Avis des utilisateurs

A witty comedy which is not easy to characterise. It is a truthful adaptation of a novel, but it comes without the high-brow baggage we normally expect when we see the words "literature adaptation" on a movie poster; both book and film are very accessible. It is a romantic comedy, but the romance plays second fiddle within the context of the whole story. It is a satire, but its satirical strain is not aggressive, it is more observant. The central theme of the film is the male bonding between three men of different age, different social status, and different education. And yet again, this description is misleading as well, because the film is much less serious than these words suggest. Superficially, this is just well-made fluffy entertainment, well-acted and extremely well-written, but there is a lot more below the surface which rewards repeated viewing.

One thing that always puzzled me is why the "Geheimrat" character has been renamed from Tobler to Schlüter. Did the Swiss chocolate manufacturer "Tobler" object?

Having watched back to back the two versions - Paradise For Three (1938) and this, the mother-tongue but later version (1955), I am not sure which is the better version. In having not read the actual story, I can't say which is nearer to the literature. The basic skeleton has been maintained same in both version, A Millionaire wins a prize in a slogan competition - sponsored by his own empire - and accepts the prize - a fortnight in a ski resort. That's where the snow comes in - not because of getting marooned in some snow storm (for example as in Il tempo si è fermato) - so that way both the names are a bit misnomer, but this one is nearer to the right one.

The three (in either case) - are the First Prize winner young man, the second prize winner (the millionaire) and his trusted valet. The reason of his going is his childishness - which had been shown in different way in the two versions (in the Holly version, the bargaining with a young boy - for his stamps) whereas here those were not resorted to. Some "Narrator" statement in the beginning smoothed the field for the Hero to step on.

Both the versions had obvious flaws, but in none of them had been really too noticeable to be irritating. Unfortunately - as it is reported, the German director wasn't even aware that a movie had already been made on the story- so he really couldn't take advantage of the better parts of that. May be had he seen that, or some one makes a hybrid, that would be perfect.

In the Hollywood version, the daughter is a society girl, whereas here she is a professional, the crown princess is in fact ready and capable of taking over the empire from the baby-father. The father in both case is child, but in Holly the daughter too is as frolicky as the father, but here the father is blessed with two mothers - the daughter and the old governess. In fact in Holly version, one could suspect whether there was some other feeling Mrs Kunkel had, in fact almost feel it, but here there is absolutely no doubt.

The second positive part of this version is - the lead up to the excursion - in Holly he has gone by deception, (in fact I couldn't get how they came to know of it). But here, it was known, and they have decided to humour the child to go for a stroll in the park, of course with the guardian (the valet) to keep a strict eye. In fact here I had a strong suspicion, whether the Princess managed the award for her father (playing Santa) ? It seemed quite possible - and that would have taken the chance element off. Upto half way of the movie this was a definitely far superior version, but then a small, but major flaw surfaced. In both the version, the mistaken-millionare was treated as a servant - but Holly had made it convincing - the destruction of cutlery and the pay-back by manual work. Here it was just ordered, without reason. That is simply not palatable. In Holly version, the gold digging divorcee had very quickly changed her target, when she realised who was who. But here she didn't and focused on the wrong one (she didn't get enlightened of the reality). In either case - it was just a bit too fast to be palatable - the change of target would have warned the target in Holly, and the open seduction in this version was more as one would expect from a street-walker than one who hobnobs with Barons and others. This should have been kept a bit more sublime - since after all (though mistakenly), she is trying to catch a rich man as husband. The finale too here was much sweeter than the Holly version. But in Holly the young man couldn't afford to have a mother, hence this solution was out.

As I said, I have a mixed feeling about the superiority - I would give this just a small edge - and that too because, I will take the Director at his words, that he hasn't seen the other one, and hence this isn't a remake, but stand-alone. In remakes, I am much more brutal, when plus points of one version become minus in later one.

No pun intended - I assume you have seen similar movies. I know I have. Which is why I had no idea this is based on a novel. This is as fun as any of them - or even funnier to be honest. The plot (if you want to call it that) is quite simple. It is the actors and the script that do the work here (also the novel then obviously).

The mix up is quite funny and it gets people into all sorts of situations ... some even with an erotic flair or flavor to it! Of course considering the time this was done, nothing really is going to be done or shown on screen, in case you were wondering ... kissing is the highest of emotions we will get. And that's ok.

Fun little movie - if you like comedy I can highly recommend.