User reviews

Most reviewers compare this film unfavorably with it's model: "The Lady Eve", staring Henry Fonda and Barbara Streisand. I haven't seen the earlier film, so can't compare them. I never was favorably impressed with George Gobel's humor when he was a TV star, and I'm not much impressed with his humor in this film, the obvious being his running into waiters carrying full trays. Oh yes, in one seen, Gobel is talking to Mitzi Gainer, and goes up a stairs , not noticing that she kept walking forward. He briefly ran into another lady listener, then descended another stirs, to rejoin Mitzi again.......The latter part of the film ,where Mitzy and David Niven pretend to be a couple of French aristocrats, whom Gobel has never seen, is an unconvincing masquerade. The only thing different about Mitzi was her pseudo-French accent, which I though was very good. Niven just added a goatee to supposedly disguise himself. Any fool(except Gobel) would have immediately recognized them as the same pair Gobel interacted with on the ocean cruise.(Gobel later claims he knew all the time, but didn't let on). Through most of the film, it's not always clear whether Mitzi is a gold digger, or, as she claims, has fallen in love with the clumsy, if wealthy, Gobel(very hard to believe). Mitzi comes across as a foxy elegant woman, very animated and beautiful. She and Gobel get to sing and dance a bit to the title song, which probably will sound familiar.

Unless you are a big George Gobel fan I'm not sure you'll like The Birds And The Bees. Especially after you've seen the Preston Sturges classic The Lady Eve which this is a remake of. I wonder how Preston Sturges felt about Gobel taking over a part that was created by Henry Fonda.

One thing though, while Mitzi Gaynor got an opportunity to sing and dance a pair of numbers, one of them a duet with Gobel she sure lacks the spark that Barbara Stanwyck brought to the part of the female card shark. Glad they put those numbers in for her, giving her a chance to do what she does best.

David Niven is third billed and takes over the part of Gaynor's father which Charles Coburn played in the original. Due to his star status his part is built up somewhat. They gave him a touch of gray in his hair and Niven looked older than 46 years at the time. Three years later Niven and Gaynor would be playing husband and wife in Happy Anniversary.

Try as I might I can't conceive that Gaynor would waste her time with Gobel unless it was the millions that he had. See The Lady Eve before you see this one and judge for yourself.

Although folks these days sometimes complain about Hollywood's love of remakes, remaking films is certainly not a new thing. In fact, in the 1930s, films were sometimes remake as few as 2-4 years after the initial movie! In many of these cases, we're talking about B-movies and obscure productions...but occasionally they remake big films...films that were just great originally and had no reason to be remade at all.

A great example of a film that was originally great but got remade anyway is "The Lady Eve". Preston Sturgis wrote and directed it and the movie starred Barbara Stanwyck, Henry Fonda and Charles Coburn...and it was a classic in every possible way. Yet, oddly, someone thought it needed a remake...which they got to 15 year later.

In pretty much every way, the remake is inferior. While Mitzi Gaynor was fine, she wasn't exactly Barbara Stanwyck. But much worse....instead of a nice-guy actor like Henry Fonda, someone thought that bumbling, nerdy George Gobel would be great in the lead...something that simply defies common sense. How nerdy is George? Well, he's an ichthyologist (he studies snakes) and seems more like Harry Langdon than Henry Fonda! He's just all wrong...especially since the film finds Gaynor's character falling in love with him for no clear reason. Even worse is casting David Niven in the supporting role. While he was a wonderful actor and great in leading roles, here he simply isn't at all in the same league as Charles Coburn...not even close.

The bottom line is that "The Birds and the Bees" is harmless entertainment...but hardly any sane people would consider it a classic. "The Lady Eve", on the other hand, is a magical film that you simply must see.

The Birds and the Bees is a remake of The Lady Eve, Preston Sturge's screwball comedy starring Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. It's incredibly similar to the original, so much so that I struggle to understand why they bothered remaking it at all. Audiences who liked the original wouldn't want to mess with perfection, and audiences who didn't like it wouldn't want to give it another chance. I belong to the latter category, and the only reason I sat through this movie is because I love David Niven so much.

David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor are a father-daughter con-team who usually swindle their victims out of money through cheating at cards. Their next target is the bumbling, fumbling fool, George Gobel. But what happens when Mitzi starts to fall in love with him? A more important question is, perhaps, what is the world coming to when David Niven gets third billing in a Mitzi Gaynor movie?

