Just watched this for the first time, after recording it a few days ago off TCM. I figured a murder mystery involving baseball was something I had to watch since I have enjoyed both murder mysteries and baseball almost all my life.
Expecting a straight drama, I was surprised how much of the film was devoted to humor, particularly between the catcher and the umpire. Robert Young was Jim Anderson and Marcus Welby to me as I grew up--having seen him in many roles in old films, I think he is one of the most underrated actors of the 20th Century. He handled a wide variety of roles and the did them all quite well.
It is certainly true that some of the ways the murders were committed were rather far-fetched. I'll say it's also true that they handled most of the baseball action scenes better than many other films did. Young, in his closeups, looked believable as a pitcher to me. They mixed in real baseball footage to make the baseball scenes realistic enough.
Because they had much focus on the baseball scenes, and the romantic angle, they didn't have enough time for the typical detective movie where we see clues point to different suspects. Instead, we basically were pointed toward numerous people, mostly because they were in the vicinity of the activity. But since this was a light-hearted murder mystery, I don't think this ruined the film.
I think it equates with a Matlock or Diagnosis Murder where we follow the star around as everything happens around, and we can guess at who committed the murders, but we never have any real clues until the very end. Frequently on those two TV series, we didn't really have clues to the killer, just a group of suspects to makes guesses about.
The big difference here is, after the killer is caught, there's still the mystery of whether or not the Cardinals can clinch the pennant.
It was a fun movie to see. It would be a mistake to get bogged down in details of how this or that seems unbelievable. While I caught Mickey Rooney and Ward Bond, Walter Brennan's short role slipped past me.
Expecting a straight drama, I was surprised how much of the film was devoted to humor, particularly between the catcher and the umpire. Robert Young was Jim Anderson and Marcus Welby to me as I grew up--having seen him in many roles in old films, I think he is one of the most underrated actors of the 20th Century. He handled a wide variety of roles and the did them all quite well.
It is certainly true that some of the ways the murders were committed were rather far-fetched. I'll say it's also true that they handled most of the baseball action scenes better than many other films did. Young, in his closeups, looked believable as a pitcher to me. They mixed in real baseball footage to make the baseball scenes realistic enough.
Because they had much focus on the baseball scenes, and the romantic angle, they didn't have enough time for the typical detective movie where we see clues point to different suspects. Instead, we basically were pointed toward numerous people, mostly because they were in the vicinity of the activity. But since this was a light-hearted murder mystery, I don't think this ruined the film.
I think it equates with a Matlock or Diagnosis Murder where we follow the star around as everything happens around, and we can guess at who committed the murders, but we never have any real clues until the very end. Frequently on those two TV series, we didn't really have clues to the killer, just a group of suspects to makes guesses about.
The big difference here is, after the killer is caught, there's still the mystery of whether or not the Cardinals can clinch the pennant.
It was a fun movie to see. It would be a mistake to get bogged down in details of how this or that seems unbelievable. While I caught Mickey Rooney and Ward Bond, Walter Brennan's short role slipped past me.