VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,0/10
1625
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe East Side Kids try to fix up a house for newlyweds, but find the place next door "haunted" by mysterious men.The East Side Kids try to fix up a house for newlyweds, but find the place next door "haunted" by mysterious men.The East Side Kids try to fix up a house for newlyweds, but find the place next door "haunted" by mysterious men.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Ernest Morrison
- Scruno
- (as Sammy Morrison)
William 'Billy' Benedict
- Benny
- (as Billy Benedict)
Harry Depp
- John G. Elwood
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Tom Herbert
- Park Central Plaza Desk Clerk
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizFirst credited film role for Ava Gardner.
- BlooperIn the credits, Bobby Stone is billed as playing "Dave," Bill Bates is billed as playing "Sleepy," and Billy Benedict is billed as playing "Benny." In actuality, Stone plays the role of "Rocky," and it's Bates who plays "Dave" (a character who is, indeed, defined by his sleepiness). Benedict indeed plays Benny, but several times he's called "Skinny," his character name in other movies.
- ConnessioniEdited into The Our Gang Story (1994)
- Colonne sonoreDrink to Me Only with Thine Eyes
(uncredited)
Music by R. Melish (1780 ?)
Lyrics (poem To Celia) by Ben Jonson (1616)
Played on an organ by Bill Bates and sung by The East Side Kids
Reprised by them at the wedding
Recensione in evidenza
Slapstick meets Bela Lugosi in this all-but-forgotten 1943 comedy. Just think about that statement... Comedy, Bela Lugosi. And that right there is why I allowed myself to splurge 2 bucks for a used VHS copy, because the very concept made me crack a smile.
But although Lugosi's performance can't be argued with, the plot underpinning his role certainly doesn't help to elevate this film to award-winning, or even memorable, status. There isn't any "bad" acting from anyone on the cast. It would be more accurate to say that each part was played with about as much talent and gusto as it required. While Lugosi can just walk on screen and be effective by looking like himself, the other parts are a little trickier. There is a doofus, a few cronies, a guy getting married, or a very flat Ava Gardner, so take your pick. There isn't much depth behind those parts that a halfhack drama student couldn't pull off with a hangover, so they are adequately acted.
But all criticisms of writing and the very nature of crackerjack comedy aside, the whole thing was pretty good. There are plenty of gags and stupid lines to keep anyone with at least half a heart interested. Paintings with moving eyes, secret passages, etc. The gags get old from the start but some of the lines just snap off like popcorn and I appreciate that type of writing. It's an older, fast-talking style that Hollywood tends to ignore nowadays, if people are even writing like that any longer, but I doubt it; there's too much interest in color film, sex and violence to make dialogue important.
This film has no blood, no senseless violence, no gratuitous sex, and no crass language. Don't get me wrong, there is an upside (heh). So I'm not going to pretend that I'm too cool to say this wasn't any good, because it's funny, simple, and downright ridiculous. All I mean to say is that when those factors are combined in a script today, they doubtlessly create a tasteless, fluffy PG sleeper not worth the price of the ticket. This movie is different, however, just don't expect a cinematic masterpiece. Expect it to be what the title suggests, a simple and stupid comedy starring Bela Lugosi as a secret Nazi, and you've got to love that.
But although Lugosi's performance can't be argued with, the plot underpinning his role certainly doesn't help to elevate this film to award-winning, or even memorable, status. There isn't any "bad" acting from anyone on the cast. It would be more accurate to say that each part was played with about as much talent and gusto as it required. While Lugosi can just walk on screen and be effective by looking like himself, the other parts are a little trickier. There is a doofus, a few cronies, a guy getting married, or a very flat Ava Gardner, so take your pick. There isn't much depth behind those parts that a halfhack drama student couldn't pull off with a hangover, so they are adequately acted.
But all criticisms of writing and the very nature of crackerjack comedy aside, the whole thing was pretty good. There are plenty of gags and stupid lines to keep anyone with at least half a heart interested. Paintings with moving eyes, secret passages, etc. The gags get old from the start but some of the lines just snap off like popcorn and I appreciate that type of writing. It's an older, fast-talking style that Hollywood tends to ignore nowadays, if people are even writing like that any longer, but I doubt it; there's too much interest in color film, sex and violence to make dialogue important.
This film has no blood, no senseless violence, no gratuitous sex, and no crass language. Don't get me wrong, there is an upside (heh). So I'm not going to pretend that I'm too cool to say this wasn't any good, because it's funny, simple, and downright ridiculous. All I mean to say is that when those factors are combined in a script today, they doubtlessly create a tasteless, fluffy PG sleeper not worth the price of the ticket. This movie is different, however, just don't expect a cinematic masterpiece. Expect it to be what the title suggests, a simple and stupid comedy starring Bela Lugosi as a secret Nazi, and you've got to love that.
- agamemnon3
- 31 mag 2006
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 85.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 7 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Spettri all'arrembaggio (1943) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi