Reviews

This is one of those movies that makes some of us laugh out loud no matter how many times we watch it, while it leaves other people cold, and to my mind that's one kind of classic. Calling it a "comedy" may be a little misleading, because it's more of a live-action cartoon -- it's not so much funny as it is silly, but it's silly in ways that have as much to do with the dialog as with the physical comedy. To me it has much in common with the Marx Brothers classics. So it's rather beside the point to discuss how good the acting wasn't, when to some of us just watching Kim Novak and Clint Walker trying to do comedy is itself highly entertaining. And although it does illustrate its moral ("Crime doesn't pay"? "Cheaters never win"?) in a form suitable for children (and also teaches the valuable lesson that bad people can be acting as clergymen, but that doesn't undercut religion itself), I think adults generally enjoy this film more than kids do. But not all adults.

This film is a major disappointment on several counts: The actors were certainly capable of doing it better, because they've performed similar rôles beautifully in other films, so the fault must be apportioned among the persons who decided to take such creative liberties with this classic play. The fantasy scenes were a novel touch that would have been more effective if the same technique had not been used for historical scenes (such as putting the baby in the bag), too, which I found confusing as well as distracting from that special effect (which was delightful for the romantic tableaux from Cicely's diary).

The screen-writers must bear most of the guilt, too, for changing the plot -- granted, they didn't change it much, but it was enough to befuddle anyone familiar with the play, and for no apparent reason. (Example: Suggesting at the end that Jack hadn't been christened "Ernest" -- Wilde wrote it with him having been christened "Ernest John.") Not only should you not fix it if it ain't broke, but you shouldn't screw around with it at all unless you're making it better. (How was switching their order of birth supposed to make this better, pray tell?)

Some misguided person(s) must have been trying to make the play more acceptable to modern viewers, but it's a comedy of manners, for heaven's sake! -- if it's not performed in a stylized manner, it misses the point, as this version does. Watch the 1952 film and then this one right after it, and see if you don't agree.