User reviews

Ira Levin's play Critic's Choice which ran 189 performances on Broadway in the 1960-1961 season was expanded exponentially for the screen version. It's Broadway origins are hardly noticeable.

Stepping into the roles played on stage by Henry Fonda and Georgeann Johnson are Bob Hope and Lucille Ball in their fourth and last film together. The more traditional Hope and traditional Lucy are to be found in their earlier films Sorrowful Jones and Fancy Pants. Still Critic's Choice works a whole lot better for them than The Facts of Life.

Bob Hope is a theater critic and he's got a son by his first marriage to Marilyn Maxwell, Ricky Kelman. He's married now to Lucille Ball and Lucy's taken it in her head to write a play about her family life growing up with two sisters, Marie Windsor and Joan Shawlee, and her mother Jessie Royce-Landis. Hope fluffs the idea off, but this only makes Lucy more determined especially when she's working with director Rip Torn and producer John Dehner.

There are a ton of characters not in the original play which took place in the Hope/Ball apartment. The addition of a lot of these people allowed Hope and Lucy to engage in some of their traditional comedy which they didn't do in The Facts of Life and paid dearly for it.

This has to be the only film I know where the 'other' woman is the first wife. Marilyn Maxwell who it was reputed Hope was involved with around 1950 and who appeared in The Lemon Drop Kid with him, sees her chance back with him as Rip Torn starts to get interested in Lucy.

Bob and Lucy get good support from a well chosen cast of familiar faces and Critic's Choice should please their fans.

BOB HOPE and LUCILLE BALL do okay in this mild comedy about a woman (Lucy) who decides to show her theater critic hubby (Hope) that she can create a play based on her family relatives.

RIP TORN is amusing as the director of Lucy's play, working on it night and day to put it into shape while Hope seethes with jealousy. Meanwhile, his ex-wife, MARILYN MAXWELL, is around often enough to keep Lucy irate enough.

The friction between theater critic and playwright comes to life whenever they trade barbs. The comedy aspects fall flat once in awhile with the more serious moments given more emphasis than usual in a Bob Hope/Lucille Ball comedy.

JESSIE ROYCE LANDIS does nicely as Hope's mother. This isn't the typical fare expected of Hope or Ball, but it has its moments where the plot elements have more dimension than usual in a caper of this sort.

Hope has his usual one-liners.

"What are you trying to do--drown your troubles?" a bartender asks him.

"No, I'm just teaching them how to swim."

When you watch a film that starred two legends of comedy (Lucille Ball and Bob Hope) you expect to find a very funny movie. And, yes, "Critic's Choice" has some amusing parts to it. As a comedy, it's more "Bob Hope" style than "Lucille Ball" style. The humour is more subtle and ironic (more like Hope) than the kind of slapstick physical comedy that Ball was known for - although it does include some physical comedy, surprisingly given to Hope in the last half hour or so. But to call this movie a "comedy" I think is to miss the point. I saw it as more of a drama, even more a psychological study of Hope's character. He played Parker Ballantine, a fierce Broadway critic for a New York newspaper, while Ball plays his wife Angie, who gets it into her head to write a play about her early life with her mother and three sisters.

