Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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.

A novel written by E.Phillip Oppenheim and directed by Alfred Zeisler became the basis of this funny, quirky movie which has been redone many times. The book was entitled 'The Amazing Adventure of Ernest Bliss' and appeared on the silver screen as " The Amazing Adventure. " The simple story is that of a gentleman name of Ernest Bliss (Cary Grant) who due to his multi Millionaire status finds himself completely bored with his life. Unable to understand why, seeks the advice of Sir James Alroyd (Peter Gawthorne) a good friend and prominent doctor. The physician explains that Bliss is bored because he has money and too much leisure time on his hands. Betting Bliss cannot live without his bankroll, challenges him to try and live without it for one whole year. A challenge Bliss accepts for 50,000 pounds. Thus with the bet in hand, the life of poverty is hard and becomes extremely difficult as the months begin to add up. This film is one of the first movies made in 1936 by Grant and soon establishes him as a great Thespian. Mary Brian plays Frances Clayton as his love's interest. The movie also is difficult in several other ways, the hardest of which is, it's in Black and White and of poor screen quality. However if you're a Cary Grant fan which I am, you'll find it amusing enough to watch it through. Recommended to all his fans. ****

Cary Grant had a tough young life in Bristol so maybe some of this films story reminded him. Pity the version I saw was not the full 80 minutes it would have been better to judge rather than this 61 minute version which seems a bit rushed at the end when regrettably Mary Brian forgot her English accent and it became a bit 'stagy' - a pity because the supporting actors did a good job I thought. Cary Grant was capable of good dramatic rolls though rarely got them and in this film he wasn't able to show his ability enough. I'm glad; however this film was made in England rather than America as it did add something to the authenticity of the few exteriors and general atmosphere of the story.

As stated before me, this is a story that's been done before, most notably "Sullivan's Travels", made a few years hence. A rich young man takes a bet that he can live on a working man's wages for a year, and ventures forth to prove it. The most notable difference here is Cary Grant in the lead, vs. Joel McCrea. Now, I have nothing against Mr. McCrea. But there is a reason why Cary Grant became a mega star, and Joel McCrea didn't. Comparison of these two films makes the differences quite clear. Grant had a glib, polished presence that somehow translated into believability for most of us, and it shows through, even in this early film. The story is predicable, but not so as to make you want to stop watching. Spend the time, and enjoy the performances of Grant and Mary Brian.

This has a worthwhile story idea, plus Cary Grant in one of his earlier starring roles, and it has some good scenes. There are a number of other, better movies made in the 1930s that were based on similar ideas, but this one is a solid feature. The main thing that keeps it from being better is that the story and script do not always make the best use of their opportunities. As a result, there are some sequences that take up screen time that could have been used for something better, while some potentially fine moments are under-emphasized.Grant plays a wealthy young man who has become jaded and spoiled by the company of other well-to-do idlers, and who sets out on a challenge to learn how to work for a living. This setup lends itself to a lot of good material, and the best moments are Grant's interactions with other everyday persons who don't know who he is.Within a very short time after this was filmed, Grant became one of the best actors around at handling this kind of material, and he was then able to make this kind of story work even when it wasn't particularly well-written. Here, there are a number of times when his developing flair shows through, but he wasn't quite experienced enough yet to carry the whole load, so there are some sequences that lack the spark that they needed in order to keep moving. It makes the movie somewhat uneven, still worth seeing if you like the era and genre, but otherwise unremarkable.