The silly story of a down on his luck Broadway producer and his obsession for a dancing caterpillar is greatly enhanced by the approach of director Alexander Hall and screenwriter Irving Fineman. Hall and Fineman helm the fantasy in a surprisingly straightforward, realistic manner that manages to avoid camp with just the right touch of fantastical whimsy. Further credibility is given by the strong performances of Cary Grant and James Gleason, although Janet Blair and William Demarest are forgettable in one-dimensional roles. Best of all is 11 year old child actor Ted Donaldson, who easily transcends the film's far-fetched premise and almost single-handedly makes one believe a caterpillar can dance!
Add a Review
-
robb_77213 December 2007
-
theowinthrop10 July 2006This is not a great film by any stretch. But it has it has it's interesting points. A minor comedy by Cary Grant, it came out just before his greatest performance as Ernie Mott in "None But The Lonely Heart". Ernie was the last of a series of heels or near heels that Grant played in serious films from "Suspicion" to "Mr. Lucky" to "Lonely Heart", all of which the studio system and the cult of movie star image crippled from being as good as they might have been. Grant just could not play a villain. Even when he was the unscrupulous Walter Burns in "His Gal Friday", the editor's role was subtly changed by showing that when he wasn't seeking newspaper scoops at everyone else's expense, Walter actually wanted to rid his city (Chicago) of a corrupt Mayor and his gang of relatives. Keep in mind that "His Gal Friday" was a comedy, not a tragic story like "None But The Lonely Heart" or a murder mystery like "Suspicion".
ONCE UPON A TIME had been a radio play by Norman Corwin, and had been very successful at the time. The radio play was a fantasy about a little boy who has a pet caterpillar that will dance to the boy playing "Yes Sir, That's My Baby". He meets a theatrical producer who sees "the big picture" about showing the caterpillar to the public. The story line follows how this glitz campaign wrecks the producer's friendship with the boy, until the caterpillar vanishes and they find their relationship again in their concern about the missing pet.
It sounds hokey, and is a little, but the story works. Fred Allen had played the ambitious producer in the radio show, and his perfect comic delivery hit the targets of the story. But for the film Allen (despite his wonderful success in "It's In The Bag") was not glamorous enough to carry the movie. Instead it was given to Grant. And here, now in a comedy, the same problem of the image and the desire to stretch as a film performer was fought again.
Jerry Flynn is an unscrupulous producer who dreams of having his own theater for his own productions. He has gotten over his head in debt, and he may lose the theater he has a stake in as a result. But he is generally untrusted - and with reason. He will sell anyone for an advantage in the entertainment field. His most persistent critic is the news columnist Brandt (William Demerest) who has seen his shenanigans for years and knows he's an unscrupulous creep.
And behaves that way for most of the film - once he discovers the caterpillar's talent to dance. He gives it the full treatment, much to the dismay of the boy's sister Jeannie (Janet Blair) and the growing disillusion of the boy "Pinkie" (Ted Donaldson). Brandt keeps sniping, suspecting everything that Flynn is up to - and finally (when Flynn seems to have beaten him) Brandt shows his moral superiority. Demerest says, "I'm only sorry that such a wonderful thing has to be controlled by you!" It actually does summarize the unscrupulousness of the character.
If the original play had not been comic, and had not allowed for Flynn's moral regeneration I doubt if Grant's agent would have agreed to allow him to do it. Up to the middle of the film one dislikes Flynn's activities, especially as they hurt Pinkie and his sister (who, in the course of the film, falls for Flynn). It being a comedy there are moments when Flynn errs. The scene where he tells his aide "the Moke" (James Gleason) to let the telephone ring, expecting it is a call from Walt Disney about using the caterpillar is amusing - when it turns out he's wrong. But the audience wants to be wrong. His eventual realization that there is more to life than success in business or art helps make the character palatable, but it does not ring as true as if Flynn had remained the user/huckster he was to the end.
