Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Mother of Tears (2007)

Italian director Dario Argento made a name for himself with his giallo classics, but it was with his seminal horror classic Suspiria that he cemented his status. One sequel followed, but despite there being Three Mothers, the trilogy was left incomplete. Until 2007...

After an archeological discovery, an ancient urn and tunic are sent to a museum for examination. Assistant Sarah Mandy leaves the room for only a second, and suddenly it's swarmed by demonic figures, who butcher the curator. A terrified Sarah flees, and realises she is now a hunted woman. Guided by the spirit of her mother, and finding aid elsewhere, she must take the fight to these evil forces and stop the Mother of Tears before Rome falls, then the world...

Mother of Tears was long awaited by horror fans everywhere, bringing closure to the Three Mothers series after a 27 year hiatus. Argento's previous films weren't exactly what you'd call well-received, but fans were hoping the importance of this project would bring out the best in him!...Well, some fans weren't disappointed.

For me, Mother of Tears is an absolute disaster! Stylistically it bears very little similarity to the previous films, with none of the garish colour, dreamlike tone, or artistic design, and is a poor conclusion. But it's the quality of the film itself that fares the worst. It's a noisy, ugly, and at times boring movie, that verges on unintentionally hilarious.

The plot to Suspiria was almost secondary, and there was no real inkling of a larger narrative. It was Inferno that laid the groundwork for a greater world, revealing the mythology of the Three Mothers. The final film in the trilogy should logically continue this, and bring it all to a grand conclusion. Argento spoke of the things he sought to explore, like alchemy, gnosticism, and terrorism, and that sounds like a really interesting idea, of old and new! A shame practically none of that is in the movie. There isn't much of a story here. The film consists entirely of going to see one person, then another, then another, then another.

Mother of Tears went through a number of scripts before finally seeing the light. The first was by Daria Nicolodi written right off the bat back in the early 80s, which for some reason was never produced. Then was a treatment by Dario himself, then one American writers Adam Gierarsch and Jace Anderson, followed by Dario again. How can a movie with a story this thin have gone through so many scripts? Frankly I think they should've stuck with that original version!

This film makes the most references to past entries than anything else before, but it all feels a bit obligatory and less than meaningful (and as for why Sarah's mother gravely wounded Mater Suspiriorum then just left and waited for someone else to kill her is anyone's guess). If there is one thing I appreciate though it's that the Suzy Banyon reference was positive, and didn't violently kill her offscreen like I suspected it might.

There are a few callbacks to random Argento films, like a sewage trawling scene reminiscent of the maggot pit in Phenomena. It's unnecessarily arduous, considering how late in the game it is, but as far as obvious cheap callbacks go, I thought it was better than most.

The film tries to aim for a big scope, and show how the Three Mothers can affect the whole world...yet we don't seem to get a good sense of this being a truly inhabited setting. We see some random acts of violence, but because we don't know these people, and never get a good glimpse of this world, it all feels a bit mindless, like a video game.

It's the climax where much disappointment lays. Mater Lachrymarum, the most powerful of the Three Mothers, is killed when her shirt is torn off, which immediately destroys her entire coven, with zero effort. Just toss an old rag onto a fire and the witch is dead, just like that. The heroes escape the crumbling lair, then the film just ends.

Sarah is an unhinged main character, screaming at people despite having only just evaded the police, who are still right there! She also takes far too long to catch on. In her first meeting with Marta, the woman explains who she is, and Sarah asks "Who are you?". She just told you, you dope! After being told about witches pursuing her, she still says things like "Why were there people in my apartment? I feel like I'm going crazy". Honestly she does come across as crazy, and it's more than the script to blame.

Her ghost mother makes a few appearances, giving some vague advice, and not much else. Her biggest part is later on. Despite telling Sarah she can't appear again, she does so anyway to save her, in a wholly unnecessary sacrifice. Sarah's already lit the guy on fire, and all she needs to do is leg it till he collapses!

Michael, the museum's manager and Sarah's boyfriend, gets a decent, if depressing story, but vanishes for a bit too long, Also here is detective Enzo, who's a good guy, and makes it through to the ending, although he contributes so little before that point that most in the audience will have no idea who he is.

