JohnHowardReid Well, kiddies, here is a load of old-fashioned sentiment prepared for you by that master of the saccharine, Uncle Leo McCarey. No, I take that back - syrupy the film is, but masterful it is not. It's hard to believe that McCarey was once a director of skill (Duck Soup) and talent (The Awful Truth) to judge by this poor offering.Every scene is handled with old-fashioned fade-outs and fade-ins and concentrates almost exclusively on close-ups of the most banal reaction shots of Bing Crosby and Henry Travers. McCarey doesn't even take care to see that Crosby is registering the same expression in the two-shot as the close-up with which it is intercut. This occurs too often to be excused on any other grounds than sheer ineptitude. It's a black mark too against the film editing of Harry Marker, who should have trimmed some of the excesses of facial mugging anyway. In fact, the whole film could be cut by a considerable amount. The story is slight and only marginally captures audience interest - the sub-plot involving Martha Sleeper (Mrs Gallagher) and Joan Carroll (Patricia) is a bore.Crosby's priest is one of the most incredible we have come across - even in a Holly¬wood film. No priest would indulge in the sort of flip dialogue (particularly in his first scene with Martha Sleeper) that this one does nor would he be a party to such a tawdry plot device as hiding from Sister Benedict the true reason for her transfer. There is absolutely nothing of true spirituality or depth in this picture.McCarey has his usual array of cute kids in store for us including a re-enactment of the Christmas story by six and seven-year-olds, and a boy whom Sister Benedict secretly teaches to box for a return engagement with the school bully. It is all superficial and bla¬tantly corny, with equal parts of propaganda (the children pledging allegiance to the American flag), bad taste, and crude slap¬stick (the cat in Crosby's boater).Ingrid Bergman in nun's habit is hardly likely to entrance her fans - warm, radiant and sympathetic though she looks in the hands of cinematographer George Barnes. Oddly enough, Barnes has lit and photo¬graphed Crosby from some very unflattering angles. Another funny thing is that though Bing has four or five songs, he doesn't get to sing a single one of them right through, but is either cut off in the middle or sings a truncated version.As mentioned earlier, Henry Travers plays Horace P. Bogardus with his usual unbridled mugging. The rest of the cast does not get much of a look-in. After a lengthy introduc¬tory scene, Una O'Connor virtually disap¬pears; Ruth Donnelly has nothing of consequence to do or say as a side-kick of Miss Bergman; Gargan has but a small role, appearing in only two scenes. The others are no more than adequate.Some money has been spent on sets, (though some we suspect are contrived mainly through special effects), and some of the lighting effects obtained by Barnes are quite pleasing. Why a top designer like Edith Head was engaged to design the costumes when these are mainly confined to habits is a typical example of Hollywood largess. Those costumes Miss Head has come up with - like Miss Sleeper's, for example - are nothing to marvel at, and could have been selected from the racks of any dime-and-ten.We like the title song, but the others are quite pedestrian. Bing Crosby's voice often seems to be out of its range, but this could be the effect of poor sound recording.

actionsub I watched this last night, after not having seen it in decades. I vaguely remembered a plot about getting a building for a Catholic school, and remembering it as more of a Christmas movie, so I was surprised at there only being snow in about five minutes of the film. It's the little touches that Crosby, Bergman, and director McCarey put in that make this film endearing. There's a sly line by Father O'Malley (Crosby) when Sis. Benedict (Bergman) calls on a student to recite: "Luther? How'd HE get in here?" There's another little bit involving a kitten who gets into O'Malley's straw hat while he's making an introductory speech to the nuns which is absolutely hilarious! And the adlibbed children's Nativity play is totally heartwarming in its honest simplicity, in an age when churches now try to play "can you top this?" with overproduced Christmas spectaculars. (A side note: today's viewers might be a bit taken aback that the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by the students omits the words "under God". That was a reflection of the times, not of "liberal Hollywood". The film was produced in 1945; the words "under God" would not be added for another eight years as a post-war reaction to the rise of Communism. The recitation of the Pledge in the film is a verbatim reflection of the way every school child in America said it in 1945.)

MartinHafer In this sequel (though written first) to "Going My Way", everyone's favorite genial priest (Bing Crosby) is off to another parish to do good. This time, it's to a poor parish with a school that is in jeopardy of being closed. Can Bing charm everyone once again, solve all the problems AND manage to make Jews, Agnostics and Protestants not feel terribly uncomfortable?! "The Bells of St. Mary's" is an enjoyable film, I am not denying that. However, if you look at its score on IMDb, you'd think it's about as good as its predecessor, "Going My Way"--well, it clearly isn't. There are so many reasons I prefer "Going My Way" and I fortunately was able to see both films only a couple weeks apart, so my memory of each is clear. First, the music in the first film is much better--and even had an Oscar-winning tune. While I didn't watch either for the music, this is clearly better. Second, I think the dynamic between Barry Fitzgerald and Bing Crosby was better, as they were such opposite personalities. However, apart from a few minor differences, Ingrid Bergman and Crosby were practically members of each others' fan club--at least through the first 2/3 of the film. And, finally, the heart of my "The Bells" disappointed me was the unnecessary and completely contrived conflict that was tossed into their relationship near the never end of the film--plus it really made no sense at all. Bergman is diagnosed with TB and the Doctor tells Crosby to move her to an easier job (that makes sense) and NOT tell her she is sick (what?!)--causing conflict that really should NOT have been there! It was unnecessary and really silly. As a result, while I recommend it, my recommendation is lukewarm and you do NOT need to see this if you've seen the first film. Good...not great.

Neil Doyle THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S is a nice follow-up to GOING MY WAY, with BING CROSBY again cast as Father O'Malley. The script gives him a couple of obstacles to overcome (once again), one of them being the rather frosty disagreement he and INGRID BERGMAN have over the rearing of children.It's all a bit sugar-coated, but it's easy to fall under the spell of Bergman's glowing performance and the few amusing episodes that make up most of the human interest factor in the slight story. There's even a catchy song ("Aren't You Glad You're You?") which won an Oscar nomination in 1945, but the story is so simple-minded that you'll have to have a lot of affection for Bing and Ingrid to want to watch this particular film.There's a nice supporting cast, including the always reliable UNA O'CONNOR, JOAN CARROLL and the lovable HENRY TRAVERS as a man who must be convinced to use his riches for the goodness of man. Leo McCarey gets a lot of sly humor into the story, such as the scene where O'Malley is first addressing the nuns and wondering why all the giggling is taking place. On a shelf behind him, an inquisitive kitten is moving around under his hat.It's tastefully done, even with an ending that includes the news that Bergman's character has a terminal illness. Somehow, director McCarey keeps it all under control so that it never becomes downright maudlin, and he certainly gets the best possible work out of Crosby, Bergman and a flock of hyperactive school kids.