Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

Honestly, only if you have a soft spot for 1930s British comedies that feel like they were pulled straight from a dusty theater stage. If you hate stilted dialogue and pacing that drags its feet, skip it. It’s not for everyone, and it definitely isn't trying to be.
The whole thing revolves around a protagonist who is, to put it mildly, a bit of a disaster. He manages to get himself engaged to three women at once, and watching him try to juggle it all is the entire point. It’s exhausting just watching him.
There's a scene near the middle where the dialogue gets so repetitive I actually checked my watch. You can see the actors waiting for their cues in a way that feels oddly human, even if it's not exactly good acting. It reminded me a bit of the frantic, low-stakes energy in Minding the Baby, though maybe a bit less charming.
The movie doesn't really have a 'message.' It’s just a string of misunderstandings piled on top of each other until the inevitable collapse. It’s not trying to be high art, which is probably why it remains watchable, even when the plot goes completely off the rails.
Compared to something like Golf Widows, this feels way more enclosed and stagey. It’s like the walls are closing in on the actors. You almost want to tell them to just go outside and walk it off.
Some of the humor lands, mostly because of how dry the delivery is. It’s that very specific, very British way of being miserable while pretending everything is perfectly fine. I don't know, maybe I’m just a sucker for that stuff. ☕
It’s not a masterpiece. It’s barely a movie, really—more like a captured play that’s seen better days. But for a rainy Tuesday? It’s fine.
Year
1932
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.