I really don't get the hype.

good back-story, and good acting

Am I Missing Something?

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Sometimes you just want to watch a movie that is not too "deep" from an earlier era like the 1940's. Walter Pidgeon is the absolute stand-out here. Surprisingly funny and yet combined with a no-nonsense attitude, his performance easily stands-up to Ginger Rogers' iciness (until of course she melts). The other star of the movie is the Waldorf Hotel itself. It's absolutely fascinating to see the inner workings of what must have been state-of-the-art hospitality service. Lastly, although I'm not a big fan of either Lana Turner or Van Johnson, they're both effective and touching. If you're looking for art this is not it, however, if you're looking for something pleasant this will certainly do.

As everyone agrees, WEEKEND AT THE WALDORF follows the outline of GRAND HOTEL while radically lightening its tone. It's structured by three parallel and occasionally intertwining stories connected mostly by its setting, the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. The fraudulent schemes of Edward Arnold are so woefully underwritten that they hardly count. The heart of the movie lies in the other two plot-lines, a romantic comedy verging on screwball between lonely, overworked actress Ginger Rogers and burned-out war correspondent Walter Pidgeon, and a sentimental romance between wounded war veteran Van Johnson and gold- digging stenographer Lana Turner. The former is pretty funny and the latter rather touching, but the inter-cutting between them does neither any favors. They might have done better as separate, and considerably shorter, movies in their own right. As it stands, the film is way too long. Heck, around the two hour mark we stop everything cold for a couple of mediocre musical numbers!Which is not to say that there are not considerable virtues in WALDORF. The interior sets are amazing, you would think that you really were at the hotel, and we are given a good idea of the immense effort that goes into running such a magnificent establishment. It's the Waldorf itself that is (quite intentionally) the movie's true main character. And the human performances ain't bad, either. Walter Pidgeon, normally rather stodgy to my eyes, is charming and clever and witty to a degree that I've never seen from him elsewhere. He shows surprising chemistry with Ginger Rogers, who gives a cool and amusing performance as the kind of character she would often portray (I'm tempted to say, would be saddled with) for much of her later career, a successful yet unhappy actress. Lana Turner is okay in a role that could have used considerable expansion. Van Johnson's performance seems problematic to me. In and of himself he presents us with an immensely likable character who is a pleasure to watch, but what sense does this make of the character? He appears remarkably healthy for someone who has only a 50/50 chance of making it till next Wednesday. And why would his soldier have no friends? We see a guy who's handsome, charming, articulate, friendly, respectful, and while rather subdued does not come across as intensely shy. Actually, he comes across as pretty much perfect. It makes his story pleasant but shallow. One might say the same for the entire film.

For some reason the sheik's assistant walking the goat on a leash stands out in my memory of this film. It's a nice humorous touch, but I believe it might be a small indication that the "Grand Hotel" genre was becoming a satire of itself by the time this film was made. Van Johnson was a terrific and underrated actor. He was so pleasant and made it look so easy that you may tend to not always notice his skill. However, you will see his ability in this film if you really try to notice what he is doing. Lana Turner is so tiny and beautiful that at first you might not notice the acting that she contributes here, but she does a good job and is perfect for this role.There is one major flaw in this film. The Lana Turner character would never in real life forgo the lucrative and exciting career (and all its $) to leave the state with a poor soldier. I hate to say it, but in the real world this would never happen - be it 1945 or today. It is totally movie fiction. He might likely come back to N.Y. to be with her, but not vise versa. Thus this film carefully sets you up for a big resolution, but then it doesn't ring true. Ginger Rodgers seems like a bored actress portraying a tired and bored actress. After all, she can't be expected to add her usual energy and verve if she is portraying a tired, burnt-out character. I will give her a pass and say it is not Rodger's fault. Pidgeon plays charm to the hilt and thereby salvages his portrayal of a tired man on leave for rest, and at least his character's actions are explainable in the context of a war.The supporting actors are all first-rate, especially Benchley as a self-absorbed eccentric. Good role and character that gives this film what it needs most- extra liveliness.Cougat and his lively music add to some extent- but when he is forced to repeatedly showcase a very slow ballad his potential is somewhat muted. Lina Romay of the exciting act but thin voice is also featured briefly.This is a watchable and professionally-made film and I can recommend that anyone view it, especially for the effective acting by Johnson. However, when a small Robert Benchley part and a goat are highlights, obviously it lacks something.

As in many movies made toward the end of World War Two, this film deals with some of the unpleasant effects on the personalities of those veterans who were part to the fighting. In this case, Captain James Hollis (Van Johnson) is amalgam of the troubled soldier: he needs an operation because of a fragment of shrapnel near his heart, he has no family, his friends were all killed in the war, and he is suffering from battle fatigue. This is all complicated in that he is seen as not having the "will to live." He is a hero looking for a long rest, hounded by a war correspondent. These images are quite different from those one finds in the propaganda films of 1940-1943. With victory in sight in 1945, the walking wounded needed help since battle shock was being recognized as a malady of warfare. As a film this is a fairly classy production, with good writing and a host of respectable actors in solid roles. Best of all, the film contrasts glamour on the homefront with the agony of soldiering. Week-ends may be short, but the lasting effect of this "Week-end at the Waldorf" echoes through the decades.