If I were to rate this as a comedy, I'd probably say that it fell flat - but I was actually quite taken with the story and the character of Parker. He was an unpleasant character. Yes, Hope played him with some comedy - but he wasn't a nice man. Once Angie decided to write her play (very early in the movie) Parker wouldn't let his critic's voice go. He discouraged her, he belittled her, he made fun of her - and most of it, while couched as a comedy, was actually rather mean and not funny. When the movie opened, Parker was writing a scathing review of a play that starred his ex-wife (who was played by Marilyn Maxwell.) That goes almost immediately into his acerbic attitude toward Angie's play. The point gets made in the movie that maybe Parker has a problem - he disses everything that the women who are close to him try to do, almost as if he's trying to sabotage them and their careers; as if he doesn't want a "successful" woman in his life. And, although there's an attempt to redeem him slightly at the end, Parker's most obnoxious scenes come late in the movie at the theatre, the night Angie's play opens in New York. Having withdrawn from reviewing the play, he shows up anyway - drunk and, frankly, obnoxious (I'm not sure why he wouldn't have been kicked out of the theatre, or even why he was allowed in in the first place) - tries to kick his paper's reviewer out and when he can't do that goes up to the balcony and causes quite a scene (this is where Hope's physical comedy comes in.) He then proceeds to write a review of the play anyway and his review is blistering, as he writes that the play "was written by Angela Ballantine, directed by Dion Kapakos, and produced by mistake." (I must admit that I wondered why his paper would allow a drunken reviewer - even a big name one - to write a review of a play written by his own wife to which someone else had been assigned as the reviewer, but maybe that's thinking too much about this.)

This was not what I was expecting. I was expecting a light comedy - instead I got more of a drama about a couple with some really serious issues in their marriage. And while I wouldn't rate it that highly as a comedy, I thought that if you look at it as a marital drama it's actually pretty good. For me, the most powerful scene in the movie didn't even involve Ball - it was the very dramatic and even acerbic confrontation between Parker and his son John (played by Ricky Kelman) - who seems to have irritated a few reviewers, but who I thought was actually pretty good, playing a kid who had obviously been raised in a somewhat strange environment. The scene was set at home on opening night, before Parker's drinking binge. That confrontation aside, John's relationship with his mother (Maxwell) was especially weird - she seems to have been largely uninterested in him, and he calls her not "Mom" but "Ivy."

There's a decent supporting cast - most of whose names (Rip Torn, Jim Backus, Richard Deacon and even Soupy Sales) add to the expectation that you're going to be watching a funny movie. But I would suggest not watching this to get a good laugh, even if that is your initial expectation. Watch it as more of a character study of Parker. It works much better that way. (7/10)

New York theater critic Parker Ballantine (Bob Hope) is married to wannabe playwright Angela (Lucille Ball). They live with his son John from his previous marriage to flighty actress Ivy London (Marilyn Maxwell). Angie is writing a play about her family and he's rather dismissive. According to him, she doesn't finish anything. She actually finishes and Dion Kapakos (Rip Torn) is directing it.

It's interesting that his second wife is more age appropriate than the first wife. I would expect it to be the opposite. A switch would make them fit the stereotypes, but it would also deprive the movie of the Hope Ball pairing. I'll take the pairing over the stereotyping. Their stardoms have faded from their pinnacles, but they still have plenty of star power. As a comedy, this is lacking especially considering the two legends involved. It's more a drama than a comedy. At least, it's better as a drama than a comedy. Bob Hope does his comedic mugging and it's not that funny. There is potential with the marital conflict. It works, but I would like more from Ball. This is very much his movie instead of their movie. This was sold as a comedy. It tries to be a comedy. They should have concentrated more on the drama.

I will assume that Ira Levin's original Broadway play was much better than this dull, tedious film. It has obviously been altered to fit the acting styles of Ball and Hope. Lucy's role comes across as a toned-down version of her Lucy-wants-to get-in-show-business character, and Hope hams it up as the husband. Scene after scene comes across as rather pedestrian. The sets and cinematography are fine, and Edith Head provides Lucy with great costumes. Perhaps fans of the then-running "Lucy Show" made this film a success. However, 1968's "Yours, Mine and Ours" is a much better vehicle for Ball, even if her advanced age made that role unrealistic. In retrospect, Lucy comes across as annoying and passive in this film. In addition, the child actor Ricky Kelman is extremely irritating as the son of Hope, and step-son of Ball.