The performances are fine (especially Demerest). But it is minor Grant, and it is ironic that it came just before he came closest to his acting peak. -
movieman-20030 August 2005Cary Grant had the uncanny knack for making even the most hollow tripe seem like cinematic high art. Consider the irrefutably light-hearted "Once Upon A Time" in which Grant is Jerry Flynn - a has-been Broadway producer who discovers an orphan with a dancing caterpillar. Flynn's savvy for creating a media event, turns the caterpillar into an off Broadway sensation. But when Jerry decides to sell his investment to the highest bidder, he must choose between fame and fortune and the respect and genuine love that the orphan has developed for him. The genuine surprise in this film is not how irrepressibly charming Grant is, but how willingly he steps into the unbecoming role of the villain who eventually chooses goodness over celebrity a subtle bit of advice that most stars of today would do well to heed. "Once Upon A Time" is not high art, but it remains an enjoyable movie hemmed in by a finely wrought performance.
THE TRANSFER: Relatively clean for Columbia Tri-Star. The gray scale has been nicely balanced with solid blacks and nicely rendered contrast levels. There's a lot of age related artifacts for a picture that is inconsistent and not very smooth. However, once you've accepted these shortcomings, the film becomes reasonably enjoyable to view. Fine details are nicely rendered. There are no digital anomalies. The audio is mono but very well represented.
EXTRAS: Nothing of merit.
BOTTOM LINE: "Once Upon A Time" offers the chance to appreciate Cary Grant at his most subtly challenging and engagingly. -
This was a wonderful radio play Norman Corwin wrote for CBS Radio in the 1940s. It starred Fred Allen, and because it was during the infamous Petrillo Musician's Union Strike, the background music was vocalized by a chorus. I was charmed by it then, but felt then (and now) that the imaginative quality of the radio play would be diminished in a film. I also felt Allen would be far better than Cary Grant in the lead role. But Allen would have sold far fewer tickets.
-
dexter-1025 October 2001A truly happy film produced in the middle of World War Two. The fantasy of the caterpillar which turns into a butterfly is well-worn, yet always popular. To a large degree, the war is ignored, yet due to the pervasive nature of long-term world conflict, some allusions to the conflict are noted. Especially pointed is the crew of the B-17 bomber who name their plane "Curly" after the caterpillar. They highlight the event with: "I've been in London, Chun King, and Malta and saw kids dodge bombs to try to save some mangey dog." Why not save a dancing caterpillar? The remarkable thing about this film is how many times one sees the caterpillar. Curly the caterpillar is a welcomed respite from the drudgery of prolonged war. Even with one hundred and fifteen credited actors, in this movie fantasy is the real star.
-
bkoganbing11 September 2010Cary Grant got to extend his range in Once Upon A Time and at the same time make a family film that was guaranteed box office. Not a bad win-win situation for him.
The extension was having Grant play a not very nice show business producer who is now on his uppers. The theater he built in flush times is now threatened with foreclosure. But the answer just might be in the form of a young kid played by Ted Donaldson with a caterpillar which he keeps in a shoebox who actually gets up dances to the tune of Yes Sir That's My Baby.
This rhythmically endowed caterpillar is for real all right, if only Grant can get the marketing rights to him and make the public believe. After some tries that ended in flops he gets Art Baker who played real life radio news broadcaster Gabriel Heatter to see the caterpillar named Curly and give it the kind of radio plug the New York Sun gave to an editorial answer to Virginia's letter about Santa Claus.
But an offer from Walt Disney to add Curly to his Magic Kingdom now in formation is too good to pass up. But that would involve breaking young Donaldson's heart and also Grant would be running afoul of the young lad's sister, Janet Blair. Can Cary Grant be that big a heel?
Once Upon A Time is a charming fantasy that I'm surprised no one has thought of remaking except the Japanese who did a short subject animated version of this story in the Sixties. I can certainly Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes doing a version of this story, maybe having Justin Bieber play the kid. Instead of Walt Disney they could sell him to Steven Spielberg and a known internet blogger could break the story.
