesn't have it here, though he was usually a wonderful director--particularly in romances and adventure films) and writing this SHOULD have been a lot better considering the money Warner Brothers spent to bring all these stars together.