L'avventura di Mr. Bliss

The Amazing Adventure (1936)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Ernest Bliss (Cary Grant) is a millionaire whose doctor says any ill-health would be because he's a spoiled person who doesn't know what hard work is. The doctor then makes a bet with Bliss that he wouldn't be able to live without his inheritance, which Bliss disagrees with. Soon the once millionaire is starting from scratch and trying to live like an average man for one year.

After several years in Hollywood, Grant returned to Britian where he made this film, which was originally released under the title of THE AMAZING QUEST OF ERNEST BLISS. Grant would return to Hollywood where he's start some of the most famous films of his career. However, when this film finally hit America, it did so under the title THE AMAZING ADVENTURE and its original 81-minute running time was cut down to just 61-minutes, which is the version reviewed here.

During this era there were quite a few movies that were about rich brats who took bets to live like your average poor man. The story certainly wasn't anything fresh or original and overall the quality of this movie isn't the greatest but if you're a fan of Grant then it's certainly worth watching especially since he turns in such a good and fun performance.

I thought he was extremely believable int he role of this rich man who finally and quickly sees how hard the working man has it. Grant brought the class to the role that you'd expect and he also handles the more charming moments perfectly and especially at the end. Mary Brian plays the love interest and she too is good in her role, although it certainly wasn't the best written in the film.

I'm not sure what's missing or whether or not it improved the film or not. With that said, the direction isn't the greatest and the film doesn't have much style going for it. What it does have is a charming story and the wonderful performance by Grant, which makes it worth watching to his fans.

This inter-war comedy-drama is centred on Ernest Bliss; he is a millionaire but still isn't happy. A friend advises him to see Sir James Aldroyd, a Harley Street consultant. Sir James tells Bliss that the problem boredom; he has so much money he doesn't need to do anything. The two end up making a bet; Bliss must live for a year without touching his financial reserves; if he loses he must pat £50,000, if he wins he gets an apology. He leaves his expensive flat in the hands of his butler the catches a tube to the East End with only five pounds in his wallet.

He struggles to get a job but eventually gets one at a struggling business but after using some of his own money to help the company he moves on so he can't be seen as benefitting from his wealth. He later gets a job working as a chauffeur but keeps in touch with the secretary from his former job. They develop a relationship but will she settle down with a man she thinks is almost penniless?

The story is simple enough but works nicely. The protagonist may be rich but the message to viewers, few of whom could aspire to his wealth, is that money doesn't buy happiness; that it is better to be poor and happy then rich and bored... not too subtle but not as patronising as it could be. Gary Grant does a fine job as Bliss and Mary Brian is likeable as his romantic interest, Frances. There are a couple of entertaining if not entirely necessary subplots; one involving a pair of crooks who think Bliss is merely somebody who looks like him and try to recruit him to rob himself and second involving an employee who is trying to take advantage of Frances. Overall this isn't a classic but it is fun enough, especially if you are a fan of Cary Grant or 1930s British cinema.

These comments are based on watching the shortened version of the film; I must say it did feel a bit rushed at times so it would be interesting to compare it to the full length version.

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.

In '36 the idea of being so wealthy you actually suffered must have seemed truly ludicrious. Many Americans were still struggling post the great market crash so wealth was more like what would fix rather than break one's quality of life. So when the young Earnest Bliss (Grant) finds his health in the doldrums he is challenged by his doctor to quit living like a millionaire as nothing else is wrong with him. Bliss being somewhat insulted decides to take the doctor up on a bet that he can't live like a regular person living paycheck to paycheck. Wanting to prove he can live without almost unlimited income Bliss finds a much different life.

In this movie there's lots of room for comedy as well as social and moral commentaries. One thing early on is that it often takes money to change things, but triffles like this aside Bliss finds meaning in his brushes with poverty. It often makes people too desperate even criminal. There is much that needs balancing with good morals And what can a meaningful life be without love. Love is the way forward and has the power to trump compromised morals. Greed is a multi-faceted downfall of the human condition. It's all here and if not done stupendously it entertains and challenges some thought. A quite modest movie with a larger message? Maybe? Still worth a watch no matter. Early Grant shows promise no doubt.

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.