I want some screen credit if someone reads this review and sells the idea to Tom Cruise. Until then this is still a fine family film that holds up well even if people today have no idea who Gabriel Heatter was. -
vincentlynch-moonoi7 June 2011It's all very subjective, of course, when one tries to decide who is the "best American actor" (historically). But for me, it's always been a toss up between Spencer Tracy and Cary Grant, with the edge going to Cary Grant because he was equally comfortable with comedy and drama. But watching film, I've firmly decided that (at least for me) Cary Grant is the greatest American actor (historically).
No, it's not because this is a great film. It isn't. It's mildly entertaining.
But as I sat watching this film, all I could think was that there probably wasn't another actor who could play the main character and not turn the film into a farce.
Think of it. A fantasy about a dancing caterpillar who eventually turns into a butterfly, after bringing a sense of loyalty to a little boy and a sense of hope to a jaded Broadway producer. A dancing caterpillar! And yet, Cary Grant pulled it off with panache! There a list of character actors here whom you'll recognize, including William Demarest. But here the prize goes to James Gleason. Janet Blair is the romantic lead...sort of. But the co-star is really Ted Donaldson -- the little boy.
A gem of a film, very offbeat, heartwarming, and handled well so that it didn't become farce. -
tbarrd21 May 2016To be best appreciated this enjoyable movie needs to be considered in view of the times in which it was made. In early 1944 the US was 2+ years into WWII with families torn apart and rationing everywhere making daily life everything from inconvenient to quite difficult. Movies made during this time have a certain recognizable tone to them --- the public wanted to escape from the world, as they wanted to do a decade earlier that resulted in so many of the box office successes of the depression-era movies, but now with the added patriotism and "we will win" message of the dramas. So here comes this goofy story from Columbia Pictures, made in early 1944 and released just a few days after D-Day 6/6, about a dancing caterpillar named Curly, whom, in a clever touch, the audience never sees. Cary Grant, then a major star, plays the part with real enthusiasm that almost always is believable. A good supporting cast, including the very underrated James Gleason, and the always adorable Janet Blair. Notable is Gabriel Heater's brief appearance. Heater was the Walter Cronkite of the day, a respected media voice famous for his "There's Good News Tonight" radio lead in. If Heater said it, then you could believe it. In the movie Heater is shown in one of his broadcasts assuring us that Curly is real, folks! Note how well he gives his performance --- like an experienced actor delivering his lines, not as a celebrity woodenly read lines off of cue cards. However, the scenes where world renown scientists 'test' Curly do not work. They're like something from a Three Stooges short. Maybe that was the point. Makes you wonder if it is just a coincidence that the 'worm' is named Curly. All in all, an enjoyable hour and a half with the expected happy ending.
-
moonspinner5515 July 2007'Dancing Bug Cuts a Rug'...or rather, 'How Did Cary Grant Get Roped Into This?' Theatrical producer, a "part-time genius" with three flops behind him, needs $100,000 to save his theater; he befriends an orphaned tyke with a bottle-cap hat, the boy's stone-cold chorine sister (who is roughly two times older than the kid), and the boy's caterpillar...who "dances" to "Yes Sir, That's My Baby". Elongated Aesop, although even Aesop provided a thoughtful moral. This one is just piffle, with the contrivance that the whole world would be chatting about such a miraculous event as a bug with an ear for music. This is the movie that launched a thousand worm jokes, and it's meant to be ironic that Grant (as the showman-turned-huckster) is the biggest worm of all. A box-office disaster in 1944, the film has not improved with age. Ted Donaldson is cute as the youngster, and Ann Loos has a funny scene playing Grant's put-upon secretary, but the insipid rest can easily be forgotten. * from ****
-
Irishchatter21 May 2016I found this movie alright but they could've let us see the dancing caterpillar. Yeah they keep banging on about how unique this caterpillar is but, we haven't seen what he looked like in the box. Yeah we saw him as a butterfly in the end, it still doesn't make sense on why they didn't show him to us. He might as well not existed at all!
Also I thought the little boys sister wasn't a good role model type because,when Carry Grants character was looking around for the caterpillar, she didn't even stop him. Instead she always had that "i give up, let the bro speak to him on not selling" attitude. Janet Blair should've developed the character more than acting as a lazy protective sister. I have no doubt she was a great actress back then but seriously, I don't think is the best movie she has ever done!
