MGM billed this film as a musical as well as a comedy romance, with the usual Hollywood hype, "a star-studded musical romance." But the music is minimal, and the stars, Esther Williams and Van Johnson do two numbers. The film does provide a very good look at Ethel Smith, a very accomplished musician, especially on the piano and organ. One doesn't normally associate the organ with music of the swing era or from South of the border, but she really put some life into a couple of numbers in one scene.
While Johnson and Williams both made a number of MGM musicals in the 1940s and early 1950s, they are really lightweights in the genre. These films typically had big bands and/or dance routines at nightclubs to provide enough song and dance to be considered musicals at all. Xavier Cugat's orchestra was a favorite, and made them better films. As for "star-studded," well they are dim stars compared to those in musicals with any of the prominent song and dance stars. Fred Astaire, Eleanor Powell, Gene Kelly, Vera Allen, Ginger Rogers, Danny Kaye, Cyd Charisse, and Rita Hayworth were great hoofers. The top singers were Nelson Eddy, Jeanette MacDonald, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Jane Powell, Gordon MacRae, and Julie Andrews. Most of these dancers could carry a tune, most of the singers could do some dancing, and all could play well with comedy.
Overall, this is not a very good film. The dialog and comedy of the screenplay are quite lame. As other reviewers have noted, this was a "sort of" musical remake of "Libeled Lady" of 1936. That had a great cast of four leading actors of the day - Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy, William Powell and Spencer Tracy. And it is one of the greatest comedies of all time. So, MGM, wanted to remake its property with more modern stars a decade later, and have it as a musical. It really is a "remake," withh a script probably 90 percent identical to the original. The biggest change in the plot replaces what I think is the funniest segment of scenes about fishing ever put on film. Well, MGM apparently felt that Van Johnson couldn't hope to replicate with the same humor, what William Powell did in "Lady." So, they had his character, William Chandler, try to become an expert a duck hunting. The corresponding change occurs in the script, where the J. B. Allenbury (Walter Connolly) of "Lady" was an expert fly fisherman. In this one, Cecil Kellaway's Allenbury is an expert duck hunter.
I think that changes was disastrous for this film on two points. First - someone trying to learn and faking trout fishing is more believable and possible, so the foibles there are hilarious. But someone who has never fired a gun before (any kind), to learn to shoot a shotgun, and at moving targets, and to learn to call ducks and geese, set out decoys, etc., is not believable at all. Remember - this "training" takes place over one day, and in a hotel room. Second - because the change in venue for the outdoor comedy segment is so unbelievable and impossible, all of what then passes as comedy isn't funny at all. So, Van Johnson's tipping his boat, falling in the water, having no shells in his shotgun, and horrible squawks and squeaks on the duck call, are more pathetic and woeful than funny.
None of these characters seem right for their roles, with Williams being the least misfit of the bunch. But I will say that Lucille Ball, playing the role of Gladys Benton - that Jean Harlow "owned" in "Libeled Lady," gave it her own twist that was different, interesting, and helped the film in the end. She clearly was hamming it up, and my guess is that the director and others saw that as not only fitting, but uplifting for the film. Keenan Wynn does his best to be bombastic, but he seems forced and can't hold a candle to Spencer Tracy's Warren Haggerty.
If "Libeled Lady" had never been made, and this film was "original" in its day and to viewers decades later, would "Easy to Wed" be better, or seem better, or funnier? Maybe by one notch. But the comedy overall just doesn't have the life, the verve and the depth of the plot and characters as actors played them in the original film. The three men, especially, just don't fit the parts, or play them well, at all. Williams is fair, but doesn't have the cutting edge suspicion that Myra Loy could portray so well. When she shows her suspicion, Williams flashes it; but Loy showed the sly and skeptical look of a knowing woman of experience. Lucille Ball's different and more flashy Gladys was clearly hammy and clever in not trying to imitate Harlow's character to a tee. She made this weak remake watchable to a point.
"Easy to Wed" made a nice profit for MGM, probably helped by the much smaller cost of these actors. And, this was the year after the end of World War II, so any kind of comedy and romance was welcome and appreciated. The film isn't terrible by any means, but my reviews, as I think are most by most movie buffs, compare each film against all others and give them a rating accordingly, with one's obvious preferences and biases for figured in. As I said, if "Libeled Lady" had never been made, this one might rate one notch higher - possible two with a stretch. But, it would still be nowhere near a very good or great comedy.
