Aventura matrimonial

This comedy is good and at the same time shows the situation in Europe when the nazis were invading step by step each country of central and east Europe. The story is refreshing although it touches a very delicate issue, which affected millions of people in Europe in early 40s. Cary Grant was able to play a good role as a journalist, who is very well informed of the problems caused by nazis and the ways the latter used for invasion. Splendid Ginger Rogers also did very well, and no less important was Walter Slezak playing well the role of the nazi officer Baron Von Luber. In the film there is some thrill, romance and comic scenes, in conclusion Leo McCarey directed a good comedy once again.

Comedy? I don't think so. Even Grant's charms can't save this one. A comedy set in Europe during WWII isn't impossible (see To Be Or Not To Be, also from 1942). But this one includes scenes with Hitler, and jokes about Nazis, not very funny I may add. The story is too ludicrous, the so-called jokes terrible. Whoever liked the movie should check is head. The ending is SO-Stupid! And what honeymoon? Forget it. Even worse than Penny Serenade. Beware. Read a book, eat, do something, anything else.

Although the indifferent critical reception, and very mixed reviews here, made me a little nervous, the cast were good reason to see 'Once Upon a Honeymoon'. Am especially fond of Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers' partnership with Fred Astaire is legendary. Comedy mixed in with a serious subject, in a sensitive time period at the time, has been done frequently on film and although it varies in success there are a lot of great examples. Have also liked a lot a good deal of Leo McCarey's work.

Not 'Once Upon a Honeymoon' though. Whether it's his very worst is debatable, haven't seen everything of his, but it is to me a lesser effort of his and nowhere near his usual standard. Both Grant and Rogers have also been better, though neither fare too badly here and actually among the better assets. For better balances of well executed comedy and tastefully executed seriousness, look elsewhere other than 'Once Upon a Honeymoon' as that is one of its biggest problems. If people got more out of this, good for them but it didn't quite do it for me while thinking still that it is not that bad.

'Once Upon a Honeymoon' has good things. It is a well made film, the photography especially being nicely done. Robert Emmett Dolan's music has quirkiness and atmosphere. There are moments of amusement, like a few nice lines from Grant, and tension thanks to the menace of Walter Slezak.

Grant embodies urbane sophistication, something that he was unaparallelled in in cinematic history. Rogers to me seemed to have fun, and didn't seem over the top or phoned in. They have a sweet chemistry together and it's the romantic element that comes off best of the different tones the film tries to take on. The supporting cast are all competent and more, although the variable amount of screen time worked against some of them. Slezak's menacing baron comes off best and the character that makes the most sense.

It is a shame however that the script is very muddled and tries to do too much, the comedy generally lacks wit and when there is any in the more serious scenes (i.e. anything regarding Grant and Rogers implausibly being mistaken for being Jewish) it leaves a bitter aftertaste. Or at least it did to me and some others. The story never properly grabbed me and suffers badly from being tonally unfocused and too many jarring shifts in tone, which suggested a not knowing what it wanted to be vibe.

To me too, 'Once Upon a Honeymoon' runs on for too long with the early portion having drawn out parts suggestive of padding not always needed. So it meant that too much of the film drags and quite badly. Successful comedy is only sporadic and the tension is hardly there. Only the baron makes sense of the characters, the others and their behaviour further to the film's strangeness. Have not seen an ending this dumb in a long time, quite insultingly so, and it also felt abrupt. McCarey's direction is pretty bland and like he was not finding it easy balancing everything.

Summarising, a watchable curiosity but an oddity. 5/10

When Leo McCarey made this film, America was only a number of months into WWII. The events leading up to the start of the war (at least in Europe) were known to some, with most of America still getting their news from the newsreels at the theater or radio. This film is a great way for people to learn about how the opening of WWII began, especially now where some schools are limited in their ability to cover the events. Two "average Americans" moving about Europe, sometimes steps ahead (or behind as in the Polish through Low Countries scenes) of the events which changed Europe. The time in the Polish Ghetto, as well as in Paris, allow for the audience to get to know the characters, without having to gather the facts as the story goes along. Just as National Treasure teaches about American History while entertaining, this movie belongs in the same group, as it tells a "You Are There" version of 1939-40 European History.

Although there is a silly side to this movie, I really don't think that its only value is as a curiosity. In reality, it was a singular vehicle for Ginger Rogers to flex her acting muscles, instead of merely being a sidekick in a dance routine. She is something to behold in this movie. And, I maintain that if you are a Cary Grant fan, it's nothing to sit through this slightly confectionery film. It is practically astonishing that the Jewish issue was addressed in a movie made in 1942. Finally, it's worth pointing out that any average film from this period is Shakespearean compared to the dreck on offer most of the time these days.