F.B.I. operazione gatto

Sleuthing in suburbia--Disney style--after a small town teller is kidnapped by two bank robbers. Not only does this comedy feature the least-objectionable performance by Dean Jones ever, it also has Hayley Mills and Dorothy Provine as a wonderfully kooky pair of sisters and a fantastic feline hero. This Siamese cat is just gorgeous, and it's a lot of fun watching the bumbling humans trying to tail him down alleys and city streets. The bad guys of the piece (Neville Brand and Frank Gorshin) are also perfect, threatening but not overbearing, with just enough menace to make the kidnapped woman's predicament a little scary. I also loved the wacky next-door neighbors (Elsa Lanchester and William Demarest), Hayley's surfer-boyfriend named Canoe (Tom Lowell), and befuddled Ed Wynn as a jewelry salesman. Simply put, a wonderful modern-day caper for parents and kids which puts the remake with Christina Ricci to shame. ***1/2 from ****

Saw this about '74 or so, it was great. Loved the garage door gags, the cats, Elsa and William, the two gals are fine, Hayley Mills especially. Dean Jones had to have been in about 100 Disney things back then, this was def. one of his better roles.

You also have to like what they did w/ the baddies, Neville Brand and The Riddler. They work well together and do a fine job w. the mix of comedy and real malice towards their captive.

The cat was a funny part, i remember them trying to 'paw print' him and them winding up plastering poor Dean Jones head to foot w/ the cat's inky paw prints.

Say what you will, Disney doesn't make things like this anymore and that is our loss.

*** outta **** it's fun.

The novel, "That Darn Cat," was written by The Gordons and published a few years before the movie came out. I read the book and it's excellent. It's set in Los Angeles and clearly has an adult slant, although people of all ages who like mysteries would enjoy the novel. There was both humor and suspense in the book---but the movie was written like a sitcom and everyone acted too silly and zany. The movie should have been filmed on the streets of Los Angeles rather than the fake-looking backlot of Disney Studios! Obviously The Gordons (husband & wife mystery writers) knew that in order to turn their excellent novel into a Disney film (circa 1965) they had to write a screenplay that was bland and silly. The movie is okay but the novel is much better!

This is probably about as good as the Disney comedies of the 50's and 60's get. I think one reason it works is that it doesn't exist in that goody-two-shoes world where many Disney films of the past took place. The crooks in this film are nasty guys, they steal, kidnap, and nearly beat and kill their female hostage. Not that that's a good thing, but it's certainly uncharacteristic for a Disney film. The script is also well written, the dialogue is, for the most part, believable. It does get a little too long toward the end though.

This is one of those movies I saw in the theater as a kid. Simply put, it was hilarious. Maybe it was mob mentality, but virtually EVERYONE in the entire place was laughing uncontrollably throughout the entire film. We're talking a real side-splitter here, folks. I have never laughed so hard at a movie before or since, with the possible exception of another Disney film, "The Absent-Minded Professor" (1961) which I also saw in a theater.

So what makes a good film, anyhow? Fantastic acting? Great plot? Beautiful cinematography? Superb directing? Babes? Well, you can't say it had any of those things. But it DID set out to do what it attempted to do, which was: make people laugh. A lot. And that makes it, in my opinion, a pretty darn good movie.