Meurtre et lune de miel

Constance and Robert have a great deal of fun with this film although he is not my perfect idea of Lord Wimsey although he has a certain ironic charm. Hot on the heels of the great Night Must Fall, he lets his hair down here to ham it up a bit, but the locals are a match for anyone and everyone. This shows the British idea of eccentricity at its bizarre best.

The story, I mean. This picture takes forever to get underway, as it isn't until 20 minutes in that a crime is committed. Then ensues a lot of dialogue and alternate plot development, and then 30 minutes later, the body is discovered. That leaves less than 25 minutes to track down the murderer.

I did not read the book so I cannot comment on the pale comparison between the book and the film, or the unsuitability of Robert Montgomery as Lord Peter Wimsey. I can say that I am never disappointed by Montgomery's presence in a movie, and here he was dapper and sophisticated as always - although perhaps slightly out of place with an American accent.

I enjoyed the banter between Montgomery and Constance Cummings, the staid and stuffy presence of Seymour Hicks and the threatening appearance of Roy Emerton. The solution to the murder seemed slapped together and almost an afterthought, and the whole mood of the picture seemed as though it couldn't decide if it was a romantic comedy or a murder mystery. I have to say, though, that the whole picture had a very agreeable cachet about it that worked for me.

I thought the overall effect was delightful, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, warts and all. If you are a Robt. Montgomery fan or an aficionado of peculiar murder stories, this picture is for you. And there is plenty of 'down' time to go to the fridge. It aired on TCM the other morning.

Haunted Honeymoon (1940)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

British film from MGM has Lord Peter Wimsey (Robert Montgomery) marrying mystery writer Harriet Vane (Constance Cummings) but their honeymoon is very short as they investigate a murder together. If you look at the title and are expecting some sort of supernatural film then it's best to get that out of your mind. After viewing this film I started to look around and read some other reviews and it seems that the majority of them were negative, although very few were as negative as my thoughts on the film. To me this was one of those films where as soon as something happens it hits your eyes, travels to your brain and then your brain forgets what you just saw in the matter of seconds. I really can't remember too many films where what was going on was simply traveling past me simply because of how uninterested I was in anything going on. I think there are a couple major problems with this picture but the main one is Montgomery. There's no question that he was a fine actor but this here has to be one of his worst performances if not the worst. I think to say he was miscast would be an understatement because it's clear that he was just the wrong person for this part. Perhaps had the film stayed closer to its source material, the play Busman's Honeymoon, then the actor could have done more with it. This film version goes for more romantic charms than mystery and the actor just suffers the entire time. Cummings really isn't any better and the two lack any real chemistry. Another major problem is that the director just never makes anything interesting happen on the screen in terms of style, energy or anything else that you can think of. HAUNTED HONEYMOON is a real snoozer from start to finish.

MGM specialized in upper-class motifs. Here it's newly-weds Lord and Lady Wimsey moving into a baronial mansion in rural England only to find that the previous owner has taken up final residence in the cellar. So, Wimsey being an amateur sleuth and she being a crime writer, the Lord and Lady's honeymoon must be postponed, despite their pledges to leave detecting to the police.

The film's generally too long such that the tepid script gets stretched beyond plot capacity. As others point out, the mystery doesn't get going til the last 20-minutes. The production does manage some local color, especially the lady who dabbles in exotic jams. That reluctant tasting scene is really well done, showing the Lord and Lady's comedic potential. Too bad there's so little follow-up. Also, there's the handyman who cannonades his gun up a chimney flue, perhaps the movie's high point as the soot comes raining down on the shooter.

But a key problem is the talented Montgomery who, for whatever reason, lacks flair here for a William Powell type role. As Wimsey, he stirs up neither much interest, nor amusement. Maybe, if the script had given him a quirky habit, that might have helped. But, I guess his role is an adaptation of a literary figure, so he may have felt constrained. Nonetheless, between his uninspired turn and a limp narrative, there's not much left to recommend. All in all, the movie's a really minor entry in the Gentleman Sleuth Sweepstakes. Too bad.

As the other comments make clear, this is not a bad film. One of MGM's British-made films, it has several good moments, and lots of good performances. Its problem is that it makes the ultimately wrong decision to play down the mystery elements in favour of the romantic comedy. It could have been a marvellous comedy thriller, but instead looks more like a pale imitation of the great romantic screwballs of the thirties, or the fag end of the cycle. Montgomery and Cummings' opening scene reminds one of William Powell and Myrna Loy opening Christmas presents in The Thin Man, or indeed Montgomery's own opening scene with Carole Lombard in Mr and Mrs Smith. The two beautiful, funny, talented people sail brilliantly and wittily through life, with their perfect marriage (explicitly announced to be so), not taking themselves too seriously, not afraid to take a pratfall now and then ... you know the drill. And, of course, we as viewers are supposed to assume that Robert Montgomery and Constance Cummings, by extension, are also such wonderful beings.

So the picture is actually an hour old before we get going with the murder. We have had the clues front-loaded, interspersed with the comedy and romance, whereas in the book Wimsey pieces together the clues from his interrogations. The solution of the mystery ends up as a total afterthought, Montgomery casually piecing together the fiendish plot, and the film sloppily omits to give us any actual proof that that was how the crime was done.

And, to coin a phrase, why oh why oh why did anyone think that suave New Yorker Montgomery could be Lord Peter Wimsey, whose archetypal English "silly ass" manner concealed a brilliant brain? Ian Carmichael was much nearer the mark in the 70s TV series. Montgomery is a very pleasing screen presence, but an English nobleman he is not.

As usual it is the character actors that steal the scenes. Leslie Banks, in my humble, could do very little wrong, and doesn't here. Joan Kemp-Welch is excellent in what could be the very tedious role of Aggie Twitterton. Robert Newton gives an early eye-rolling performance complete with dodgy West country accent. Frank Pettingell is on good form, especially in the chimney sweeping scene, where he divests himself of a seemingly infinite number of sweaters. Googie Withers is great as the sexy barmaid. Roy Emerton is always good value. But the real star of the show, as other comments have also pointed out, is the old actor-manager Seymour Hicks, showing the youngsters how it is done.

So, much to please, much too long, more thrills needed.