secondtake
Room for One More (1952)Cary Grant is in his everyman, humorous, relaxed form here, and is great. His counterpart, Betsy Drake (playing his wife) is no Irene Dunne, and as "good" as she is (in every sense of the word), she's just filler. And so that leaves the children, who all play important roles if bit parts overall, filling out the family.If you can't tell, this is a story about adoption and foster care. It's about having a family of three and finding room for one (or two) more, no matter what the troubled past and difficulties. Everyone's heart is in the right place, and it almost reads like a wonderful public service announcement.And that's a lot of the trouble here. There is little realism to the troubles the family might face (or even the depths of love they will find, frankly). It's all a bit superficial and glib, and you want to overlook this to give credit to the good intentions, but it's not a way to make a great movie. Add the ongoing theme of the husband feeling neglected (sexually) by his wife, which loses it's humor quickly, and you see a very 1950s movie in scope and depth.On the other hand, the acting and production are really good overall, and if you just skip the writing on almost every level you can enjoy a lot of what is happening here. It happens to be very well filmed (by the cinematographer favored by Hitchcock in these years, Robert Burks) and the score is a Max Steiner staple (which means very good). So I laughed, I cried, and I liked Cary Grant a lot (and he has a huge number of great little quips, so many that I wonder if he added many of them). That's not so bad for this kind of movie.
patwin55-1
This movie was originally called "Easy Street" for some unknown reason. It is a true story, with one of the foster children, Joe, cut out entirely. I have literally read the book to pieces, and can't find another copy. I know that Cary Grant's character was made more reticent for dramatic purposes, but in life "Poppy" Rose wholeheartedly supported fostering the three kids. This is a very good family movie, and I recommend reading the book of the same title if you can get your hands on a copy. There is so much more in the book. Read it twice, and you will feel as though you have known Anna Perrot Rose, Poppy, and the six kids your entire life. As for the movie, my husband and I were laughing out loud in some places and sniffling in others.
tedg
There was a period when studios needed to play the game, the American game. They did it less because it sold tickets, instead the motivation was to protect their monopoly. Once they knew the topics, they simply figured out how to sell them in such a way that put butts in seats.During the war the topics were simple enough. Afterwards, they had to celebrate similar home-oriented values. So here we have this little movie made by Grant and his then wife. The story here is a simple flow: two orphans with serious problems get folded into a perfect family. The crippled boy overcomes adversity, becomes an eagle scout and rides a bicycle. The girl, well she proves herself at a dance and as a babysitter. Its actually pretty depressing, the whole thing, What is it about us that we need to be reassured in such reduced terms?Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
reggiebeck
I love this movie. Sure, it's full of 50's idealism, but it still has some things to say. This is a movie about parenting. I particularly enjoyed Grant as "Poppy" explaining to one of his foster kids how babies get born. It's idealized because unlike real life, all of the kids turn out as good citizens and grateful children. This is not one of Grant's best films, but it is worth viewing. I'm waiting for this one to get released to DVD. I have a copy on VHS that I recorded from AMC (before commercials) or TCM but it's getting worn out. I would prefer a pristine, professionally produced copy of this film on DVD, but if it doesn't get released, I'll be forced to talk to a friend of mine with a VHS-to-DVD setup.
AD