The reason I got around to watching this movie was because Looney Tunes character Michigan J. Frog, was based on the caterpillar. However, I think Looney Tunes did it better than this anyway.
I also got around watching this because of Carry Grant. He's the best actor, out of all of them. Including the wee boy. That's why I'm giving this a 6/10 is Carry Grant and Ted Donaldson are legends. -
jjnxn-130 April 2013Undoubtedly one of his worst films this deservedly obscure Cary Grant film is a paper thin and borderline idiotic story about a dancing caterpillar! The lead kid could not be more noxious and Grant gives a remarkably arch performance, mugging shamelessly. He must have realized what a dog this was, forced to do it under contract and figured that over reacting and turning on the goo might save this dreck. Janet Blair is incredibly lovely but given very little to do. Two wonderful character actors, James Gleason and William Demarest are likewise wasted and stuck in this disaster. All stars have dogs in their credits list and this one is right next to The Pride and the Passion for Cary.
-
renfield5429 July 1999First, let me tell you that I haven't seen this movie for over 30 years (but remember it well). I checked the TV listings (and online services) for years waiting for it. It must not be shown often in my area. I had described the movie to friends trying to confirm the story, the title, or at the very least someone else who remembered it. No luck...
Cary Grant, as a promoter(?), who partners with a kid who owns a caterpillar that dances, but dances only to the tune of 'Yes sir, that's my baby', and charms the country. Sounds pretty incredible, doesn't it? Most people would nod at me and back away slowly, so as not to excite me, mutter-ing something about LSD trip's of the 60's and flashbacks. Seems no one heard on anything remotely like what I was describing.
But, luckily, being resourceful and having access to the IMDb, I was able to find the title and plot summary. I also was able to procure a copy of my own from a Cary Grant fan I met online. My daughter and I watched it repeatedly. It's a wonderful story for grown-ups, and a fairy tale for kids. My daughter found more laughs than I did ( I think I grew up in the meantime), but I was charmed and amused too. It was BETTER than I remembered. The redemption of Jerry Flynn (Grant) is a joy to watch.
If ever a movie was "ripe" for a re-make, this is it! My daughter's only complaint was not getting to actually see "Curly" dance. With today's state of the art effects, a believable dancing caterpillar should be child's play (and a marketing boon). A re-make would surely make "Curly" the most famous caterpillar in all of Hollywood......
PS-- I forgive Walt Disney (a brief appearance) for his complicity in the "Curly" incident...... -
p25735-261-5057381 December 2018Those mocking the premise of this movie would also be mocking the premise of a movie about a department store Santa Claus who thinks he's actually is Santa Claus. If the script had been punched up a bit and the direction and editing had been given a better rhythm, this could have been on par with "Miracle on 34th Street". As it is, it is still enjoyable and came as a bit of a surprise for me since I thought I had seen nearly all Cary Grant movies. there is one major plot hole though. You think they would have provided such a valuable caterpillar more protection.
-
utgard143 September 2016Interesting oddity with Cary Grant as a theatrical producer with a string of flops who finds his financial salvation in a little boy's dancing caterpillar named Curly. Yes, that's right. Cary Grant made a movie about a dancing caterpillar. It's one of his most bizarre movies but it's also one of his weakest. Granted it's not as terrible as a lot of reviewers here are making it out to be, but it's not very good either. The biggest problem isn't even the concept; that could actually work in a Disney sort of way. But it doesn't have the charm, innocence, or humor of a Disney film. It's kind of dull, actually. It doesn't help that we never actually see the caterpillar dance, just see people's reactions. If it were a Disney film, they would have at least given us an animated caterpillar. Ted Donaldson as the little boy with the caterpillar is very cute and likable. Cary does fine considering and James Gleason is solid as usual. Gleason's character is named The Moke, which sounds Damon Runyon-esuqe but unfortunately there's nothing else in this that reminds one of Runyon. Yet another direction they could've taken this that would've worked better than what they went with.
