The Worst Film Ever

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Lesser known Grant comedy is a sweet-natured look at the challenges of adopting older children and blending them into an already existing family.Cary Grant could have played his part as an exasperated father in his sleep but he does his usual charming job of it and at 48 displays a body that people half his age would be proud of.Betsy Drake, Grant's wife at the time of filming, is all warm understanding perhaps a shade too calm for all the situations she finds herself in but very right for the part.The focus is on them and the two challenging children they take in, whose problems honestly are resolved a bit too quickly but this being a 50's movie that such a situation is being addressed at all is rather remarkable. Grant, Drake and the two young actors playing the adoptees are fine but a shortcoming of the picture is that it wastes two very good performers, Lurene Tuttle and George "Foghorn" Winslow, in throwaway parts.A nice film rather than a laugh out loud comedy.

This movie is watchable and engaging despite its flaws.its the sort of movie I wish I had seen as a child , I would have liked it a lot more then. The real life Mr. And Mrs. Cary Grant are the parents of three children plus two foster children. Both foster kids come to them as sullen, angry and disturbed , but in a short time, after being loved, mostly by the patient and kind Mother(Betsy Drake) , they transform into nice sitcom kids. Once Mom succeeds with Jane , there isn't much doubt or tension that orphan #2 will end up a conformist Eagle Scout. The good stuff-the child actors are all good. Norman Taurog elicits good performances out of children. We hope he didn't need to threaten to kill the dog, this time, in order to motivate the kids(famous story told many times by Jackie Cooper). The not so good stuff- WB and Max Steiners decision to telegraph every emotion with the heavy score. I know it's a feature of its time, but really do we need another tinkly version of Row your boat,after we heard Grant and the family sing it ad nauseum.Another possible negative-Cary Grant casting, in general..yes his performance is fine, but seeing him with his great tan ,great hair,Cary Grant voice playing a struggling municipal employee,just not real believable in this role. And this is not to say,Grant can't be great playing struggling, real people,just not in this movie..There is a running gag that I did enjoy,that Grant is constantly sexually frustrated,with all of the kiddie interruptions. And there is one eye popping sight gag, that will go over every kids head, I am sure . Mom and Poppy are about to get it on, he has planned a romantic night with a bottle of champagne .They are interrupted again by crises de child. Grant accepts it as the bottle of champagne explodes and foams all over the bed.Probably the best moment in the movie. Some other strange bits-why did orphan #2,jimmy John sport a real New York-ese Brooklyn accent, when no one else did?What about the extended scene of Grant in his white trunks and nothing else.? He looks trim and good for 50's standards,but why is he still clad in the trunks for the next ten minute scene? Over all, worth watching and engaging, but definitely dated and of its time.

This is a feel good film, light comedy Norman Taurog, the director specialized in light comedy. When you look at his resume which started in silent films, you see where he worked with Elvis films a lot, but going back, he did a Martin & Lewis film (The Stooge), and even worked with the great Fields in Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch and directed the screen version of Tom Sawyer. This type of film is definitely in his wheelhouse.The only thing wrong is it assumes that all kids will respond when treated with respect and kindness. I am sure the book that it is based upon is the story of this. That is the main reason I think it comes off as a little shallow. There are kids who will respond to this, but there are kids who won't. Still, the story is a light Comedy so looking into it too seriously, I shall not.Grant seems terribly out of place in this. He is an overwhelmed father who does everything his wife wants. This might explain why Betsy Drake, his real life wife and him did split 11 years after this movie. After all, eventually a husband who does everything his wife wants gets worn out.While this film addresses the Boy Scouts, it addresses the Polio disease which since it has been cured people forget about. Back when it was made, Polio was still a major problem. The audience in 1952 would understand this better than today's folks who just see that Jimmy John has walking issues. Polio being cured remains one of the biggest accomplishments of modern medicine.A typical ploy of this director in light Comedies is props and Cary Grant gets funny sequences with an inflatable boat. The use of the dog and the way the kids are handled is typical of Norman's Direction too. This does warm the heart.

Real-life marrieds Cary Grant and Betsy Drake as a loving couple who adopt needy children. Perhaps trying to erase the stigma--the negative curiosity--from adoption and foster families that was highly prevalent in the early-'50s, screenwriters Jack Rose and Melville Shavelson (working from Anna Perrot Rose's book) go a little nutty providing these particular children with a happy ending. Drake is appropriately warm and buttery, but Grant (uncomfortably referred to as "Poppy" Rose, as if he were in his 70s) has the stern look of concentration that unfortunately never slides into bemusement. His "Poppy" is supposed to be wary of his wife's desire to fill the house with kids, but Grant seems a bit anxious at finding an actual character to portray. He's just relying on externals here, and the slightest sneer of discontent shows through. Story transformed into a TV series some ten years later. ** from ****