While Johnson and Williams both made a number of MGM musicals in the 1940s and early 1950s, they are really lightweights in the genre. These films typically had big bands and/or dance routines at nightclubs to provide enough song and dance to be considered musicals at all. Xavier Cugat's orchestra was a favorite, and made them better films. As for "star-studded," well they are dim stars compared to those in musicals with any of the prominent song and dance stars. Fred Astaire, Eleanor Powell, Gene Kelly, Vera Allen, Ginger Rogers, Danny Kaye, Cyd Charisse, and Rita Hayworth were great hoofers. The top singers were Nelson Eddy, Jeanette MacDonald, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Jane Powell, Gordon MacRae, and Julie Andrews. Most of these dancers could carry a tune, most of the singers could do some dancing, and all could play well with comedy.
Overall, this is not a very good film. The dialog and comedy of the screenplay are quite lame. As other reviewers have noted, this was a "sort of" musical remake of "Libeled Lady" of 1936. That had a great cast of four leading actors of the day - Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy, William Powell and Spencer Tracy. And it is one of the greatest comedies of all time. So, MGM, wanted to remake its property with more modern stars a decade later, and have it as a musical. It really is a "remake," withh a script probably 90 percent identical to the original. The biggest change in the plot replaces what I think is the funniest segment of scenes about fishing ever put on film. Well, MGM apparently felt that Van Johnson couldn't hope to replicate with the same humor, what William Powell did in "Lady." So, they had his character, William Chandler, try to become an expert a duck hunting. The corresponding change occurs in the script, where the J. B. Allenbury (Walter Connolly) of "Lady" was an expert fly fisherman. In this one, Cecil Kellaway's Allenbury is an expert duck hunter.
I think that changes was disastrous for this film on two points. First - someone trying to learn and faking trout fishing is more believable and possible, so the foibles there are hilarious. But someone who has never fired a gun before (any kind), to learn to shoot a shotgun, and at moving targets, and to learn to call ducks and geese, set out decoys, etc., is not believable at all. Remember - this "training" takes place over one day, and in a hotel room. Second - because the change in venue for the outdoor comedy segment is so unbelievable and impossible, all of what then passes as comedy isn't funny at all. So, Van Johnson's tipping his boat, falling in the water, having no shells in his shotgun, and horrible squawks and squeaks on the duck call, are more pathetic and woeful than funny.
None of these characters seem right for their roles, with Williams being the least misfit of the bunch. But I will say that Lucille Ball, playing the role of Gladys Benton - that Jean Harlow "owned" in "Libeled Lady," gave it her own twist that was different, interesting, and helped the film in the end. She clearly was hamming it up, and my guess is that the director and others saw that as not only fitting, but uplifting for the film. Keenan Wynn does his best to be bombastic, but he seems forced and can't hold a candle to Spencer Tracy's Warren Haggerty.
If "Libeled Lady" had never been made, and this film was "original" in its day and to viewers decades later, would "Easy to Wed" be better, or seem better, or funnier? Maybe by one notch. But the comedy overall just doesn't have the life, the verve and the depth of the plot and characters as actors played them in the original film. The three men, especially, just don't fit the parts, or play them well, at all. Williams is fair, but doesn't have the cutting edge suspicion that Myra Loy could portray so well. When she shows her suspicion, Williams flashes it; but Loy showed the sly and skeptical look of a knowing woman of experience. Lucille Ball's different and more flashy Gladys was clearly hammy and clever in not trying to imitate Harlow's character to a tee. She made this weak remake watchable to a point.
"Easy to Wed" made a nice profit for MGM, probably helped by the much smaller cost of these actors. And, this was the year after the end of World War II, so any kind of comedy and romance was welcome and appreciated. The film isn't terrible by any means, but my reviews, as I think are most by most movie buffs, compare each film against all others and give them a rating accordingly, with one's obvious preferences and biases for figured in. As I said, if "Libeled Lady" had never been made, this one might rate one notch higher - possible two with a stretch. But, it would still be nowhere near a very good or great comedy.