The witches here are embarrassingly unhip. Instead of being old hags with pointy hats and moles, they're instead exclusively 20 year old punk models, with awful fashion sense and enough make-up to choke a cat. I'm not asking for them all to look like Witch Hazel, but if they could be less like Madonna, that'd be nice.

Lastly, Mater Lachrymarum is completely wasted. Despite getting an entire movie devoted to her this time, and the final capstone of the trilogy too, she barely appears, and has nothing to her. Previous mothers didn't appear much either, nor did they have super in-depth personalities, but I guess I was just hoping for something a little more for the grand finale than just a randomly evil bimbo.

Onto a couple of genre tropes. The curator at the museum inevitably cuts herself on the artifacts, and bleeds all over them, and I was all set to yell at her for activating the ultimate in evil. But it turns out they were coming anyway, so no harm no foul! Next is when Sarah is escaping the museum. It's smart of her to gently put the books down and take off her high heels! Maybe it's not the most realistic of reactions, but I'm glad she doesn't just drop them with a clatter and run, like anyone else in a horror movie would.

I also didn't mind the presence of the monkey. Many point that out as a singular point of lunacy in the film, but to me it makes perfect sense. Witches do have familiar animals after all. And while it's perhaps shown a bit too much, or doesn't do enough, it never does anything too weird.

For a movie about witchcraft, there's disappointingly little magic here. Despite all the lip service there is about Sarah's power inherited from her great mother, she turns invisible twice, and that's it. This is especially glaring in one scene, where white witch Marta is unable to make her car door unlock without her keys! I thought you were magical, lady!

Visually Mother of Tears is a disappointment. It's shot decently, in its own right, but has nothing that resembles Argento's classic output, least of all the Three Mothers trilogy. This only creates a further level of disconnect between those old films and the new. There's only one scene near the end that tries looking like them, in appearance or colour.

The film has an alright atmosphere in some ways. I liked the 'woman on the run' element, but that's about it. There are cheap jump scares, including an 'it was all a dream' fake-out. Very little of the artful or shocking scares of the original. It verges on the tasteless at times, and I didn't even know what the heck I was looking at.

Onto the next most important part of any Argento film-The death scenes! The first comes surprisingly quickly, with very little build-up. Just some dry chit-chat 10 minutes in, then poof, disembowelment! You leave the office for just 5 minutes, and your coworker is being strangled with her own intestines. Hilarious to watch, like Braindead or Riki-Oh...Except this wasn't meant to be a comedy.

The priest's death is hampered a little by the effects, but the ferocity of the attack is neat. The following sequence is disappointingly quick at first, but we do get a little more. Most disappointing is how sparse the deaths are. There are only three sequences, in an almost 2 hour film!

The effects are mixed. Some of the gore is well done, at least in terms of creativity, although I wasn't a fan of how dark the blood was. There is some embarrassingly bad CGI used, and some hilarious puppets that ruin the moment. Other things are better crafted, like a couple of cleavings later on, although the blood spurting is a bit fake.

I've seen Asia Argento in a few things, and while she sometimes gives fairly normal performances, all bets are off in her father's films. She's unhinged in a really bizarre and off-putting way. It takes away from her character's relatability and 'everywoman' status, and makes her come off like a mental patient.

The rest of the cast is almost just as weird. They suffer from manic direction at times, but do decent jobs for the most part, although some are quite bad (especially the obviously dubbed ones). I liked Udo Kier, and was sad he got such a small role. I was also glad to see Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni again (once again on the receiving end of an oral death scene).

The last big name to mention is Moran Atias as the titular villain. The previous actress in this role was Ania Pieroni, who played Mater Lachrymarum for a grand total of 30 seconds, yet whose shoes are impossible to fill! She had such an ethereal beauty that's unmatchable, and Argento knew this, trying to get her back. But Pieroni also knew that she was now 50 years old (not to mention retired), so the role went to Israeli model Atias. She does alright, and she certainly is good looking, but she looks more like a supermodel with fake-looking boobs than the ultimate in evil. And the modern American accent really takes away the ancient European mystique.

