michaeljayklein

I'm not sure who to give the praise to, but this entry in the series is quite above the quality of of the other Bowery Boys efforts. It has a more polished look and feel to it and seems more in the style of the Universal-International comedy series of the time (i.e., A&C, Francis the Talking Mule, Ma & Pa Kettle, etc.)in terms of craftsmanship and production value (and like those other series mentioned, nothing hilarious in general, but pleasantly amusing). Overall, a Bowery Boys movie even non-fans might enjoy. Being a longtime fan of Bing Crosby's work, I would have SWORN it was Crosby dubbing the voice (especially in the sequence where we first see Satch performing at Louie's "new" nightclub) and I read somewhere here this was made in 6 days, which makes this film even more remarkable.

I think this and "The Bowery Boys Meet the Monsters" are the two standouts in the series' run. As Orson Welles once said, "There are good movies, of ALL kinds." I guess this fits into that category!

I really did not expect much from a film with a title like that and I was right. I guess the best that could be said for it was that at times, the location scenery was very nice and the print we saw on Turner Movie Classics tonight did not deserve to look so clean and pristine (that alone stunned me). The sheriff leading the hippies to jail was the only good moment in the film--I thought it was turning into "Pippin" or something for a moment.

Of the monster, definitely a case where it should have stayed in the shadows but we get to see it for almost the entire film and in bright light and focus. It rather looked like a giant parakeet crossed with a wallet to me. Suspenseful music cues used at times when absolutely NOTHING suspenseful was going on and other gaffs and blunders that usually make these things entertaining, but not entertaining enough (if you ever have only an hour to live, watch this movie and you'll think you've lived another 9 days).

I'm rather surprised I had never heard of this one until recently!

All in all, a solid film with some excellent cinematography, uniformly excellent cast and good direction (except the romantic scenes--James Whale always was a bit stiff in that department). I thought the musical score was just adequate, even though it was nominated for an Oscar that year.

Blink and you miss Albert Dekker (credited) at the opening and Peter Cushing (credited and his first screen appearance) as one of the soldiers in the scene where the soldiers first encounter the musketeers (Cushing has no lines). Dwight Frye (not credited) can be spotted as a valet about 3/4's of the way in. He has a few lines but we are so used to seeing him as "Fritz" in Whale's Frankenstein movies that he's not easy to recognize (he's a little heavier looking in this film for one thing).

Hayward was a good choice for the dual roles. A good actor, there was always something rather unpleasant at times about his looks while at other times he looked quite handsome--I think he was used to great advantage here for that reason.

Almost all the leads were independent artists, not contracted to any particular studio, so it was rather weird seeing Warners' top character man Alan Hale in this (not that they give him a whole lot to do!) I'm guessing that some footage from the 1920s version of this film with Douglas Fairbanks was incorporated into at least one scene--the king showing the newborn prince from his balcony early in the film.

After seeing this, I began to wonder if Stan Lee or Jack Kirby did not draw inspiration for their "Dr. Doom" comic book character from the iron mask shown in this film.