Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Overrated

Excellent, a Must See

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

To 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.

I 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.

Would 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.

A 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.