What a GOD-AWFUL movie!


Who thought this mess up?

Obviously, it was made in the wake of "The Wizard of Oz", although this movie's book had been considered something of a staple in children's literature.

I remember Shirley Temple (on "The Dick Cavette Show") once admitted that it was made after she didn't get play Dorothy in WOZ, and she said one reviewer wrote "'The Bluebird' Lays An Egg."

The children characters are absolutely unappealing, like in the scene where they fight over the horse.

And what's up with invoking the Dead? The grandparents come back to life - but Shirley's character has no time for them. She's got other fish to fry, so the grandparents recede into Forgottensville. Really?

Gale Sondergaard is nice to watch, apparently happy that she got to play her glamorous self in a kid's movie (although initially cast as the Wicked Witch in WOZ, she - and the director - decided that trying to "uglify" her beauty was a ridiculous notion).

On that same note, it's ironic that human characters play a dog and a cat - since, in the original staged Broadway version of "The Wizard of Oz", Toto was replaced by a human actor playing a cow named "Imogene"!

As for the Mr. & Mrs. Luxury, I found them hilarious: Nigel Bruce is Sherlock Holmes' "Dr. Watson" no matter what role he plays, and Laura Hope Crews is amusingly glamorous, a complete turnaround from her role as the dowdy "Aunt PittyPat" in the previous year's "Gone With The Wind."

There's no heart to this movie, which is why it pales to "Wizard of Oz". However, for an out-and-out fantasy that tries to make the same point, watch Disney 1951 "Alice in Wonderland": it's filled with Lewis Carroll's wacky fanciful characters - who eventually tire Alice out to the point that she just wants to go home. )Disney tried to inject some kind of "heart" into the otherwise emotionless tale in attempt to make the animated film more appealing.)

Infinitely more appealing than this waste-of-time "Bluebird".

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

This movie is actually a remake from a 1918 (I believe that's the correct year) of a silent movie. It was remade in 1940 trying to ride the "Wizard of Oz" children's fantasy wave. It, obviously, failed miserably because the original emphasized a more philosophical meaning rather than just fantasy.
If you get a chance try to see the original silent version with the same title. I saw it on TCM last year so hopefully they'll show it again.
It's actually easier to understand the real meaning of what the movie was trying to get across to the viewer in the silent movie by the descriptive panels between the action scenes. It's really very different than the dismal 1940's version in my humble opinion.

reply

Just found your post and am going to watch the silent version. Thanks!

reply

I thought it was pretty entertaining with wonderful cinematography and some interesting memorable moments.

reply

I generally agree with you on every point, although, overall, I think I liked it a bit more... Or disliked it a bit less. But those unborn children... That was - uncomfortable.

reply

I watched this a couple of years ago, what happened to the unborn kids?

reply

The whole sequence was a bit creepy. With one pair of kinda young "teenage" unborns having fallen in love and now having to be separated because it's time for one to be born. It feels like a universe where unfairness is built into the system on a supernatural level.

reply