Parker Ballentine (Bob Hope) is a famous and acerbic theater critic. When his wife, Angela (Lucille Ball), decides to write a play, Parker is not in the least bit enthusiastic nor supportive. When she finishes, she asks him to read it and give her his honest opinion. He does and tells her he hates it. So imagine his surprise when a famous producer decides to put on her play!! In a definite conflict of interest, Parker agrees to see her play and review it....and marital fireworks result.

Like one of Hope and Ball's previous films, "The Facts of Life", "Critic's Choice" isn't exactly a comedy. While Hope spouts a variety of one-liners instead of real dialog (something I really dislike after a while), the emphasis is not on comedy but is more like a drama. This isn't a complaint...more an observation. And, it's interesting that Hope's character is rather petulant...a real departure for him.

Although the film apparently was a box office failure, I actually thought it was pretty good. But as I mentioned above, it wasn't a comedy and Hope played a guy who was a bit of a jerk....and that likely turned audience members off to the film back in 1963. An interesting departure for Hope...and a film that is worth your time.

I saw the video in the library and the box advertising certainly made the movie sound good, as well as the all-star cast listed. But on bringing it home and watching it, neither my mother or I cared for it or bothered to see it to the end. There were hardly any laughs and the whole thing was basically unappealing.

Perhaps the play it was based on was much better. But theater critic Parker was simply a mean-spirited and unlikable man, destroying theater productions by his bad reviews, being obnoxious to family and friends, sneering at his wife's creative efforts, yet expecting people to like him anyway. He also attaches too much importance to his job, saying he would lose his self-respect if he didn't review things as he did. If Lucille Ball, who played his wife, acted as she did in her other roles, she would have reacted far more strongly to him. This is one of the dullest performances of her career.

Here's a star-vehicle that should have been a winner: Bob Hope as a poison-pen theater critic on the East Coast who insists on writing the review for wife Lucille Ball's new play. Ira Levin's 1960 Broadway play, a reportedly sophisticated romp and minor hit, has been adapted to the screen by Jack Sher without a smidgen of wit. It's a ham-handed dud that nearly sinks the leads, although Ball gets in a few choice moments before the unforgivable finale cheats her and the audience. Don Weis is responsible for the flat direction; cinematographer Charles Lang is to blame for the blurry colors, mostly reds and depressing grays. If this is the continuation of "The Facts of Life", I'll stick with Hope and Ball circa 1960. * from ****

Mention the name Lucille Ball, and what comes to mind for most of us is the zany character in the long-running 1950s TV comedy show, "I Love Lucy." But, I wonder if Lucy started out with a wish to be a comedienne, or if she had her eyes on any other fields of stage or screen. Comedy was part of her early roles, but she also had roles in which she sang and danced ("Dance, Girl, Dance" of 1940). And there can be no doubt about her acting ability from such dramatic and suspense films as "Valley of the Sun" and "The Big Street" in 1942; or "The Dark Corner" in 1946; or "Lured" in 1947.

On the other hand, there's little doubt about Bob Hope's aspirations. From his earliest days in vaudeville, Hope was a comedian, and he would always be a comedian. For all his kidding aside about earning as Oscar, Bob knew that he had little chance because Oscar very rarely went to a comedian. He even made his overt desire for an Oscar a part of his long- running comedy routines, and it was sure to get a laugh decade after decade

That doesn't mean that Bob Hope didn't do some very funny movies. But his type of humor wasn't the subtle, clever or zany type that usually involved great or very good acting. Clark Gable, James Stewart, Carole Lombard and Claudette Colbert were some of the very accomplished dramatic actors who could do Oscar-winning caliber comedy in movies. Bob's comedy forte was the one-liner. Or, make that, a string of one- liners, one after the other. And in that, he often aroused some great laughter.

So, that brings us to this movie, "Critic's Choice." This film is meant to be a semi-serious movie about Broadway and a critic's life, with a comedic outlook. And Lucy plays a serious character, a "straight man" to Bob's wisecracks and one-liners. I think it was intended as a light comedy to begin with, sans any zaniness on Lucy's part. The very funny parts are in the last half with Bob. He has some zany scenes himself, and a few strings of one-liners that bring out loud laughter. Some examples are: "This is the drunkenest room I've ever been in." "This apartment's all uphill." And, "I'd just like to be there when we get where I'm going."

