Opiniones de usuarios

While this remake fails to come up to the standard of 'Laughter In Paradise', this is an OK effort.

Probably its greatest weakness is that it adheres too closely to the narrative structure of 'Laughter in Paradise' which for its memorable bits (mainly involving Alistair Sim) had some flat spots.

In terms of the four main characters, where SWSW improves over the original is in the Agnes storyline. Whereas the original was semi-serious and about the character's moral redemption, here it is played strictly for laughs and all the better for it. Especially as Thora Hird is a delight as Agnes and elicits the main laughs in the film.

As the smooth Simon, Leslie Phillips is perfectly cast and an improvement over Guy Middleton although he's restricted by weak material.

In the role of the nervous Denniston, the highly talented Michael Horden tries his best but can't match the brilliance of Alistair Sim; also the department store theft scene which was the famous highpoint of the original is a pale imitation here.

The weakest section involves the timid bank worker Herbert. Ronnie Corbett would seem to be perfect casting but he is disappointingly ineffectual and no match for George Cole in the original. It's probably a demonstration as good as any as to why his career has mainly been in TV with only the occasional film.

Overall a reasonable timewaster, especially if you haven't seen the original.

This was one of the last films made by Associated British Picture Corporation before it was acquired by EMI.In the last decade of their existence they made unambitious films like this.Its not that this is a bad film .In fact the scenes with Michael Horden are quite funny.Its just that itpales in comparison with the original this does of course make the film fairly reduntant now.

The film is a very bad remake of Laughter in Paradise, with all the subtlety left out and some crude slapstick put in. It is hard on the actors to be compared with their illustrious predecessors but though they are capable of wonderful performances in other films they are awful in comparison with the actors in Laughter in Paradise. I am afraid that Michael Horden is no Alistair Sim. Nor is Ronny Corbett any George Cole. The sole improvement is the Michael Horden scene where he tried to steal some pearls, stuffing an endless string into his pocket. Arthur Lowe was good as the Police Sergeant Eleanor Summerfield was in both films very good as Sheila Wilcott Sim's lovely secretary. But alas she is no match for Joyce Grenfell's Elizabeth Robson.

This film is frankly the totally unnecessary remake of the movie Laughter in Paradise, I simply have to ask why the hell did they bother?

Are there any possible reason for remaking any film? If it can improved on, if its a complete reappraisal or rewrite of the original. Or if there has been a substantial elapse of time, from when the original movie was screened.

None of these apply in this case the movie is a complete reenactment of the earlier film, with simply different actors.

I have marked it down because I find myself referring back, to the earlier movie and relating to that when I watch it. This is really annoying and frankly frustrating and, tends to act as a distraction to my enjoyment. I think the only way has to be to watch them if possible, without relating to the other film.

Which is a great shame Some Will Some Won't in itself as a movie its not that bad, it has after all got a superb cast ofthe cream of British comedy. It's actually put together quite well with all of the excentric characters, well fleshed out by the brilliant cast.

The actress Eleanor Summerfield is actually in both films, in Laughter in Paradise she plays Sheila Wilcott, the willing and loyal secretary to Deniston Russell. In Some will some won't Summerfield played, Deniston Russell's girlfriend Elizabeth Robson.

Why did they bother? Laughter In Paradise is a classic, charming British comedy. This, almost line for line remake, is just like a bad impressionist on an end of pier summer show. Leaden, dull, totally lacking in sparkle. I can only assume the very good cast were just doing it for the money. A film of zero artistic integrity.