Awesome Movie

As Good As It Gets

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

not great but nice. not special but seductive for a smart story, use of humor and romanticism, fake tension and Cary Grant. interesting for Rex Ingram and for the nuances of role exploited by Ronald Colman. a film with large ambitions who remains only another comedy about heroes and love. nothing new but amusing for the small scenes who seems be ambiguous or for the classic end, for the unrealistic events and for the good intentions. nothing memorable but useful for remind the flavor of lost period. that is all. a film with ordinary mistakes and drops of glamor. is it enough ? yes, in this case. because not the artistic virtue is the most important thing but the smell of a fragment from a golden age.

Accused arsonist Cary Grant escapes from jail and hides out at the home of childhood friend Jean Arthur. The situation is further complicated when the man who was supposed to rent her house, law professor Ronald Colman, arrives earlier than expected. The two men debate law and grow to respect each other while both falling for Arthur. But Colman has no clue who Grant really is and, when he finds out, conflict arises between them.I have a love/hate relationship with The Talk of the Town. Most of it stems from the fact that all throughout the movie I found myself liking Ronald Colman's character the most. Yet the movie would have me be more sympathetic to Cary Grant. I understand the reasoning put forth for why I should root for Grant. He was innocent of the crime of which he was accused, after all, and Colman is somewhat stuffy and rigid in his beliefs. Intellectually, I understand. But emotionally my sympathies lie with Colman's kind and gentle Professor Lightcap, not Grant's arrogant and sometimes brutish Leopold Dilg. Innocent he may be, nice he is not. So it was a sticking point for me and has continued to be so after multiple viewings over the years. I blame the script for not making Dilg more sympathetic beyond simply being innocent of the crime. The fact that he readily assaults people, including Lightcap, made me like him even less. Colman's wonderful performance earned my allegiance. I also disliked Jean Arthur's character more as the movie went along. It seemed like they were set on her ending up with Dilg at the end so in the second half they began to sabotage her relationship with Lightcap, giving her a few bitchy scenes that were out of character with the way she was presented in the first half. So Lightcap doesn't even get the girl in the end. Dilg does and, frankly, all I kept thinking was what a miserable life they will have together. This guy has a huge chip on his shoulder and the likelihood he will wind up being behind bars again, maybe for something he actually did next time, is pretty strong. Maybe I'm thinking about it too much in the wrong way. I don't know really but I was dissatisfied with elements of the film so I can't rate it higher.The three stars are all fine although, like I said, Colman was the best. Most of the comedy falls on Jean Arthur's shoulders. The other two get some funny bits, particularly Colman, but Jean does most of the wacky stuff and that's almost all in the first half. The supporting cast is good, including Edgar Buchanan and Rex Ingram. Glenda Farrell almost steals the picture with just a couple of scenes. Lloyd Bridges has an early role as a reporter. I wish it had lived up to its potential, given the three legends as the leads. Still, despite my issues with the film, it really is a good dramedy. It's well directed and acted with a script full of nice dialogue. Fans of the stars will undoubtedly like it, if not love it.

There's a lot of great things in this film, but they don't add up to a great film. In this case, the total is less than the sum of its parts.The problem really is that the movie can't make up its mind what it's trying to be. It's a drama and a comedy and a romance and a message film, and by trying to be all those things, it succeeds well at none of them.As a comedy, it is ruined by the drama. The movie starts out so serious and heavy, that we get in a serious, heavy mood, and start really caring about the plot-- which is death for a comedy. So when various shenanigans start happening, it's hard to let loose and laugh at them, because we're still worried about how it affects the plot and if the hero will get caught.As a romance, it's almost a complete dud. What we have here is a classic lovers triangle, and while all three leads are very good dramatically and comedically, there's really very little chemistry between either male lead and the heroine. It's a sad commentary on the romance when the most interesting relationship is the hypotenuse-- Grant and Coleman's budding friendship has much more chemistry than either man with the woman. The only good thing I'll say about the romance aspect of the film is that it did do a good job of keeping you guessing about which gentleman she'd end up with.Drama is perhaps the films strongest suit, but even here it comes up short. The story is interesting and engrossing, and again, the leads do a fine job. But because so much of the film is expended on the other aspects, the overall dramatic story is pretty sparse and sketchy. The chief villain, the factory owner, is more a prop than a character; we never do really find out exactly what his scheme or motivations were, or see him actually get some comeuppance. We have no idea what the allegedly strong evidence against the hero was supposed to be-- indeed, it's hard to see how they had any case against Grant at all.And as for the message, well, it's so short on details that it's not much of a message at all. This is no Atlas Shrugged in terms of trying to get a philosophy across. The whole theory-of-law thing works best to simply show the developing intellectual engagement leading to the friendship between the two male leads.So I find the film hard to heartily enjoy. Yet despite all my criticism, I gave it a pretty good rating. Because there is a lot that's very good here. Good dialog, good performances, some of the comedy really is pretty good. It's just that, as I said, it doesn't all add up very well.But I am going to try my borscht with an egg beaten into it one of these days!

Grant is a political activist, Leopold Dilg, who is framed for arson and for the death of a man supposedly burned to death. He hides out in the farmhouse of a friend, Jean Arthur, but Arthur has rented the house for the summer to stern judge Ronald Colman, who wants peace and quiet so he can write his book. He's also hoping for an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.Arthur introduces Grant as the gardener. Coleman soon finds that Grant is a most peculiar gardener. He cultivates some pretty unorthodox views of the law, promoting its spirit, whatever its letter. Also he's able to beat Coleman at chess.Coleman finally discovers Grant's real identity and is determined to turn him in but before he can do so, Grant knocks him out and escapes. Coming to, Coleman thinks things over and realizes there is no real evidence against Grant except an oddly self-absorbed hair dresser who was the girl friend of the supposedly barbecued victim. Coleman pursues his own investigation. Things get hectic before they end happily.Jean Arthur winds up in the arms of Cary Grant, while Coleman dons his black robe and sits behind his massive bench, entirely satisfied with the way things turned out. I'd have given Jean Arthur to Ronald Coleman, who seems more devoted to her than Grant is. It would be better for everyone concerned. Coleman is older and Arthur would provide him with contentment for the rest of his life, after which she'd become terribly rich. Grant, on the other hand, is a wisecracking malcontent whose middle name is Trouble. On top of that, he's named Leopold Dilg. That means she would have to become Mrs. Dilg. And on top of THAT, Cary Grant always gets the girl. Let's give her to Coleman this time. She'd make a nice addition to his library.I didn't find it as satisfying as some other viewers. The blend of romance, comedy, and drama was a little uneasy. Grant had a tendency at this point in his career of branching out into serious roles, often in message movies, in which he challenged his usual handsomely carefree film persona. "Penny Serenade," for instance. They were generally failures and Grant went back to doing what he did best by the late 40s.Never again would he be a character named Leopold Dilg or Ernie Mott or something.Good.