VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,3/10
2278
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA bored millionaire wagers his doctor that he can support himself at a working class job for year without touching his inheritance.A bored millionaire wagers his doctor that he can support himself at a working class job for year without touching his inheritance.A bored millionaire wagers his doctor that he can support himself at a working class job for year without touching his inheritance.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Andreas Malandrinos
- Guiseppi
- (as Andrea Malandrinos)
Quinton McPherson
- Clowes
- (as Quinton MacPherson)
Alf Goddard
- Butcher Bill
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Moore Marriott
- Edwards
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
This has a worthwhile story idea, plus Cary Grant in one of his earlier starring roles, and it has some good scenes. There are a number of other, better movies made in the 1930s that were based on similar ideas, but this one is a solid feature. The main thing that keeps it from being better is that the story and script do not always make the best use of their opportunities. As a result, there are some sequences that take up screen time that could have been used for something better, while some potentially fine moments are under-emphasized.
Grant plays a wealthy young man who has become jaded and spoiled by the company of other well-to-do idlers, and who sets out on a challenge to learn how to work for a living. This setup lends itself to a lot of good material, and the best moments are Grant's interactions with other everyday persons who don't know who he is.
Within a very short time after this was filmed, Grant became one of the best actors around at handling this kind of material, and he was then able to make this kind of story work even when it wasn't particularly well-written. Here, there are a number of times when his developing flair shows through, but he wasn't quite experienced enough yet to carry the whole load, so there are some sequences that lack the spark that they needed in order to keep moving. It makes the movie somewhat uneven, still worth seeing if you like the era and genre, but otherwise unremarkable.
Grant plays a wealthy young man who has become jaded and spoiled by the company of other well-to-do idlers, and who sets out on a challenge to learn how to work for a living. This setup lends itself to a lot of good material, and the best moments are Grant's interactions with other everyday persons who don't know who he is.
Within a very short time after this was filmed, Grant became one of the best actors around at handling this kind of material, and he was then able to make this kind of story work even when it wasn't particularly well-written. Here, there are a number of times when his developing flair shows through, but he wasn't quite experienced enough yet to carry the whole load, so there are some sequences that lack the spark that they needed in order to keep moving. It makes the movie somewhat uneven, still worth seeing if you like the era and genre, but otherwise unremarkable.
Cary Grant had a tough young life in Bristol so maybe some of this films story reminded him. Pity the version I saw was not the full 80 minutes it would have been better to judge rather than this 61 minute version which seems a bit rushed at the end when regrettably Mary Brian forgot her English accent and it became a bit 'stagy' - a pity because the supporting actors did a good job I thought. Cary Grant was capable of good dramatic rolls though rarely got them and in this film he wasn't able to show his ability enough. I'm glad; however this film was made in England rather than America as it did add something to the authenticity of the few exteriors and general atmosphere of the story.
The year 1936 marks the end of Cary Grant's long apprenticeship. Filmographies differ as to the precise order of the films he released in this period, so this film -- the only one he made in Britain in the '30's -- makes a convenient watershed. Of his films released that year, this one is probably the weakest.
Cary at this point has his mature mannerisms, but he still lacks the sparkle. Moviegoers would have to wait another year. He really comes into his own in 1937 with "The Toast of New York", "Topper", and "The Awful Truth" in particular.
This film's plot follows the conventional Depression formula of a man of affluence temporarily renouncing his wealth in order to become a man of the people, with predictable results.
Cary at this point has his mature mannerisms, but he still lacks the sparkle. Moviegoers would have to wait another year. He really comes into his own in 1937 with "The Toast of New York", "Topper", and "The Awful Truth" in particular.
This film's plot follows the conventional Depression formula of a man of affluence temporarily renouncing his wealth in order to become a man of the people, with predictable results.
7hbs
It's no "North by Northwest", that's for sure. However, it's a sweet enough little movie, which plays out just as you expect it to from the very beginning. And it's interesting to watch Grant in a sort of larval state. I read a quote of his that said something to the effect that he eventually became Cary Grant after playing him in the movies, and you can see a little of these later roles in his performance here.
As stated before me, this is a story that's been done before, most notably "Sullivan's Travels", made a few years hence. A rich young man takes a bet that he can live on a working man's wages for a year, and ventures forth to prove it. The most notable difference here is Cary Grant in the lead, vs. Joel McCrea. Now, I have nothing against Mr. McCrea. But there is a reason why Cary Grant became a mega star, and Joel McCrea didn't. Comparison of these two films makes the differences quite clear. Grant had a glib, polished presence that somehow translated into believability for most of us, and it shows through, even in this early film. The story is predicable, but not so as to make you want to stop watching. Spend the time, and enjoy the performances of Grant and Mary Brian.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely (and usually badly) edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film.
- BlooperThe map of the London Underground shown when Bliss first sets out looks authentic but misspells Whitechapel as 'Whitechaple'.
- Citazioni
Frances Clayton: Cinderella didn't cry in the story... but she would've in real life.
- Versioni alternativeThe film was re-issued in the United States in 1937 under the title "The Amazing Adventure" (also alternatively "Romance and Riches"), and was edited down from the original UK running time of 80 minutes, to 61 minutes. Most prints these days are the shorter one.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Hollywood Comedy Legends (2011)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Amazing Adventure?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- The Amazing Adventure
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 20min(80 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti