You won't be disappointed!

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Margit Agnew (Myrna Loy) owns a dress shop that she runs with the precision of a Swiss watch. In fact, she micromanages every aspect of her life and the lives of her sister Irene (Florence Rice) and Irene's fiancé, Waldo Beaver (John Beal). In fact, she put the happy couple together in the first place. Except that the couple is not so happy, because Margit's forte is managing, not feelings.Irene is disappointed in her intended, because he is, basically, a dim-witted, though likable, dolt. And he never takes charge like she thinks a real man should. Not to worry, though, because this is a comedy and their dissatisfaction is merely the setup for fun.Irene and Waldo are rehearsing for a movie written by the bohemian artist Charles Lodge (William Powell, who is teaming with Myra Loy for their seventh film together). When Charlie shows Waldo how to conduct himself in a love scene, Irene convinces herself that she now loves Charlie. She tells Margit who, needing to put her plan back on track, marches over to Charlie's trailer--parked at the curb on a city street. But she is no match for the eccentric whimsy of the easy-going Charlie.This film has much to recommend it, but it is the writing that drives this film and makes it so much fun. The plot is fairly routine, but the dialogue is full of comedic gems. Some are understated, some are wacky. They deliver some great zingers and classic pratfalls.Also notable are the fashions. Loy, in particular, is dressed well--fitting for the owner of a dress shop. The background music is superb, often utilizing a recorder to achieve the needed whimsical quality.The cast is wonderful. Waldo's personality is sometimes trying, but that is how he is written. Sidney Toler portrays Keough, a butler who is a former policeman and who behaves like a detective with his powers of observation and deduction. In 1938, Toler will take over the Charlie Chan franchise. It seems like he is preparing here. I do not think this was an easy script to pull off. Between the director's attention to timing and the actors' commitment to their characters, "Double Wedding" works very well.Despite the slapstick and some scenes that devolve into a general ruckus, the script is clever. Loy's determined dryness and the scattered non sequiturs are highlights. How smart they were to toy with the chemistry of the successful Powell-Loy team and put them in this different film that still plays to the strengths of each.

Every time I see a William Powell film that I haven't seen before, I walk away with even more admiration for him. Honestly, he may make it to my upper tier of actors soon (Spencer Tracy, Ronald Colman, and Cary Grant); he's so close already. And this film repeated that pattern...in this case because of the really off-beat Powell plays so well here.And while this is very much Powell's picture, Myrna Loy provides the balance to Powell's character. I did have a little trouble seeing Loy's character married to Powell's character. A sequel would have been great to explore that.For me, however, there are 2 problems with this film. The first is the first 15 minutes of the film. Frankly, it should have been totally rewritten with a better scenario. But after we get to Powell and Loy interacting, things turn around pretty well.The other problem is the supporting cast. Florence Rice is "okay" as the second female love interest. But John Beal floats along like a rock in water. Jessie Ralph as an elderly friend is the one standout among the supporting actors/actresses. And -- unfortunately -- Sidney Toler is along as the butler, and once again proves he had virtually no talent.So, for me, the film was uneven. But William Powell's masterful comedy instincts make this a film worth savoring, while overlooking the problems with the film.

I just finished watching this film, and to Jo Swerling, who did the screenplay, I am moved to say, paraphrasing Bill Murray in "Tootsie":Hey, man, I saw your movie. What happened?*Something* happened. The movie starts out strong and then utterly loses itself. It's as if Swerling picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue or something. There *must* be a story about what happened to the screenplay, because it really seems as if a fine, tight story was given over to a committee, who hacked it to pieces or something.The basic elements of a great comedy are there. Excellent cast. Some fine, quirky characters. Powell and Loy's characters are particularly fine, setting up a wonderful contrast and conflict. But the plot is a shambles; the movie keeps setting itself up to go places that it never actually goes.For instance: at the beginning of the film, the movie that Charlie wants to make, which is going to make Irene a big star, is a big deal, central to most of the main characters' motivations. And Charlie has it all figured out; all they need is to find some rich person to back the film. And gee, what a coincidence, it turns out that rich Mrs. Bly, who backs Margit's dress shop, is actually *annoyed* that the shop makes money-- she's looking for a tax loss! So what could be more perfect than if she were to back the film they want to make? And *then*, when it turns out that she and Charlie are actually old friends! Well, surely that seals the deal! *Surely* now part of the happy ending will be that they'll get to make the movie!But no, actually the whole making-a-movie thing is cast aside and forgotten about by about a third of the way into the movie.And then there's the big finale scene, where Charlie is faking that he's going to marry Irene, while it's clear he's actually plotting to have Waldo arrive and insist on marrying Irene, leaving Charlie clear to try to marry Margit at the same time. Surely, this is what's going to happen, right? I mean, come on, the movie is *named* "Double Wedding", for chrissakes!And yet, we got no double wedding. We don't even get a single wedding. For some inexplicable reason, instead the entire final scene dissolve into one massive brawl. Whose idea was *that*? Again, seems like a committee got its hands on the script.Well, you get the idea of what I'm complaining about. But there was, of course, a lot of good here too. Great characters, good performances, some good dialog. I definitely laughed out loud a number of times. But by the end I just felt gypped. The meandering story that can't remember what it's trying to do is just a glaring flaw. It's a shame, because handled more skillfully, this had all the ingredients to be wonderful.

A very funny, romantic movie. I enjoyed all the little creative pieces of "business" and lines such as "...you rang my gong." I enjoyed the treat of Sidney Toler as Keough.I enjoyed the beautiful, wonderful cars of the 1930s, and the background scenes of beautiful, wonderful downtown Los Angeles of the '30s and into the 1950s. I was born there in 1934 and remember it well when it was a beautiful place to live. Ah, nostalgia!! This is what it really did look like then.