Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

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.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Room for One More (1952)Cary Grant is in his everyman, humorous, relaxed form here, and is great. His counterpart, Betsy Drake (playing his wife) is no Irene Dunne, and as "good" as she is (in every sense of the word), she's just filler. And so that leaves the children, who all play important roles if bit parts overall, filling out the family.If you can't tell, this is a story about adoption and foster care. It's about having a family of three and finding room for one (or two) more, no matter what the troubled past and difficulties. Everyone's heart is in the right place, and it almost reads like a wonderful public service announcement.And that's a lot of the trouble here. There is little realism to the troubles the family might face (or even the depths of love they will find, frankly). It's all a bit superficial and glib, and you want to overlook this to give credit to the good intentions, but it's not a way to make a great movie. Add the ongoing theme of the husband feeling neglected (sexually) by his wife, which loses it's humor quickly, and you see a very 1950s movie in scope and depth.On the other hand, the acting and production are really good overall, and if you just skip the writing on almost every level you can enjoy a lot of what is happening here. It happens to be very well filmed (by the cinematographer favored by Hitchcock in these years, Robert Burks) and the score is a Max Steiner staple (which means very good). So I laughed, I cried, and I liked Cary Grant a lot (and he has a huge number of great little quips, so many that I wonder if he added many of them). That's not so bad for this kind of movie.

The loving, even-tempered parents of three kids decide to adopt two more: a troubled teenage girl and a handicapped boy. Pleasant family dramedy that plays like a '50s TV sitcom. Grant is likable and charming as ever. I disagree with reviewers who say he seems out of his element. He seems to be having fun and has good chemistry with the child actors, as well as real-life wife at the time, Betsy Drake. I don't see the problem unless you only want to see Grant in certain types of roles. The kids are all good, especially George Winslow as Teenie. He has many of the movie's best lines. Sentimental and funny, it's a real heart-warmer.

The film is arguably a masterpiece, with a classic message about the care of foster children. Real-life couple Betsy Drake and Cary Grant are perfect for these kinds of parent roles, because they have such grace and style, and to see them crowded by an assorted lot of kids with realistic problems is quite believable and funny.The script is well balanced. It makes a point of showing how older children can be given a second chance at a family, and there is one kid representing girls and one kid representing boys in this situation. The three biological children really take a backseat in terms of the film, but they do contribute to the story. There is a memorable scene where they all cast ballots and write 'leave' but then they tell the illiterate boy they want him to 'stay.'Overall, the picture contains the right blend of realism and humor. Miss Drake's performance is definitely what anchors the film. Cary Grant is sort of like the biggest kid in the bunch, but she is there to guide them all, make the right decisions and dole out the necessary amount of love and patience.

Real-life marrieds Cary Grant and Betsy Drake as a loving couple who adopt needy children. Perhaps trying to erase the stigma--the negative curiosity--from adoption and foster families that was highly prevalent in the early-'50s, screenwriters Jack Rose and Melville Shavelson (working from Anna Perrot Rose's book) go a little nutty providing these particular children with a happy ending. Drake is appropriately warm and buttery, but Grant (uncomfortably referred to as "Poppy" Rose, as if he were in his 70s) has the stern look of concentration that unfortunately never slides into bemusement. His "Poppy" is supposed to be wary of his wife's desire to fill the house with kids, but Grant seems a bit anxious at finding an actual character to portray. He's just relying on externals here, and the slightest sneer of discontent shows through. Story transformed into a TV series some ten years later. ** from ****