I detested the original; it's an absolute insult to Barbara Stanwyck's talent that it's one of her most famous films. Mitzi adds nothing to the role in the remake. Half the time she's trying to imitate Marilyn Monroe, and the other half she's trying to act like a teenaged Shirley Temple. Gobel gives his best Tommy Smothers impression-or Tommy Smothers got his inspiration from Gobel. I never thought I'd long for Henry Fonda's wooden delivery and bored, slightly frustrated attitude, but Gobel drove me to it. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with him, but I suppose the movies are full of suspensions of disbelief. There's really no reason to watch this remake. Not even if you love David Niven.

This film begins with a young man by the name of "George Hamilton II" (George Gobel) having just completed a 3-year expedition in the Belgian Congo in search of an extremely rare snake. Extremely pleased upon acquiring one he immediately boards a passenger liner enroute back home. The problem is that George just happens to be the son of an extremely famous millionaire and as soon as he sets foot on the ship every single female on board becomes extremely interested in him. Yet, in spite of everything, none of them are able to make much of an impression due to the fact that he is very shy and reserved. That changes, however, when a gold-digger by the name of "Jean Harris" (Mitzi Gaynor) and her con-man father "Colonel Patrick Henry Harris" (David Niven) enters the picture with every intention of taking him for every penny he has. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this was a cute 50's musical-comedy which, in my opinion, benefited more from the comedy than the musical numbers. Likewise, the presence of Mitzi Gaynor certainly didn't hurt the scenery in any way either. Be that as it may, while certainly not a great comedy by any means, it had its moments and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

During an transatlantic sea voyage, a card shark and his daughter, Mitzi Gaynor, cheat a wealthy simpleton out of a lot of money, but complications ensue when the the girl falls in love with the victim. David Niven is his usual charming self as the father, but George Gobel as the love interest is wooden and the film falls far short of the original. Preston Sturges directs this mixture of slapstick and sentiment. Save your money and rent the original, The Lady Eve, instead.

Sometimes it's difficult to analyze what is wrong with a film. It's been said that casting is 90% of a film. Consider The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. George Gobel doesn't really act the part, the just plays the part. That's one thing wrong with the film. He's basically doing a TV skit where acting is not the primary ingredient, but personality it. Niven however is great in a dual role (actually a single role in two) in one of his more nuanced performances. Fred Clark was the second best Harry Morton on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, second only to Larry Keaton, but he doesn't do much here.

What makes this film worth watching nevertheless is the indomitable and comparable Mitzi Gaynor, who is always worth the price of admission. The woman was simply stunning, though it's odd why she never became a (to sound like Ed Sullivan) a really really big star. She herself admitted this much in an interview. She never had a star image. I can't imagine someone going to see a Mitzi Gaynor film the way they would an Ava Gardner or Grace Kelly film.

But Gaynor is a standout in this film in both roles as herself and as pretending to be someone other than herself. She alone kept me watching the whole film. The first part of the film was especially dull and went nowhere so it took great effort to continue, though the pace picked up around the time of the snake scene.

Like I said earlier, it's difficult to "doctor" a film. I didn't find the script all that well written, though Sturges' name is on it since it was the template of this version. I always find comparisons with an original futile. One accepts a film on its own terms. No point in comparing Gobel with Fonda, for example. Especially since Gobel was not even an actor while Fonda was one of our most accomplished actors. As for Stanwyck, I never liked her for some reason and I could never understand her femme fatale status in movies. So Mitzi Gaylor wins the contest easily.

The problem comes down to pace. The film should have been directed in a Hawksian manner, with a much faster pace, quicker timing; instead the scenes never seem to come alive.

Finally Harry Warrens two songs are superb, especially the title song. Somehow I get the feeling that is one of those films that will look better on a second viewing when one doesn't expect that much.

A much better remake than it has a right to be. The improvements over the original includes a much better musical score, the advent of color.and the addition of the 2 leads Mitzi Gaynor and George Gobel. Hank Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck are physically well matched so it is hard to swallow her character not being attracted to his character. For the remake because Mitzi and George are so mismatched physically, and there seems to be chemistry between the two principals the romance works. The screen play trims some of the fat off the supporting characters Fred Clark always shines with the brunt of the story focused on the main leads. The casting of George Gobel using his television alter ego as an innocent over an obvious ploy by what should be another fortune hunter is delicious for me. The supporting cast rounds out a formula musical comedy. I look forward to a DVD copy of this movie.

Birds and the Bees beats the Lady Eve for the simple reason that Henry Fonda isn't funny. The man can't do comedy to save his life. George Gobel is a hoot. Viewers would do well to stop comparing the two movies and accept it on its own terms. The scene between Gobel and Niven where they discuss a subject then clap their hands over each others mouths before the other can reveal anything is classic. David Niven was never funnier. Gobel wrote the book on playing bumbling ineptness, something Fonda couldn't approach. For me, it was Fonda who was miscast in the original movie. Anyway, give it a view and don't try comparing it to anything. You'll have a good time with it.