-
Vincentiu31 January 2015one of many comedies from ''40's . not good, not bad but interesting for the chain of clichés and for the unrealistic story. in fact, only a film with Cary Grant in an ironic role and same atmosphere of period as a kind of jazz club room. nothing new, nothing special. only a nice film for waste the time. its virtue - maybe remembering the art to explore and use a idea for a complicated story who , far to be real bad, it seems be only chaotic. a kind of parable about life, virtues and the love who remains the real prize. Janet Blair does a decent job and James Gleason is the pillar of this not inspired story who saves small parts of it. a film about a meeting and a childish lead hero. that is all. only an old fashion movie with Cary Grant, alternative for contemporary blockbusters.
-
SimonJack5 March 2018"Once Upon a Time" is billed as a comedy and fantasy, but some of the dramatic parts are what give this film a boost. That's because the fantasy is played out so silly. Curly, the dancing caterpillar is kept in a box that people must view through a hole at the end. Why not an open lid so several people can see the worm wiggle on its end? Hollywood had done all kinds of things with special effects, trick photography, etc. well before that. A little insertion of animation at that point would have worked.
Something like that would have given the fantasy aspect of this film a real boost. Of course, it would have required some script changes since the skeptical reporters and others would have seen Curly do the curls to Pinky's playing of "Yes Sir, That's My Baby" on his harmonica.
But, as it is, this film is quite silly and otherwise not that good. To compensate for a poor plot otherwise, the film gets a boost from Cary Grant's performance. Moviegoers since the last half of the 20th century have been so used to Grant's comedy and romance films, that many may not realize his acting abilities. But here he shows some of that. In a couple of scenes, Grant shows anger in his face. At other times, he appears quite mean. Pinky says, at one point, "You're a mean man, Mr. Flynn."
Besides Grant's role as Jerry Flynn, young Ted Donaldson does a tremendous job as Arthur "Pinky" Thompson. A romance between Flynn and Pinky's sister, Jeannie (played by Janet Blair) is never more than lukewarm. The only other decent performance is by James Gleason as The Moke. The rest of the supporting cast are mostly unknowns.
The screenplay just isn't very good for this film. There's so little witty or funny dialog. Some reviewers alluded to this film being a popular hit. The only place I could find anything about its box office was on Ultimate Movie Rankings, which showed it in 128th place among 1944 movies for box office. And that was at $1.1 million. So, if it made money at all, it couldn't have been much.
The only funny lines occur between two women (unidentified) working at a dance room. They have heard or read the news about Curly. The first woman says, "A dancing caterpillar? Pooh." The second woman says, "Well, why not? He can't be any worse than some of the worms that drag me around the dance floor." -
timmauk5 November 2003I have heard about this film from my husband. He said this was a wonderful film that he watched a lot on TV when he was a boy. We just noticed that it is now available on DVD so we ordered it.
From the beginning of this film I was not impressed. I just found it boring and a waste of Mr Grant's talent. I didn't find the "dancing" worm interesting. So what? It doesn't have a hat and cane and do the old soft shoe routine so what is the big deal? It just wiggles. Don't get me wrong, I love movies and am push over for any cute story with good acting. This movie does not offer any of that. Most of the acting is bad and the story is way too silly. I don't think something like this during World War II, or anytime, would have grabbed the headlines and the hearts of millions. I know this is only a movie, but what a fantasy to swallow!! A dancing worm,... someone get me some Raid! -
mountainkath9 August 2009I was going to rate this film four stars but I gave it five stars because it was only 90 minutes long. That's about the only good thing I have to say about it.
Cary Grant must have owed someone a favor because I have no idea why he made this horrible movie. The plot was beyond silly, it was insanely predictable and the movie seemed to go on forever.
Cary Grant, as always, sold the hell out of his performance as Jerry Flynn. He was the only reason I kept watching this movie. If anyone else had been the star, I would have turned the movie off.
This story would probably have made a cute short film (15 minutes or less), but there was just not enough plot to fill 90 minutes.
