3/10
Surprised by How Bad This Movie Was
8 December 2016
I suppose "Life with Father" had two things going for it in 1947: it probably appealed to a war-weary public who responded to a film set in a simpler and saner time, and its gender dynamics might have resonated with a generation of husbands and wives having to deal with men reasserting themselves after relinquishing their duties to women for a period of time. But from the perspective of 2016, this film -- and it pains me to say this given my admiration for William Powell and Irene Dunne -- has virtually nothing to recommend it.

"Life with Father" is one of the dullest films I've ever seen. It's a one-joke, one-note premise extended over nearly two hours: father is stubborn and clueless, mother pretends to let father have his way while all the time running the house. Over and over and over. Each scene feels interminable. I swear there's a fifteen-minute conversation about buying a new coffee maker. And the mystery is that Powell and Dunne, two of the best comedians of their time, make none of this funny. It is inexplicable to me, on the basis of this film adaptation, that this thing ran on Broadway for so many years.

I don't think it's just a matter of this film being made in a different time. I think it's just not good. "Meet Me in St. Louis," which came out three years earlier, is very similar in many ways, a colorful film that evokes an earlier, happier time. It even has a gruff father who everyone tiptoes around in order to get what they want. But that film is tremendously entertaining and heartfelt, whereas "Life with Father" feels like a desultory slog.

Powell undeservedly received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, while the film also garnered nominations for its color art direction and cinematography and its Max Steiner score. It won no awards, and didn't deserve to.

Grade: D
28 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed