Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Steineded How sad is this?

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

blanche-2 This second feature from 1942, Obliging Young Lady, stars Ruth Warrick, Joan Carroll, and Edmund O'Brien.Linda Norton (Warrick) takes a child (Carroll) involved in a custody case to a resort to keep the child hidden from reporters. Her nemesis, Red Reddy (O'Brien) is at the same resort. He saw her at another train station, fell for her, kissed her, and was slapped. She wants nothing to do with him.The whole thing turns into a big mess, with Linda's boyfriend arriving, with Linda and Red posing as Bridget's parents. A private detective shows up, as well as a reporter (Eve Arden) who knows Red. And there's a bird lovers' convention. The participants are under the impression that Red is well- traveled and can give them information.Cute and fast-moving, with a nice cast that also includes Franklin Pangborn and Charles Lane, who died in 2007, at the age of 92, and worked until he was 80. Ruth Warrick was a pretty leading lady in the style of Rosalind Russell and does well here, but her big fame came years later as Phoebe Tyler in All My Children. Joan Carroll is very good - she's not a cloying, overly sweet child, nor is she obnoxious. O'Brien is up to the comedy, though he would be known later for film noir.All in all, pleasant.

MartinHafer A very annoying young girl's rich parents are getting a divorce. Apparently this is big news, as reporters are flocking to interview them as well as the child. In order to keep the child away from this hysteria, the child is sent on a vacation in the country--with a fake mother so reporters won't recognize her. In the process, Edmond O'Brien meets up with the pair and instantly falls for the lady (Joan Carroll) and spends the film following them.I love romantic comedies from the 1930s and 40s, so you can't attribute my indifference to this film to any sort of dislike of the genre. I also love Edmund O'Brien and he could have handled this film better....if he'd had a decent script. The combination of a romantic comedy and O'Brien simply SHOULD have been a lot better.The biggest problem with "Obliging Young Lady" is a complete and total lack of subtlety. As a result, the humor sure seems very, very forced. Too many story elements just seemed to be tossed in for effect--not for coherence. And, because of this, the characters seem, at times, more like caricatures than real people. Now SOME of this is due to the genre--in "Bringing Up Baby", Katharine Hepburn's character sure isn't all that believable--but the script was so good that you could suspend judgment. With "Obliging Young Lady", the script just doesn't have the energy or quality to do this.Here are a few problems with the script. First, the young lady (from the film's title) was so completely unlike a real child it was ridiculous. She ran around putting tacks on people's seats compulsively--for a VERY cheap laugh that they did AGAIN and AGAIN. She also manipulated the heck out of everyone with a finesse that few, if any, adults could match. And, she was too 'cute' for her own good--and the film makers really tried too hard to make her adorable and kooky. I just wanted to hit her! Second, while O'Brien could have been great (especially since he was thinner and not yet Film Noir ugly back in 1942--plus he was a nice actor), his character too often was annoying. His "Heinie Manush" joke simply wasn't funny--yet it was repeated again and again and again. This really got me hating O'Brien's character and made me wonder if Manush (a retired baseball player) ever thought of suing these folks! Also, his character often got too close to the border between being a nice, cute guy AND being a creepy stalker. The way he forced himself on the leading lady made me wonder if he might just be a date rapist--he came on THAT strong and ignored every request to leave her alone. Nice. Third, while the bird watchers sequence could have been very funny, it was WAAAY overdone--too kooky and ridiculous--almost like it was made for a Three Stooges short (for which it might have been appropriate).So is the film worth seeing? Well, it's not all horrible and is a watchable time-passer--but nothing more. If you love old movies, it's worth seeing--otherwise, try seeing "Arsenic and Old Lace", "My Man Godfrey", "His Girl Friday" or "Bringing Up Baby" instead--these are all far more worthy romantic/screwball comedies.

Martin Pasko This weirdly inept attempt at screwball comedy is undone by the casting of its three leads. Edmond O'Brien -- best remembered today as the desperate poisoning victim in the 1950 cult classic "D.O.A." and the alcoholic senator in "Seven Days In May" (1964) -- and Ruth Warrick -- known primarily for playing Charles Foster Kane's first wife in "Citizen Kane" and a long run on a TV soap opera -- were never known as adept farceurs. And moppet actress Joan Carroll has the kind of physical and verbal precocity that makes the audience wonder if perhaps she might not be a midget (OK, "little person," if we have not yet appropriately repudiated the silliness of political correctness). And she's a little person with a distracting tendency to let her mouth hang open in closeup reaction shots, at that. The script -- rewritten (over Frank Ryan) by Bert Granet, suggesting that a certain paucity of talent may have been what redirected him to demi-success as a TV producer in the '50s and '60s -- is littered with what are presumably meant to be running gags, but bespeak a lack of understanding that to merit that classification, the shtik must be funny, not merely repetitive. These "runners" include the bizarre notion of a train's sound mimicking the name of a famous baseball player of the period, Heinie Manusch, and every passenger on the train getting the name stuck in their head, treating us to tedious extended sequences of extras chanting the name over and over again in syncopation with the chugging of the locomotive. There is also Carroll's character, Bridget, who repeatedly demands, for no apparent reason, "What's wrong with the name Bridget?" This farrago of badly-executed ideas is ultimately ill-served by the direction of B movie hack Richard Wallace, whose coverage is so inadequate that the cutter is repeatedly forced to go from masters to two-shots in which actors' positions and expressions change radically, making startling jump cuts out of what should be seamless transitions. Wallace even manages to undermine the usually-redoubtable Eve Arden, evidently sabotaging her trademark talent for wringing laughs from the lamest one-liners by underplaying. It almost looks like Wallace coaxed her to overact. It's painful to watch...not unlike the film as a whole.

ksf-2 it's the fringe, supporting character actors that keep this movie even partly interesting. the basic plot is sound - a secretary in a law firm must take a little girl up to a vacation lodge to keep her feuding parents from abducting her. Frank Pangborn is the leader of the birdwatching group that shows up at the lodge - he's great as always, but that birdcall bit goes on for 4 minutes and 15 seconds - way too long. viewers will recognize Charles Lane, the detective (usually plays a cop, judge, or a very serious clerk.) Eve Arden plays fellow reporter trying to get a story on the little girl. several recurring gags - the rhythm of the train wheels, the lunatic staff of the lodge, the pranks that the little girl plays. and that cast-list on IMDb - longer than a soup line in NYC! the leads are Ed O'Brien & Ruth Warrick This was one of Warrick's and Obrien's first roles, so that may explain the lack of chemistry between them.