KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Tuchergson Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

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

JohnHowardReid Producers: H.G. Inglis and J. Lee-Thompson. An Associated British picture, made at the Associated British Elstree Studios, England. Copyright 1956 by Associated British Pictures Corp. No trace of any U.S. release. U.K. release through Associated British-Pathé: 22 April 1957. Australian release through Warner Bros Pictures: 20 November 1958. 9,413 feet. 104 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Susie Dean is a young, talented singer and dancer, who is determined to become a great star, but the touring company in which she works, "The Dinky Doos", far from setting the world alight, is on the point of closing down. Then three strangers enter Susie's life and convince her to try again. The new company, christened "The Good Companions", sets to work to put together a new show.COMMENT: As the 1933 "Good Companions" is one of my favorite films, I know that my readers will not expect me to like, let alone endorse this version. The story line is exactly the same — omitting of course many of the brightest touches and embellishments, whilst at the same time substituting the original's lively songs by parades of musical rubbish so unmemorable that even the film's producers made absolute no attempts to market them with disc jockeys.As for the players in this tedious "revival", let me quote the Monthly Film Bulletin: "Janette Scott, though conceivably a Dinky Doo, hardly convinces as a potential West End star." Hardly is exactly right! Aside from the principals, I will admit that some of the support artists do turn in some engaging portrayals: Bobby Howes, Rachel Roberts, Mona Washbourne, Thora Hird, Anthony Newley. But are they worth sitting through the rest of "The Good Companions"?

malcolmgsw If you have seen the original 1933 version of the Good Companions then you will understand why I say that this is a vastly inferior remake.True it is in colour,but if anything it detracts rather than adds to the film.In any event by the time this film was$ made concert parties had virtually died out.The two leads are very poor.Jeanette Scott cannot sing or dance which makes her appearance rather pointless.John Fraser is an inadequate leading man.The film differs from the original in a number of ways,all to its own disadvantage.There is the tacked on show at the end which is truly dreadful and represents all that is worst in fifties British musicals.So not surprising that in the final credits it is the dancers who take the top credits.Definitely not one of Associated British Pictures better efforts

didi-5 This remake of the thirties Jessie Matthews/John Gielgud musical has a lot of charm due to its lovely colour, excellent songs, and a strong cast (good roles for Celia Johnson, Eric Portman, Joyce Grenfell, Hugh Griffith, Bobby Howes, Rachel Roberts, John Fraser and of course Jeanette Scott and her mother Thora Hird; smaller showy roles for Anthony Newley and John Le Mesurier). The last few musical numbers towards the end of the film match many of Hollywood musical efforts around the same time, but the fact that the film is British gives it a heart and a sense of fun sometimes lacking in American polish.

john_jarvis36 I considered "The Good Companions" simply made and entertaining, as was the novel. The actors were well cast and each played their part to perfection. It was unusual for a British studio to 'try' a musical at that period of time, and I think it came off pretty well. For me it is an unexpected, delightful offering such as "Curtain Up".