Going Wild

Rollo Smith (Joe E. Brown) and Jack Lane (Lawrence Gray) stow away on a train. After some hijinks, they get thrown off. Rollo's initials are on his bag and he gets mistaken for Robert Story, ace fighter pilot and author. The town expects Story and has rolled out the red carpet for him. The two fakers take full advantage.

This is a comedy musical. Joe E. Brown has a rubbery face and looks very much like Jim Carrey. His comedy is not quite so wild as Carrey. Rollo is a liar liar and not necessarily a funny one. Comedy does not always translate through the ages. Physical comedy does well in any era but dialogue does lose the humor over time. Joe E. Brown does have some humorous touches and one can see the humor in the jokes. I'm just not laughing out loud.

Joe E. Brown and Laurence Gray are two fired reporters making their way by train to where the suckers are. Thrown off the train, they find themselves at a resort where Brown is mistaken for a WWI Aviation hero.

It's an interesting idea, with Brown playing someone who isn't one of his boastful jerks, but pretending to be one. It doesn't quite come off, even though there are several moments when Brown speaks as if he is a normal human being, like in the reception line. The show has a couple of sequences, like when Brown is getting a physical examination he is trying to fail, that don't quite work, and it looks like there are several songs that have been cut out in the general revulsion against musicals that occurred in 1930. Even so, the ambiance of a mountainous Florida Beach resort -- shot at the same one as the previous year's THE COCONUTS, I'll wager -- airplanes, and Brown work out very well, even if Gray and Ona Munson are barely in the movie.

I'm inclined to agree with the positive reviewers about this film. After reading the most negative review, and then actually watching the film itself, I wonder what some of you expect from a comedy. Certainly, this is not a Marx Brothers film and Joe E. Brown is not Groucho Marx. So what? It is a LIGHT comedy, a screwy comedy, and a character story. What's wrong with that? I can't watch Three Stooges ALL the time! As it is, I agree with those who thought that this is a very funny movie; the exposition in particular had me practically clucking in pleasure at Brown's outrageous characterization.

It does greatly help to see Joe E. movies in first-rate condition on a big screen. I saw the new DVD release from the Warner Brothers Archives, apparently struck right off the original negative or a safety negative, watched it on a 55" flat screen, and it came across very nicely. There are a lot of things to look at in such a pristine print of a film this old and this well made. The actual filmstock was different back then, a little more grainy but very clear, immediately giving the movie that ancient 'vintage' quality, which I find engaging (I associate it with my favorite films of my childhood black-and-white TV viewing). The styles of hair, dress, and architecture are very clear and interesting (the "heart test machine" is particularly quaint). The painted backgrounds are beautiful and perfect, and the rear projection during the rather hair-raising finale is EXCELLENTLY done (as is the rear projection in the train). This is a very high-quality, high-production-value film with loads of extras and great care taken of all the cinematic details.

The flying bed and the unexpectedly bizarre physical exam are two highlights and both are very funny. No wonder there are no consequences for the main characters' charade—they are obviously not the only frauds in this story! AND, for those of us who want to see more of Brown's specialty acts, he DOES get a funny song!

It's not a great film like a Chaplin film, or 'Duck Soup' or a wildly inventive W.C. Fields movie, but it is a COMPLETELY enjoyable Sunday-afternoon film, done up in perfect 1930s style, which I will rate 8 stars out 10. Not a film I'll look at over and over, but definitely a Keeper.

My least favorite Joe Brown film. I LOVE Frank McHugh and Waldo Pidgeon, but the bad jokes, bad acting, and bad script are just all too silly. The first time I saw this, I wondered why no director was credited, and now we now why. And another thing. Why do all the women talk in that screechie high pitched voice in films from the 1930s?? Was that really the rage during the 1930s? I'm sure I sound like a grumpy old man by this point, but it really is pretty lame. Interesting piece of spinning equipment when they are giving "Rollo" the exam up on the roof. Was that some real testing equipment, or had they just come up with something silly for the film. You can tell talkies were relatively new.. they still use title cards in this one. Most of the film is like a three stooges scene. Ah well. They can't all be great. It's just "okay. There were a couple fun and funny scenes here and there, so it wasn't a total washout. just my three and a half cents.

There were several Joe E. Brown movies in the early 30's that weren't funny and this is one of them. He had yet to hit his stride which seems to me occurred from "Elmer The Great" (1933) onward. The screenplay and the script are at fault here and the film was badly in need of a gag writer, and someone who could create funny situations and dialogue to go along with them. Scene after scene falls flat as a pancake with unfunny sight gags and rejected Vaudeville punch lines.

Wasted in this carnage is Frank McHugh who for some reason is forced to play his role in an inebriated state throughout the picture. Also left in the lurch are Ona Munson, Walter Pigeon and Fred Kelsey. I caught this one on TCM, in a rare lapse of judgment for this normally dependable station.