The music here is tolerable. Nothing bad, nothing amazing either. Ending the trilogy with a death metal track isn't exactly ideal either, certainly not when compared with the dreamlike or operatic pieces that close out Suspiria and Inferno.

The last thing to discuss is an interesting matter of titles. Suspiria was about Mater Suspiriorum, while Tenebrae...was a completely different movie, and Inferno was the one with Tenebrarum. This third entry could've been named something Lachrimae or Laychrymia if they wanted to keep with a consistent theme. I don't mind that they didn't, since Mother of Tears isn't a bad title, and it's not like Inferno was consistent either. Still an interesting thought though.

It took me years before I finally made myself sit down and watch Mother of Tears, and it is everything I was afraid of and more. It's a bad film all round, with very few redeeming qualities. While it may be technically better in some ways than his other latter-day films, I found it to be at the bottom. While I'll always watch Suspiria and Inferno again, this is not a film I'd ever willingly revisit...

Giallo (2009)

A serial killer is on the loose on the streets of Turin, taunting the police with photos and videos of his gruesome crimes. Known only as Yellow, the police have no leads, until the sister of a recently missing woman visits Inspector Enzo Avolfi. Together they investigate, and try to crack the case before it's too late for Yellow's latest victim...

After a few duds, and the polarising Mother of Tears, Giallo marked not only Dario Argento's next foray back into the giallo genre, but a special one, if the title was anything to go by. Sadly the general reception was not positive, from critics or fans.

Despite being titled Giallo, this really feels little like that genre, instead bearing a greater resemblance to the spate of 'torture porn' films of the mid 2000s. This is especially disappointing when the name promises this will be the ultimate example of a giallo. There is little mystery, elaborate murders, or touches of art or colour here. Less Deep Red and more police procedural with a higher rating.

One of the film's biggest failings is that it really doesn't build suspense well. A perfect example is the first abduction, which happens so quickly and without effort. This is also evident in Celine being kidnapped immediately! The first victim has only just been abducted like 2 minutes prior, and we haven't even gotten to know the main characters yet, and already one of them's being kidnapped in the exact same way.

The worst example of this is the big reveal of the killer...or lack thereof. With zero build-up and no waning, boom, it just shows us his face, like it's no big deal! It feels like a scene is missing where we were introduced

Another issue is that basically there are no death scenes! There are parts where victims die, but these are mostly just brief flashes, or minor bits. Argento films past (and indeed most giallos) are built around wild death scenes, but here only one victim dies in the present. The film is more focused on showing torture, but even there it doesn't have much.

The climax happens a bit quickly, but once it gets going it's a fun moment, with a great death scene for the killer. The ending is disappointingly abrupt though, and kind of a downer. Nothing bad actually happens (in fact there's good news), but it's presented in such a strange way, and there's no resolution for the main pair.

Giallo is simultaneously a quiet yet loud film. The dialogue is often low and mumbly, but the screams are pitched VERY LOUDLY.

Enzo is your typical grizzled detective, haunted by a tragic past, and always speaking like he's in a noir. He has his good moments. Linda is likewise alright, and I liked her drive to find her sister despite the chances, although she comes across as bitchy sometimes, especially in the ending.

It's funny how petty the killer really is. He may be jaundiced, but if he simply washed his hair, went to the barber every now and then, and learned how to speak nicely to the ladies, he could charm them like...well, Adrien Brody! If only he realised that ugliness is a state of mind, and bought a damn comb!

Also amusing is that the killer is able to be bribed! When Linda's sister offers him money if he lets her go, he actually agrees! Funny, but also annoying, since it basically confirms we're getting no more deaths for the whole movie.

The last thing to mention about Yellow is something bound to distract most viewers. He's played by Adrien Brody! No, he's not a long lost twin, nor is Enzo the killer in a disguise twist. He's just playing a dual role, for no apparent reason. It's strange, and I'm not sure if it was a good idea or not. I guess it's worth it for the spectacle, as it's more amusing than the rest of the film.

Linda's sister spends the whole movie in the villain's clutches, but still gets some good moments. As she's the one seeing Yellow's atrocities firsthand, she's the one we identify with most. I also liked how tough she was when put up against the wall, badmouthing the murderer. "You're gonna cut me? I'll never be as ugly as you!"

