Wow! Such a good movie.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

From the tone of this review, you may be surprised to learn that I recognize Bob Hope as one of the all-time greatest comedy stars. In terms of film, however, I put 1963 as the end of the impressive part of Hope's career. It was about that time that Hope changed his film persona into trying to be a sort of hip almost-swinger. And movie scripts began looking more like television scripts. And this film is certainly in that category. If you're going to watch this, get ready for a constant stream of one-liners, rather than a well-written script. But is that any surprise since the director was Fred DeCordova...Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" producer.? The premise here had possibilities -- Hope's young daughter (Tuesday Weld) is in love with a...what shall I call him...too clean cut to be a hippy, but (Frankie Avalon). So he has his company transfer to Sweden, where of course she falls in love with a...what shall I call him...a progressive thinker in terms of sexuality (Jeremy Slate). So Hope calls in reinforcements...back to Frankie Avalon.As stated, Hope is all too full of one liners here. There's not good script for him to follow. You could get the same patter on his television shows. But films are supposed to be more than television. Dina Merrill, whom I always thought was underrated, has a nothing part here. Sort of a place filler as Hope's love interest. Quite disappointing. Tuesday Weld's role is fine, just nothing special. And Frankie Avalon is trying to be a sort of outcast...who isn't.And then there are the shooting locales which are so not-Sweeden-ish.You can take Sweeden, ya ya ya, but if I were you, I'd pass it up saying no, no, no. You might find more laughs in a 1960s sitcom. My "6" here is a tad bit generous.

This may not be one of Bob Hope's better movies but I thought it was pretty good. Hope is a little more subdued, comically, which just showed me he had grown as an actor and did not feel he must be out front in every movie role he played. Ahhh Tuesday Weld, I had a crush on her from the very first time I saw her on the screen. Here she plays Hope's daughter and the basic theme of the entire movie is Bob chasing her around trying to prevent her sleeping with anyone. Showing that the double standard was still alive and well Bob does his running with his paramour at his side. Frankie Avalon takes a break from the beach to show up as Weld's American love interest. In spite of the 5 average I think it is better than that.

This film is in the style of Doris Day films that feature compromising sexual situations and innuendo while on the surface everything remains innocent fun. That may have been titillating in 1965 when you couldn't say the word "pregnant" on TV and Rob and Laura Petrie had separate beds, but now it's just boring and adolescent. I get tired of this innuendo quickly, but it's always fun explaining each joke to my wife, because the entire thing goes way over her head.This film features blatant sexual material centering around the question of Bob Hope's daughter: will she or won't she?The film presents Sweden as a sexually free place, while America stands for a higher morality. On the surface the movie preaches this higher morality while actually presenting and capitalizing on the intriguing images and ideas of a free-lovin' society.One problem with this type of film is that the writers think that the innuendo will carry the film. They think that just the fact that they are covertly, or in this case, overtly, talking about sex will keep us nervously giggling and entertained, gasping in shock or winking at each other. It's like a comedian whose act relies on dirty language. Ok, they may get nervous laughs, but after some time it gets boring or even distasteful. In this film, because the writers are overconfident, they don't bother with good characters, a good plot, clever dialog, motivations, or any thing else that makes for good drama or comedy, they just let the subject of sex carry it. That just doesn't cut it, especially not in modern times when any shock value it might have had is completely gone.

I haven't been able to watch more than a couple of minutes of this gem, but I will for one reason and one reason alone. Mr. Joel Coen (or was it Ethan), from such hits as Crimewave (writer, 1985) and The Evil Dead (assistant editor, 1983), said he (they) liked it. That's all it takes for me to look at a film with a new perspective and appreciation. I would highly recommend you do the same. Also, I heard Mr. Jiminy Glick reference the film when Conan was his guest. I like that. That suits me just fine. I wouldn't watch a film only because Jiminy drops the name, but it certainly doesn't hurt the cause. And one last note, do yourself a favor and watch Mr. Preston Sturges' tale of a wanderer, harried for days on end, entitled "Sullivan's Travels" (1941). You shall find both everlasting salvation and unending ecstasy.