"Critic's Choice" is a nice film for an evening of light entertainment, and worth watching just to see two of the great comics of all time together.

This movie has possibly the lowest entertainment value/star power ratio I've ever seen. Bob Hope and Lucille Ball, two of the 20th century's greatest comedy geniuses. Plus the legendary Jim Backus, Rip Torn, and a surprise uncredited cameo from a television comedy icon of the 1950's and 1960's who has a brief part as a hotel clerk. You almost have to give the writing, directing, and production team credit for taking a cast this spectacularly talented, and making them so dull and unfunny.

A major problem is the casting. The lovable Bob Hope as a mean-spirited, psychologically abusive husband? Lucille Ball as a mousy, milquetoast-ish wife who mostly takes the abuse her pathetic husband dishes out? The real life Lucille Ball would have kicked Bob Hope's character to the curb after the first 30 seconds -- and we all would have cheered!

But another major problem is that everyone seems to be sleepwalking through their parts. You would expect Jim Backus and Rip Torn to breathe a little life into their characters, but quite untypically, they seem to be phoning in their lines and waiting for their paychecks. Although I am quite impressed with Rip Torn's ability to do handstands in his younger days.

If you are a fan of any of these stars, they ALL have done better films. I'd suggest checking those out first.

I came across this thinking, wow a comedy that I never saw in the theater, back in the day and with Bob Hope and Lucille Ball together - cool!. It is hard to define the feeling when actually watching this, as the comedy really gets crushed by the harshness of the two main characters. The normal knack that Lucille Ball had for timing and delivery seemed held back and suppressed. And while Bob Hope's humorous side-comments are there, it is out of place with the meanness of his character. The story comes off a bit dreary in some ways..

If you normally associate the name 'Lucille Ball' with a crazy redhead who is outgoing, somewhat loud, and exciting, then this is definitely not the right movie for your Lucy collection. It is repetitive, humourless and quite dull, if I might say... Lucy plays a very quiet and stubborn woman in the film, and Bob Hope is not at his very best. It was actually quite disappointing to watch this film, I am sure that there are many more films with the same cast for you to enjoy with better quality...

If you want to see Lucy at her least funny, watch this. She looks like she has a lot of personal strain, or something. Lucy never clicked in the movies for some reason, but on TV she soared. Bob Hope also struggles with the lame screenplay. You'll recognize many of the faces here, like Jim Backus and Rip Torn, among others. Apparently the play that this is based on got good reviews, but this movie version is so bad I'm surprised they didn't stop production and revamp it. On an up note, the movie is an indispensable time capsule. With JFK's assassination and the Beatles, this early 60's world would soon change forever. It's also worth seeing for the tiny Soupy Sales cameo.

The decor alone is worth the price -- I want to live in Hope and Ball's apartment!

Maybe it's because I saw it at such a young age, but it's always been a favorite of mine. Good dialogue, great cast, and just a lot of fun. (Years later I worked with Soupy Sales and told him how much I'd liked his cameo as a desk clerk. He told me that he'd had no idea he was going to do the movie until he got a call from Hope the morning of the shoot asking him, "Wanna come out to Burbank today and do bit with me?")

And to those reviewers who complain that Hope's character "walks out" on the show he's reviewing at the top of the film, there were no such things then as "critic's previews." Nowadays critics attend a production during the final week or two of previews and write their reviews at leisure, to be published the day after the official opening night.

Back then, all the critics attended on opening night, and it was standard operating procedure to leave the theater in time to make it back to the paper to file the review before the deadline. It's not meant to imply that the character doesn't take his job seriously or is a "bad critic" as others have written. The only thing that's inaccurate about that part of the film is that in reality, ALL the other drama critics from ALL the other daily papers would have been "walking out" at the exact same moment to make the exact same deadline.