The cast here is mixed. Ok at best, pretty poor at worst. Adrien Brody is a milquetoast lead, and doesn't get a lot to chew on. As the villain (credited as Byron Deidra) he is clearly having more fun, even if his performance verges on bizarre. It's also amusing how perfectly smooth and flawless his skin is, like a typical Hollywood leading man, while all the Italian cast look more 'human'. Emmanuelle Seigner is an ok co-star, while Elsa Pataky makes the most of what could be seen as a pretty thankless part.

Giallo looks like a TV production. So in other words, perfectly acceptable, but not up to par with Argento's previous standard. This wouldn't be a problem if the movie itself was still good, but as it is... The effects are fairly good though. A little goofy in places, and I laughed at the hammer death, but that shouldn't be seen as a complaint! The make-up for Yellow is a bit strange. It's not quite as yellow as you'd expect, and the prosthetic nose Brody gets is odd.

The direction is ok. I've read some say it's like Argento has forgotten to "block shots, or direct actors, or even move the camera", but I didn't find it that bad. It's not that great either. Overall it's passable, with a nice shot here and there. There were two little touches I liked. One is the yellow tinge of Enzo's flashbacks, which manages to be subtle and effective, living up to the name. And second is when we see the giallo books in the killer's apartment, and it's only a brief moment, rather than obviously lingering for a while.

One interesting behind-the-scenes tidbit is a lawsuit involving Adrien Brody. The production company didn't pay him the full amount owed. Thankfully this was just the producers being sneaky, and not Argento or the film itself responsible. Brody has stated he has nothing but good to say about them, which is a relief to hear.
Another factoid is that Argento was reportedly unhappy with the current 'producer's cut' of the film. Whether this is the truth, or just him trying to save face for having made yet more rubbish is up for debate. I'm inclined to believe him in this instance, given what I know about modern cinema and studios. Although I don't think this was ever much good even if in a director's cut (but I would watch. Not happily, but...).

Giallo isn't a terrible film in its own right, but when you consider who made it, it takes a serious dive, especially when you take its title into consideration. This is a film that arrogantly titled itself after a genre, as if to say it's the epitome and height of it. For it to be bad is one thing, but for it to not even be a giallo is pretty inexcusable...

Saturday, April 23, 2022

The Admirable Crichton (1957)

The upper class Loam household has an ordered hierarchy, with Earl Henry and his three daughters at the top, and the servants, head butler Crichton included, at the bottom. Everyone seems to know their place, but after a cruise ends in disaster, everyone ends up stranded on a tropical island, far from civilisation. Here only the strong survive, and the elite may find the roles reversed...

The Admirable Crichton is a classic British comedy. Based on a play by J.M. Barrie, it focuses on the class struggles of the day, where lords and ladies were considered rightfully superior to the common riff-raff, who were expected to know their place, and be servile. Though they speak in such coarse and vulgar ways, if they're going to work for a good household they simply must improve their manner. They're still more furniture than man, but they must imitate their betters even if they are not equal. That's the way England was back in the day, and there are still traces in the present, but thankfully with far less influence as back then.

The first act of the film is devoted to introducing us to the characters, and their status quo.
Something that confused me going in was that the Earl begins the story already on board with the idea of equality among men. I figured he'd be the last person to accept that. This turns out to only be a temporary though, as for all his interest, he switches right back the moment it's inconvenient. His three daughters are the same. They may come across as nice and forward thinking girls, one even taking part in Suffragette riots, but the idea of treating their maids like real people has them acting like spoilt brats.

The Loam family and staff, plus three suitors, are soon going out for a fancy cruise, which finds trouble when the ship is capsized, and they are all stranded on a deserted island. It's here where everyone's true mettle is tested. The upper class lot find themselves utterly useless at pretty much everything, until they're told to shut up and put their back into it. The 'lowly' staff, however, are not only more than suited to both roughing it, but without the influence of modern civilisation, they have no reason to keep acting like the idle rich are genetically better than them. Here on this island, the most capable are the ones who'll thrive and endure.

