In this sequel to Father of the Bride (1950), newly married Kay Dunstan announces that she and her husband are going to have a baby, leaving her father having to come to grips with the fact that he will soon be a granddad.
Sophie loved Edmund, but he left town when her parents forced her to marry wealthy Octavius. Years later, Edmund returns with his son, William. Sophie's daughter, Marguerite, and William ... See full summary »
On their wedding night Bob informs his new bride Betty that he has bought a chicken farm. An abandoned chicken farm, to be exact, which is obvious when the two move in. Betty endures Bob's ... See full summary »
In late nineteenth century New York a Wall Street broker likes to think his house runs his way, but finds himself constantly bemused at how much of what happens is down to his wife. His children are also stretching their wings, discovering girls and making money out of patent medicine selling. When it comes to light he has never been baptized and everyone starts insisting he must do so, it all starts to get a bit too much. Written by
Jeremy Perkins <email@example.com>
Warner Brothers paid $500,000 for the screen rights, plus fifty percent of the profits - a record amount for a film at the time. See more »
In the first five minutes of the film an elaborate clock is seen chiming. The clock has an arm that moves with each ring of the chime. The arm stops moving, but the chiming continues for several more tolls. See more »
Although 'William Powell' is listed first and Irene Dunne is listed second in the viewed print on AMC, half of the actual prints listed Dunne first and Powell second. Not only did each version alternate daily in theaters, but so did the advertisements of the movie in newspapers. See more »
I was a bit skeptical about this film at first. In general, Hollywood period pieces from the 40's and 50's can be a bit too cornball for my tastes (not that that's a BAD thing, it just depends on what kind of mood you're in). But I gave this film a shot and I was pleasantly surprised. There are some genuinely hysterical moments here. And while the introductory storyline tends to drag just a bit, the true comedy soon emerges from the intermingled sub-plots. I think that the reviewers who have panned the film may have missed the point of it entirely. The character portrayals of the parents are cartoonish for a reason. Did you notice how the children are drawn in a slightly more three-dimensional light? It's because this film is, essentially, a satire. The reason the "folks" are so nutty is because the story is being told from the perspective of Clarence Day Jr. (at least, that's how it was originally written). What this movie attempts to do, and accomplishes in spades, is to poke a bit of fun at the uptight, button-down aristocracy of 19th century America. We have the excitable, self-absorbed, and completely delusional patriarch, and the neurotic, long-suffering, and religiously impressionable mother. This film rips the facade right from its hinges, and shows us what people were really like. The firm and omnipotent father is actually a stubborn but hen-pecked hypocrite. And his wife is no better! She schemes, plots, and manipulates to constantly gain control of her heel of a husband. And, quite admittedly, she usually succeeds. The kids are the only *normal* ones (except for an EXTREMELY annoying Liz Taylor, who plays her role like she's in a High School production of Guys & Dolls). Overall, a very funny film. Some of the dialogue is sparkling and hysterically clever, a model that modern-day Hollywood would do well to study and live up to. There were several laugh-out-loud moments here, and I wasn't even in a good mood! If you like the old obscure Hollywood gems, check this one out! Just make sure you're looking at this film family through the right size lens. If it could make a believer out of me, it will hook anyone!
23 of 33 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?