If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

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.

This movie is done in sequences and cobbled together later which makes it different than most films. It has 4 Directors listed including some top ones and an A-List cast that includes some folks from the silent era as well as some top stars.This has a scene with William Demarest and Fred McMurray which reminded me of all the scenes they do together in MY Three Sons much later. Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda in the same film is a rare thing, we have that here. Harry James from the big band era, and a young Burgess Meredith as a reporter.This movie is rich with character actors and the script is written by some top screen writers. So is it perfect? It is an experiment back in this era and because of the cast it is worth a view. Each sequence varies in quality and you will like some of them better than others. At least that is what I did.

This review is for the version without the Charles Laughton sequence, as this was the one shown by Turner Classic Movies recently.The film stars and was co-produced by Burgess Meredith. Considering that he mostly got supporting roles after this and only a few other producer credits, it is probably safe to assume this film was responsible for this.The film consists of various small films that are tied together by an overall theme. You see, Meredith wants to get a job working as a reporter and each time he interviews someone, their story is dramatized. The question he asks each of the people is "how did a child influence your life?". Surprisingly, the vignettes have various big-name Hollywood stars, such as Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda and Dorothy Lamour--perhaps Meredith and his wife/co-star Paulette Goddard got a lot of their friends to be in the film.The first stars Fonda and Stewart. It's about a small-time traveling band that is stranded and puts on a talent show to get the money to get their bus fixed. However, the contest is fixed, as the mayor only let them put on the show if his son (who is a no-talent) is given the award. The film features Alfalfa Switzer (from Our Gang) as the no-talent as well as a surprise cameo at the end by big band leader, Harry James. The film is supposed to be kooky and was an odd waste of the talents of Stewart and Fonda, as the acting and writing were too broad to be taken seriously.The next stars Dorothy Lamour and Victor Moore (an odd combination). They are both struggling actors who have a run-in with a bratty child actor. The kid deliberately ruins their scene they are working for in the film and she thinks this is funny. However, when Moore and Lamour are fired, the kid feels bad and vows to help them with a screen test. The producers love Lamour but are less thrilled about Moore. In the end, however, she hires Moore as her agent. The segment ends with a long dance number. Yes, it did relate to Meredith's question but the style seemed odd and ended very abruptly. Also, the song and dance number seemed out of place.The final segment starred Fred MacMurray and William Demarest (who, you may remember, co-starred together on "My Three Sons" on TV). The film begins with the two being thrown out of town by the cops. The are a couple of grifters in search of some new pigeons (i.e., con-men who want to cheat some unsuspecting people). Oddly, their first potential victim is a little kid with a piggy bank! The kid turns out to be a devilish little prankster, as he makes their lives miserable. In many ways, the story is a lot like a slight reworking of O. Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief" and the film makers neglected to credit him for the story idea. It is fun watching the kid tormenting the two men but I just wished they'd stuck closer to the original story or just made a film of the O. Henry story--and not all the rest of the vignettes.In the end, Meredith writes his human interest story and goes to see the editor--at which point, the response is not at all what Meredith had expected! But it all works out fine in the end.Overall, not a terrible idea for a film but the film never worked because the first two stories didn't work out well. The biggest negative is bad writing and the only good part was stolen from a famous writer (William Sydney Porter, also known as O. Henry). It's a curious film and is watchable but don't expect it to be much more than a time-passer.

Down-on-his-luck newspaper ad-man, working the lost-and-found desk, creates a reporting opportunity for himself wherein he polls everyday citizens with an innocuous yet potentially interesting question, "What affect has a child had on your life?" (this is immediately rectified to 'baby' when posed to two jazz musicians). In the prologue, co-producer and star Burgess Meredith is awfully pushy trying to ingratiate himself to the audience; he and Paulette Goddard make for a curious married couple (to say the least), but they're not around enough to cause too much damage. Still, this overlong compendium involving stammering music-partners, a would-be movie actress, and two traveling showmen fails to touch upon anything personal or provocative. It is initially nice to see Henry Fonda and James Stewart sharing the screen, yet their comedic episode is silly and annoying. Production vales high, cast is game, but there are so few laughs that one may think the filmmakers were actually trying for something meaningful. Sadly, there is no substance or depth on display. *1/2 from ****

As the "Trivia" section states, Charles Laughton was in the original version of this film under its title "A Miracle Can Happen". His was a sequence of 20 minutes or so which came between the Fonda/Stewart story and the one with Fred MacMurray which ended the movie. During the war, Laughton had taken to reading from great works of literature, including the Bible, to invalided US servicemen. He continued to give reading tours after the war and his appearance in "A Miracle Can Happen" was clearly an attempt to put one of his Bible readings on film. He played a washed-out minister who bores his congregation to tears, but one rainy night a small boy asks Laughton to visit his sick father. In an attempt to boost the dying man's spirits, Laughton rises to the occasion with an over-the-top delivery of the Saul and David story that completely revitalises the father. It then turned out that the little boy who invited Laughton in, but who has now disappeared from the scene, had died some years earlier. So, as Laughton told Meredith at the end of the sequence, "a miracle happened." For whatever reason, the Laughton sequence was deleted from the US release but not before prints has been sent abroad to other countries. Consequently, it has long been known that, for example, a Spanish version of "A Miracle Can Happen" - with Laughton and all the others dubbed into that language - has been seen on TV in Spain and is now available there on DVD, complete with the original English dialogue.With Laughton having been deleted, the Dorothy Lamour sequence was added in as a replacement, and the film was duly re-titled "On Our Merry Way." I agree with the sentiments expressed by others who find this film an embarrassment all round. Fonda and Stewart are no masters of farcical comedy and neither are any of the other principals. As for Laughton in the original film, his hamming up of the Bible story has to be seen to be believed. Nevertheless, both versions are of some interest because of the talents involved but I agree with anyone who says that once you've seen either version you're not likely to want to see them again!