I'm a huge fan of Cary Grant, so I'm glad I saw this movie. However, I don't care to ever watch it again. -
My dad saw this film at Fort Ord in May, 1944, just before shipping overseas. Pop wrote this in a letter to Mom: "At last, I'll attempt to tell you the story of the show I saw the other night. The name of it was "Once upon a Time" starring Cary Grant, Janet Blair, a little boy of nine, and a caterpillar. It was pure fantasy, but it was as realistic as any boy could know in his world of make-believe. Cary Grant was an unsuccessful owner of a big theater who was about to lose his theater if he didn't pay off a $100,000 debt within a week. He chanced upon two small boys in the street with a box in their hands. When the one boy played "She's my baby now," the caterpillar would raise up to its tail and dance, but would remain motionless to any other tune. Grant immediately spotted the possibilities of saving his theater by exploiting this caterpillar. Grant and the boy go into partnership, numerous events arise which prevent the $100,000 coming to Grant throughout the week. This is as much as I should tell you, for I want you to see the picture. It is moving, sentimental, and the sudden disappearance of "Curly" the caterpillar, brings the show to an abrupt climax. You'll love the boy; he is an example of childhood as I love to see it. Throughout, there is a beautiful philosophy of faith."
-
Humphrey Bogart starred in SWING YOUR LADY. Clark Gable starred in PARNELL. And, John Wayne starred in THE CONQUERER. All three films have obtained almost mythical status as absolutely wretched films that these top stars were justly ashamed of making. Whenever I have read books about bad films, they are almost certain to mention these three films. Then how is it that ONCE UPON A TIME didn't get mentioned?! This has to be one of the schmaltziest, sappiest and dumbest films I have seen in some time--and it stars Cary Grant during the height of his career. My assumption is that the only reason this film somehow slipped through the cracks was because by 2007, the movie has almost been completely forgotten and is practically never shown on TV and hasn't been available on tape or DVD until very recently. However, as Turner Classic Movies just recently obtained the rights to show classic films from Columbia Pictures, this turkey is now available for free (this is the ONLY way I'd see this one) and is a must-see for those who love seeing famous stars in wretched films.
Now technically, the film isn't that bad, as it has a competent cast and all. But the problem is a premise that is so stupid and so saccharine that you almost need to see it to believe it! The plot, believe it or not, is about a dancing caterpillar that belongs to a cute kid who looks quite a bit like the kid who played Larry Mondello on the LEAVE IT TO BEAVER television series. When Broadway producer Grant discovers the kid and his dancing bug, he realizes this might be a chance to dig himself out of a huge financial hole. All he needs to do is convince the kid and his overprotective sister that he really cares about the kid and is looking after his best interests--while he's really just planning on making a fast buck. The "big twist" that brings everything to a climax and melts cold Cary's heart is when the caterpillar is lost and the boy becomes heartbroken. But, in the end, it turns out that Curly the caterpillar didn't vanish--he simply turned into a butterfly. What an amazing "twist"--a caterpillar turning into a butterfly!! And, to make it worse, everyone acts as if this is somehow amazing and everyone lives happily ever after!!!! What's so amazing about this? Had the caterpillar turned into a cow or done brain surgery, then THAT would have been amazing.
Even as kids' fare, this is a terrible film. To sum it up in the word used by my students, the film is "craptastic"!! Cary should have been truly ashamed of himself. Could Roy Cohn (the head of Columbia Studios) have forced him to make this movie through blackmail? This is the only rational explanation for Grant in this stinkeroo. -
grizzledgeezer21 July 2014Would anyone object if I gave this stray puppy a few additional kicks?
Norman Corwin was a celebrated radio playwright whose work leaned to extremes -- stories about social/political issues, and fantasy/science-fiction. "My Client Curly" (on which this film is based) obviously falls into the second group, and was co-written with Lucille Fletcher (Bernard Herrmann's wife at the time).
I don't know what the radio play was like, but the movie adaptation likely crushed whatever wit or originality there was in Corwn's work. Virtually every plot turn is telegraphically predictable, and the sappy/saccharine ending leaves you wishing Cary Grant had crushed the caterpillar with his shoe -- after having set it on fire with lighter fluid -- as it was dancing. "Help me... Help me!"
