all they really needed...
were A Sheridan & C Ruggles; they carried the film. could have saved on the budget.
although the waiter bit at the roadhouse was pretty good too.
Sheridan was even better in "Man Who Came to Dinner".. one year later.
Yeah, the waiter was funny. Sheridan and Ruggles were great as always.
I don't get this story. I saw the 1933 version recently from the beginning and even though the film was made well (as was the 1941 version), I never got why Ken didn't try harder to get distance between himself and the fiasco with Julie. At first (at least, in the '33 version) he seemed to genuinely not remember much about her or care about her, but then had no say in how the situation kept snowballing out of control. It's one thing when misunderstandings between characters snowball out of control, but with Ken it seems like he's never made a decision in his life and stuck to it.
In the 1933 version, Anne is just Ken's secretary at the beginning. I thought maybe with Anne being more than that in the '41 version, the story might come together better, but it didn't seem to.
Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.
At first I thought the movie was just hopelessly dated. Perhaps the plot might have worked when the movie was made but not today. Upon further consideration, I decided it's just a horribly ridiculous movie.
I feel personally offended when characters in a movie 'fall' into one crazy situation after another all because they're too stupid to speak up or stand up for themselves. I also don’t like when they over-exaggerate their reaction to situations that don't merit such reactions.
It seems to me Ken let the situation with Julie go way too far. In fact, everyone did. I never really understand why people feel the need to try to cover up or hide something that doesn't need to be hidden. It doesn't make sense.
I didn't think the waiter bit was very funny. The first time he did a double take it was humorous but then it kept going on and on, and his reaction was too much. What if there were two guys at two different tables that looked alike; perhaps they were twins or they were similar looking strangers or it was the same guy going back and forth. The waiter acted flustered and shocked. Maybe I was reading it all wrong but, for me, that reaction doesn’t fit so I felt the whole thing was more annoying than funny.
Besides, wait staff think in terms of tables and seating positions at the table, not faces. The tables were also in different sections of the restaurant and each table had a different configuration of diners. One had a couple and the other a group. The orders and the diner's preferences shouldn't have been a problem for the waiter.
Thanks, it's good to know I'm not the only one who thought the story was off. I thought maybe it was my imagination. It's puzzling that they felt the original needed a remake considering neither version works well.
With the waiter I figured he was good with faces, or something to that effect. The situation did seem exaggerated a bit, but his confusion made me laugh a few times. I pictured a variety of explanations going through his mind.
Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.