Beautiful, moving film.

Absolutely Fantastic

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I have a different view of this film and its predecessor. I don't think they're really comedies. I think they're depictions of what happens when a young girl gets married, or in the sequel's case, a couple has their first baby. Yes, the two stories are told with humor, but in both films there's nothing outlandish happening...it's just life...and there are long segments which are rather dramatic in nature. Yet, the films are not dramas, either. Perhaps a family film with generous doses of humor. But be warned, this is not a Steve Martin film...it's a Spencer Tracy film...hence the world of difference.Tracy is, perhaps, even better here than in the previous film. Some of his scenes with Elizabeth Taylor are so convincing that you'll wish Tracy was your father. According to the new Tracy biography, it was around this time that Tracy begin describing himself as old, although he was only in his very early 50s.Joan Bennett is, again, excellent as the mother. Taylor excellent as the sensitive daughter (I found her very appealing in this role, although I am not particularly a fan of Taylor). The supporting players are all fine and do their jobs nicely...particularly Moroni Olson and Billie Burke, although their screen-time is short...just enough to advance the plot, despite them being the in-laws.For me, the two films are about equal in quality. Perhaps "Father Of The Bride" fresher, but that may be simply because the characters and story were new to the viewer. In terms of quality, the two films could easily be put together as one long film, and I doubt anyone would notice much of a variance. Tracy fans will want this on their DVD shelf...when it becomes available from the Warner Archive...the prints out there now are cheap knockoffs, but it is broadcast on TCM every once in a while.

There's nothing about a sequel that necessarily makes it bad. Sometimes stories are left open-ended so that a follow-up makes sense, or writers may be able to top their previous effort by putting a new spin on the material. There are also some great movie franchises where the same characters can be recycled for numerous stories. However one type of sequel that almost inevitably turns out turkey is the cash-in rehash of a recent hit movie, the hope being that reuniting the same crew and characters will strike the same box office gold without spending too much time, effort or money.In Father's Little Dividend, sequel to Father of the Bride, the "fast buck" motive was even faster than usual. The closeness of release dates indicates it was probably green-lighted while its predecessor was still in its theatrical run. It was shot in just twenty-two days (the kind of schedule a B-movie would usually get), perhaps because star Elizabeth Taylor and director Vincente Minnelli were scheduled to begin work on more important projects, A Place in the Sun and An American in Paris respectively, and the whole thing looks very rushed. The screenplay is riddled with plot holes and underdeveloped patches. Minnelli sticks largely to long, static takes and straightforward shot compositions. Not that there is anything wrong with such simplicity, it's just that Minnelli could usually work such magic with elaborate arrangements and delicate flow, which clearly he didn't have time for here.Father's Little Dividend also drops the device that made Father of the Bride work so well. Although it still retains a Spencer Tracy voice-over narrative and keeps him as the primary character, it is no longer quite so exclusively his story. In Father of the Bride he was a fairly passive character, but the focus was always upon his thoughts and his reactions as all the bustle of the wedding went on in the background. He is now a much more active character, but he is sharing the limelight far more with his co-stars. The result is that this is a far more routine piece of storytelling, without that unique take that elevated Father of the Bride above the average romcom. Taylor has a bigger role, probably to reflect her growing stardom, and in fact her heart-to-heart scenes with Tracy (something writer Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett are very good at) are among the nicest moments in the picture. However the larger parts for comedy players Moroni Olsen and Billie Burke don't work so well as the characters simply aren't funny or engaging enough.This is one of the few major studio productions to be in the public domain. Apparently MGM failed to renew the rights, perhaps due to oversight or simple lack of interest. As such it's available in dozens of shoddy, fuzzy-looking DVD editions, which to be honest pretty much do it justice. There's little point waiting for a nice restoration – the picture itself will always be a disappointment.

I loved this movie and have watched it a bazillion times. I enjoyed the old-fashioned values. I would like to know if anyone can tell me the name of the actor who portrayed the baby. Does anyone know the name of the actor who played the baby?? I can't find the baby's name in the credits anywhere?? Did you know that Don Taylor directed the original "Omen" movie? And now in the year 2006 the newest version of this movie has been made. I wonder what Don Taylor would think of this one?? Tom Irish who plays Ben Banks shows up in the remake called, "Father of the Bride". He is shown at the wedding and later at the reception. It's too bad they couldn't have gotten Russ Tamblyn to come back for the remake, too. No doubt, it would be too expensive to get Elizabeth Taylor to star in it??

This solid sequel to "Father of the Bride" has some good moments, and with the same cast on hand plus a similar story line, it feels very much like a direct continuation of the original. "Father's Little Dividend" is a cut below its predecessor, but it works all right in itself.Spencer Tracy once again plays the rather hapless Stanley Banks, and again he shows how good he could be in a rather thankless role. It's almost unfortunate that he seems so natural as a flustered or put-upon husband or father, since he often played such roles although he could do so many other things as well or better. But as far as this pair of movies went, he was certainly a fine choice, since he makes the character believable and sympathetic.Tracy's character is the focal point for the common kinds of changes and adjustments that families must make as the younger generation grows up. Although his reactions are often exaggerated, in general it is fairly easy to understand Stanley's constant feeling of apprehension about any and all changes.As with the first movie, Elizabeth Taylor works very well as Kay, giving her an appealing presence and a simple believability.The pace and the material of this one are not as consistent as they were in the first movie, and some of the comedy ideas come across rather awkwardly. But at other times the characters and cast make things work quite well, and in fact the simplest moments are some of the best ones in the movie.