The one honest moment occurs when Grant slaps the boy when trying to seize the shoebox with the caterpillar. Grant's anger -- and following guilt -- are nicely underplayed.
The script is shallow and tedious (the writers don't seem to have much of an idea about the /point/ of the story), as is the direction. "Once Upon a Time" is one of the longest and most-irritating 90-minute films I've ever seen.
Woof-woof. -
iquine10 January 2019(Flash Review)
There was talk of a dancing caterpillar and the star was Cary Grant so I gambled.....heavily.....and lost. The movie kicks off with a famed theater producer who has just had three performances bomb in a row, usually the career nail in the coffin, so he attempts to salvage his career and reputation. He comes across a boy with a dancing caterpillar and tries to promote this unique and strange occurrence. He had to persuade the boy's guardian sister to let them partner for profit while the press, scientific community and Walt Disney get involved. When the financial stakes rise will social humanity fall? The story became tedious, redundant and not as charming as they aimed for and the little boy's acting was OK but became grating. The movie goal was to highlight greed vs one's character. -
MCL115015 July 2007I caught this wonderful little film toady on TCM. Well, it does star Cary Grant with support from two of Hollywood's great character actor's William Demarest and James Gleason so it's not too little. Anyway, the whole plot revolves around a child who discovers a caterpillar that dances every time he plays "Yes Sir, That's My Baby" on his harmonica. The thing is that he keeps the 'pillar in a shoebox, and anytime anyone wants to see "Curly" the caterpillar dance, they have to hold the box up to an eye and peer in. And what they see is nothing short of amazing. A true life fairy tale. The viewer, however, NEVER sees Curly dance. No doubt this was due to the lack of "appropriate" special FX of the time, but I think it works so much better. Your imagination takes over and you can't help but see Curley dance! At least I could clearly "see" it. If it were remade today, they'd HAVE TO show you Curly dancing and probably speaking as well. Kids today would feel cheated and walk out of the theater in droves. And in today's world, there'd marketing of a cute character and millions of $$$ at stake. At least I THINK he was cute because that's what I saw in my imagination. The movie is even ahead of its time in respect to marketing because Walt Disney himself greedily pursues purchasing Curley to build a live action/animated feature around. Some things will never change. You'll love the obvious, but surprise ending. Yes, that's a contradiction, but just watch it for yourself. Great fantasy film and the kind they can't make anymore, because if they did, you'd probably be disappointed because Curly just wouldn't live up to your imagination.
-
dougdoepke25 May 2016Plot-- A neighborhood boy (Donaldson) discovers a caterpillar that dances to a harmonica tune. Meanwhile, show-biz impresario Flynn (Grant) is going bust, and sees the novelty of a dancing insect as his ticket back up the ladder. But how will the businessman get along with the critter's young owner who's got a more personal interest than making a fortune.
Despite the talent involved, the movie overall fails to gel. Unfortunately, director Hall directs at a flaccid pace that drains too many of the comedic aspects. Admittedly, the material is difficult to get a handle on, which I think is the reason for the rather odd prologue. In addition, we never see the dancing caterpillar around which the plot evolves. Instead the fuss appears to amount to no more than a shoebox with an eyehole in it. Couldn't special effects have done at least a dancing silhouette? That would have given viewers something definite to root for, instead of a cheap piece of cardboard.
Cast-wise, little Donaldson is quite persuasive as the willful boy, looking nothing like the usual Hollywood moppet, while movie vet Gleason does his usual cranky old man bit. Seems the well-upholstered Blair is mainly along for the ride and a fashion parade. However, Grant has a few Grant moments, but is largely wasted. Too bad that on the whole a number of lesser actors could have sufficed.
All in all, I can see why the movie's not included in Grant's lengthy canon. As a result, it has drifted into understandable movie obscurity. -
yesterdaynow17 November 2018I was expecting a screwball comedy--dancing caterpillar, right? Unfortunately, this is played straight with an "uplifting" message, unlikeable Grant character, a leading lady who is outacted by the insect, and insipid dialog. I'm with the lepidopterist--dissect this one.