Oh dear


Have just seen this for the first time ever, and ... oh wow. What a misfire.

Toughest thing for this movie is that I saw it as the second half of a double-bill with "The Long Long Trailer", the movie it tried to emulate and recapture the magic of. And it fell short by a long, long way.

(I'm betting James Mason habitually left it off his resume. He *had* to have been embarrassed to even be involved in this.)

And it wasn't even funny. It was so dull and contrived ! And it was *so* preachy, it spent so much time moralising, that I thought on occasion while watching it that it must have been funded by some "Let's make marriages work" social-conscience charity group. It wasn't a movie, it was an advertisement !!



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

I completely agree. The characters were unlikable, the situations were too mundane. Ball excels at the absurd - and there was nothing absurd enough. I confess I didn't watch this all the way through, I couldn't bear another moment as it dragged through them singing by the lake.
That being said, the funniest gag in the film, which is very inspired, is the way she is embarrassed to tell people that she is seeing James Mason everywhere she turns, so she never quite gets his name out. "The funny thing is, he looks like J----oh nevermind you wouldn't understand."
As soon as she finally says "Why do you look like James Mason?" The film goes downhill and gets clumsier.

I love Lucy - but skip this.

reply

[deleted]

I saw both this film and Long, Long Trailer over 40 years ago, but in memory I liked this one far more and I remembered most of it unike the other one. i found myself humming the theme song over the years. It is the inclusion of James Mason that make it more memorable. I found him a strange choice for a romantic ideal when I was a teenage, but not now.

"KIBL posts on message boards as if he has something worth saying" geode

reply

too much time spent on meeting, running from, and telling others about her guardian angel... was almost the middle third of the film... i almost shut it off. it felt to me like the original script was too short, so they stretched that part out, way too long. interesting history on all the others that passed up on this script. i see it was produced by ZANRA productions... Arnaz backwards. ironic that the director A.Hall was once engaged to Lucy, but she left him for Desi (acc to wikipedia)...so 20 years later he directs her in something called "Forever Darling". aint life weird.

reply

Oh, boy. Well, he sure got his revenge. I'm watching this film now, and I won't turn it off, but it's a complete bomb. What an embarrassment for everyone involved. I'm hoping the sight gag that's supposed to come later in the film is any good. But if I had never seen Lucy or Desi before viewing this film, I would probably think much less highly of them than I really do.

Lucy was a comedic genius, but it seems she rarely found her way in film. She's overplaying everything here, perhaps to compensate for stale, trite, and simply unbelievable material that lacks the sweet innocence of I Love Lucy.

The audience is simply asked to buy into too much of what's going on and identify with a simply stupid, lunatic protagonist. Everything is forced. I agree with the above poster who wrote that it felt like they ran out of material for the second act. The film's opening was pleasant, almost cleverly done, and I was amused early on, but everything devolved after that. They really don't have chemistry in this one. Who wants to see them fighting? But at least there's something at stake when they do. Natalie Schafer became repetitive quickly, but once she was gone, I realized how much the film was missing without her. It makes you wonder how appealing the Ricardos would have been on their own without the reflection of the audience that was the Mertzes. Thank God that writing this post has gotten me halfway through the film, because I don't know if I could have gotten through that much of it otherwise. This is easily the worst thing I've seen in years if not ever, despite the obvious talent involved.

If you're a fan of Lucy and this is her first film you see (although I don't know how; it's not one of her more famous ones and never on TV), please know that she can be delightful in the right film -- and not simply as the Lucy Ricardo character. She was completely natural -- and still silly -- in The Facts of Life and Yours, Mine and Ours.

Update: an hour and seven minutes in, I have to add that the exterior photography is lovely, though with those backdrops, how could it not be? That said, it's also nice to see Lucy and Desi in color. She looks beautiful, and they do have moments of genuine affection that come from their real-life bond. The film just has no wit or sophistication. The music is intrusive especially when you should be laughing. And Lucy just isn't sure how she wants to play this character. Is she a less manic version of Lucy Ricardo or isn't she? By now, she was becoming too middle-aged for this shtick to be believable.

Now we're in the tent. Everything is overplayed to little comic effect, given how little is actually taking place. Even Susan's nagging is just plain annoying. I've never see Lucy more unappealing; it's like she's a caricature of herself without the juvenile zaniness or the energetic demeanor. I hate this movie, probably especially because I'm such a huge I Love Lucy fan, and am surprised at how awful it is. Literally a difficult pill to swallow. If you want a charming and levelheaded dramedy about a couple in the autumn of romance, go watch Two for the Road.

WTF was up with that ending?

reply