MissGirlFriday

It is unfortunate that the 1934 version of this film has become the precedent by which all following adaptations seemed to be judged. This version does not try to imitate the "classic" and is an entirely different animal (making up for many of the flaws in the original).

Whereas Bette Davis portrayed Mildred as an over-the-top shrew, Kim Novak gave her an almost childlike naivety. It is not that Mildred wants purposely to hurt men but rather that she simply does not know how to behave better. Novak's interpretation gives Mildred the much needed humanity that was absent in the first version. Since Mildred now has genuine moments of kindness, it is much easier to see how Philip (Laurence Harvey) becomes obsessed with her.

Harvey, however, is greatly miscast in this film. As a crippled young man who likes art and helping people through medicine, Philip has a great deal of sensitivity (as seen through Leslie Howard's performance in the original). But Harvey, the actor who relished in being unlikable, is completely unable to deliver this. He fared much better in grimy roles ("Walk on the Wild Side," "Darling") and so he is only convincing in the scenes where he yells and slaps Mildred. (Given the reports that Harvey and Novak loathed each other, it is easy to see why these scenes are the most convincing). He is terrible, however, at looking smitten.

Performances aside, this version is refreshingly modern. Rather than glaze over the seedier bits to appease the censors, you will actually hear words like `whore' and `syphilis.' The final scenes are quite touching too, thanks in part to Novak's humility (she truly looks decrepit towards the end). The score cascades a little too loud and often though in all the pivotal scenes and this version would have benefited greatly from a more realistic approach.

This is a must see if you are a fan of the story and Kim Novak. Somerset Maugham supposedly adored Novak's interpretation of Mildred and it truly is a refreshing take on Of Human Bondage.

The publicity stills for this movie promise Cary Grant in WAC uniform. Indeed, the idea of Grant dressed in women's clothing has great comedic potential (re: the negligee scene in "Bringing up Baby"). But you will be sorely disappointed if you see this movie with such an expectation. Grant is dressed as a "bride" for all of two minutes, not even long enough to spell c-a-m-p.

The bride referred to in the title is on paper only. Grant plays a French soldier who marries an American Lieutenant (Ann Sheridan) and due to some bureaucratic red tape, can only follow his wife back to the States under the War Bride Act. So, basically, Grant has to call himself a "bride" on legal documents. Ha, Ha. That really is how far the hilarity ensues in this movie.

The rest of the plot seems to be some bad rehashing of "It Happened One Night," minus the chemistry. Sheridan's Lieutenant is a thoroughly unlikeable character who seems to relish in thwarting Grant at every turn. Her cruelty escalates in a scene where she knowingly sends Grant overnight to prison for her own amusement, ultimately ruining his chances at getting an important interview. Her comeuppance is long overdue at this point in the movie. But Sheridan's character goes unpunished and it is only a few minutes after her cruel joke that we then see Grant propose marriage! He then suffers through countless amounts of red tape to marry her. Since when was a Cary Grant character ever so hard up for women?

"I Was a Male War Bride" is a hard movie to find on video and there is no reason to seek it out. Had Grant really played a "bride" (and for a worthier woman), this might have been a great comedy. But as it stands, the only drag in this movie is the feeling of sitting through it.

What a waste of a perfectly good title! As a lifetime resident of Orange County, I was thrilled when I saw the previews for this movie back in November. Orange County is such a creepy, dystopic place to live and is therefore ripe with comedic material. It was like a gift that a movie should finally be made about all of its pathos.

Then I saw Orange County. It could have been anywhere, but it especially seemed like suburban LA. It came as little surprise that the film indeed was ALL shot in Los Angeles, near Pasadena. I'm assuming it must have been budget restraints, but if they are going to go to the trouble to make a film eponymous to a particular place, then why the hell is it not shot in THAT place?!

Apart from the obvious location problems, the characters are far too stereotypical. The whole surfer thing is just not funny anymore and is a cheap out when trying to poke fun at California. The only thing that made me keep watching was Jack Black, who quite frankly would be funny even on webcam. Most of the film, in fact, seemed like a trailer for his talents and also a means of launching Colin Hanks onto the scene. Apart from the cameos and Black, however, the comedy was surprisingly trite, especially coming from the writer of "Chuck and Buck," who could have delved so beautifully into the dark, comedic potential of the totalitarian state that IS Orange County.

I do recommend this film to people on the East Coast who are looking for a one-dimensional rip on California, as it is just one homogenous mix of surfers and potheads at that distance. But for anyone who has ever even stepped foot in the real Orange County, don't expect the biting and complex social satire that it could be. It's just another teen movie, perhaps a cut above.

So why "Orange County?" I guess it just sounds better than "Torrance."