Mr. and Mrs. North (1942)

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

After having just finished watching this picture, I came and read all the reviews here on IMDb. And it delights me to no end to discover that my own opinion is universally shared: George Burns should have been cast as Mr. North. I'm usually the contrarian and it is rare indeed when my opinion puts me in the majority. But I'm delighted to be in the majority here. Usually Gracie gets all the praise when it comes to Burns & Allen, it is really nice to see George get his due. Because, yes, this movie sorely needed George Burns. I'm truly glad it's so obvious to everyone.Now I've never encountered the "real" 'Mr. and Mrs. North', whether that be on the printed page or the television screen. But I get the gist of what was going on here. The idea was clearly to take a known comic star and bring her own brand of comedy to an already existing property, and to hell with the fact that she's nothing like the original character. It reminds me very much of the Marx Brothers doing 'Room Service'. And in this case, it wasn't a horrible idea; Gracie carries it off pretty well. But if you're going to do it, *do* it! Go all the way, and bring in George as well. He probably didn't fit their idea of Mr. North, but so what? If Gracie didn't match the original concept of Mrs. North, then it should be no problem if George didn't match the original Mr. North. OK, so the movie would have been more 'Mr. and Mrs. Burns' than 'Mr. and Mrs. North'. But so what? It would have been a better, funnier film. And as it was, it was really 'Mrs. Burns and Mr. North'.But other than that casting blunder, my only other real complaint with the film is that the story is almost impossible to follow. A big part of the problem is that there are a *lot* of characters, and yet very little exposition. It is really, really hard to keep track of just who all the characters *are*, let alone how they might fit into the murder. The director needed to do something about this.But beyond these complaints, I thought it was a fun little movie. If you don't go in with expectations too high, it is a quite pleasant diversion. No masterpiece, to be sure, but quite enjoyable. With George, it could have been great. Pity.

I guess if you were exposed to a lot of Gracie Allen, with or without hubby George Burns, you would have a different perspective. While I've seen Gracie with George a time or two, can't say I'm overexposed with her. She came across very attractive and interesting in this. She's refreshing if you haven't had your fill of her elsewhere. I didn't miss George especially - hey, they were doing something different here, likely attempting to trade on her popularity. But, it took a little while getting used to her with hubby, Post, seeming too young and precocious himself. Mr. Burns, being much the dry, straight man, is a perfect foil. However, this Post is an attractive fellow, who did fine. It's not a tight spy thriller, after all. I really liked Gracie talking through the credits at the end. That was a very funny touch. I don't know what most expect from this type of thing, but for what it was, a mystery comedy on the lower budget order, it was good. You had the usual improbable hijinks going on, the usual sort of fairly inept coppers and the usual suspects. Though there were some good actors in this, it was Gracie's show, shared mainly with Post, her husband, who, again, I thought did a good job.

Very poor film starring Gracie Allen without her beloved George Burns. With Burns not in this nonsensical film, the film was destined to be a complete flop.How could a suave savvy Mr. North ever be married to the ridiculous Allen? Her antics with Burns always worked because the two had that comic flair. William Post, Jr., who plays North, is the direct opposite of a Burns and it shows rapidly in this film.The plot is utterly confusing. Is Gracie actually helping a married woman having an affair?Millard Mitchell plays a comical detective here and there is a funny stint by Felix Bressart, a Fuller-Brush salesman, who tries to give information to the police but is literally brushed aside.Someone needed to do a real thorough cleaning of this utter mess.

I recall, as a young lad, listening to Mr. & Mrs. North on the radio. The show was, basically, a clone of "The Thin Man" with the North's engaging in amusing banter and solving murders a la Nick & Nora (but with no Asta). However, when MGM decided to make a motion picture about the North's, they went for the broad laughs by casting Gracie Allen as Pam North. This obvious miscasting simply did not work.Gracie Allen was an attractive woman who, for many years, played a lovable, scatterbrained character on Radio, Television, and in a few movies. She did this to perfection. But, the common denominator in her career was the presence of her husband, the talented and much loved George Burns. Burns was perfect at playing the straight man and comic foil for Gracie and her outrageous ramblings. But, Burns wasn't in this movie and the resulting mediocre effort shows it. Instead of being funny, Gracie was simply annoying and, at times, obnoxious in her role. This movie would have been so much better with a different actress playing the part of Pam North.From my standpoint, one very pleasant surprise was the casting of Fortunio Bonanova as the North's landlord. He was only in a couple of early scenes but, his presence in any movie is always a treat for me. His rich, Italian accented voice is superb, whether he is speaking or singing. All in all, this is a decent little comedy-mystery but, it sure could have, and would have been better without Gracie Allen.