Broadway theatre critic Bob Hope (as Parker Ballantine) is known for his stinging reviews of bad plays. When beautiful red-haired wife Lucille Ball (as Angela "Angie " Ballantine) decides to become a playwright, Mr. Hope decides he will be completely objective in reviewing her work. Hope doesn't like the first draft and refuses to help Ms. Ball during re-writes and run-throughs. Ball is encouraged by a producer's interest and works closely with younger director Rip Torn (as Dion Kapakos); a romance, or the potential for one, develops. Meanwhile, Hope is perused by still-interested first wife Marilyn Maxwell (as Ivy London)...

With all the re-writes, it's odd nobody re-wrote "Critic's Choice"...

Hope's character is unlikable, and he's not a competent reviewer; he walks out of the opening play, which the audience enjoys, and declares it bad. Hope writes a review of Ball's play even though he was too drunk to see anything. Hope should have helped Ball and excused himself from reviewing her play. The relationship between Ball and Mr. Torn is confusing. Little Ricky Kelman (as John) should have been Ball's son; in the original play, the character "Angela" was too old to have a 12-year-old son. By the way, young Kelman and older Jessie Royce Landis (as Charlotte "Charlie" Orr) do well in supporting the legendary co-stars.

**** Critic's Choice (4/3/63) Don Weis ~ Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Ricky Kelman, Rip Torn

Bland comedy/drama about nasty theater critic Bob Hope, who's only happy when he's trashing the latest Broadway sensation, has to contend with his wife, Lucille Ball, deciding she wants to become a playwright. Will Bob write a nasty review of his wife's play? Will Bob write a gushing review? I'm not sure there's any real suspense what actually happens, but the only reason to watch this film is for Hope and Ball, who are good, but the jokes are sadly not all that funny. It also doesn't help that the film lacks the rapid pace of Hope's better comedies. Overall, "Critic's Choice" features two brilliant comedians in a less than brilliant comedy. FUN FACT: This film was based on a play by Ira Levin, who's best known as the author of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Stepford Wives."

THAT old axiom that nobody loves a critic is somewhat painfully proved in "Critic's Choice."In the film adaptation of the Broadway comedy, Bob Hope, playing the toughest drama reviewer among the Sardi's set, debates for almost two hours the weighty problem of whether or not to cover his wife's first play. The dilemma drives him to liquor, psychoanalysis and the grasping arms of his former wife, before he sits down to his typewriter and compares the play to a Frankenstein monster. Maybe it's the man's dogged perseverance in a less than earth-shaking cause that makes him so unlikable. Or perhaps it is the warm and winning performance of Lucille Ball as the wife that turns the audience against her critical mate. But we tend to suspect that it is really the basic job hazard of the critical profession. The new film, which came to neighborhood theaters yesterday on a double bill with a bucolic drama of no discernible merit called "Lad: a Dog," suffers from a personality problem of its own. It is pleasing to look at in its expensive décor, color and scope, ably played by its experienced stars and ingratiating in its quieter insights into a sophisticated marital relationship. So long as it meanders modestly through some above-average repartee, it provides an agreeable way to pass an evening. Instead of leaving well enough alone, unfortunately, the director, Don Weis, has tried to upholster the shaky plot with slapstick and broad burlesque. When Mr. Hope, staggering to his balcony seat for the opening, falls over the rail and dangles by his heels, the sophisticated character he has been portraying is irrevocably lost. Similarly, the sensible and appealing woman so carefully created by Miss Ball is spoiled when she is required to register attraction to a burlesque of a Method director, crudely mumbled by Rip Torn. Both stars, old hands at this sort of thing, go through their paces with benign good humor, but their subtler comic talents remain untapped. At this rate, the critics' popularity seems unlikely to improve.