Time passes, and we see an amusing and interesting reversal of roles, as everyone has become accustomed to island life. They've built low-tech versions of all their old creature comforts, and there are various romantic entanglements, before things reach a dramatic conclusion with the possibility of rescue. Now that they've accepted their new life here, do they even want to be rescued?

It's the ending to The Admirable Crichton that really loses me. Pretty much everything after the party get back to the mainland is a disappointment. The characters are all back to square 1, while the romance fizzles and is met with a downer of an ending, the final relationship feeling more like settling. It feels like the film undermines its own ending. At first you have a pretty good idea of how things will turn out, but then we get a curveball, and enjoy the new direction...But then it suddenly undoes all that and goes back to the original ending.

Overall I think it's a cowardly way to conclude the story, and the same goes for Barrie's original stage play. I don't care if it would've caused a stir back in 1902. Screw all those toffs. He shoulda stuck with his principles and given us the deserved ending.

Primarily a character piece, the collection we have here all entertain. Crichton is a set in his ways butler, who thinks only of his lord's needs. But when push comes to shove, he takes charge, and asserts his dominance. Eldest daughter Mary meanwhile is a fiery lass. The longest of the elites to hold out, before finally falling in love with her former butler. The pair have good chemistry, and are believable together.

The remainder of the characters all have their moments, even if only minor, and none felt particularly wasted, given their varying levels of importance. The 'coarse' but sweet Tweeny is a good presence, as are all the suitors who soon come to be pining for her.

The cast do a fine job, with Kenneth More doing great as a quintessential butler but also fits the part when his inner self comes out, and we see his physical side too. Sally Ann Howes is a good mix of feisty and sweet, mostly the former, while Diane Cilento is decent. Cecil Parker is as reliably good as always, and we also get a young(er) Gerald Harper, along with the remainder of the guys and girls.

The Admirable Crichton is gorgeously shot, and despite being a British film, it manages to look like there's serious money behind it. There are sumptuous manor houses, and a beautiful tropical island. The makeshift structures in the last act are great too, and make life on a deserted island not look like such a bad deal after all.

The film is also known as Paradise Lagoon, which is technically not incorrect, since there is a lagoon, and it's indeed a paradise, but that title still feels wrong. It conjures up images of South Seas adventures, and hunky romance cover men embracing women on the beach, as opposed to a British comedy on the class system.

The Admirable Crichton is plenty of fun, and a solid reminder of why the class system was always full of shit...

Stop Press Girl (1949) and Fools Rush In (1949)

Stop Press Girl

Jennifer Peters is a sweet young country girl, soon to be engaged to enterprising watch tycoon Roy. After making a less than striking impression with her uncle, he learns that all women in Jennifer's family have a strange power. Without knowing, she stops all machinery after 15 minutes-Watches, vacuums, cars, etc. He runs screaming, leading Jennifer to journey to the city, where she meets friendly reporter Jock, and gets a new job as an air hostess...

Stop Press Girl is a fun light fantasy picture. Despite its ideas, it never aims to be high concept, which is ok. For a movie like this, the light touch is appreciated. It's enough to be there, but not so much that the imagination stretches beyond the budget.

Some accuse the movie of having one joke, and running it into the ground. I disagree. Yeah, the movie has this main source of humour, but that doesn't mean it's lazy. We're not just seeing the same joke again and again either. The one element leads to many different jokes. And the movie utilises it well either, never doing too much at once. It keeps an air of simplicity that is justified, especially with the short runtime. A movie that's under 80 minutes is allowed to be simple.

Jennifer is a sweet character, innocent without being naive. It's nice following her on these little adventures, and seeing how she adapts to it all. Her uncle is amusingly business-minded, and gets some great scenes, like his interrogations/dental exams of prospective suitors.

Roy is a likeable enough boy, if not the ideal man for Jennifer. It's amusing hearing him 'smooth talk' her. "I'll be able to give you all the things you've always wanted." "And what are the things I've always wanted, Roy?" "Oh, the usual. Clothes, a car of your own, a flat in town, visits to theatres, races, and parties."

Roving reporter Jock is a more salt-of-the-earth type, and a fun bloke, but flawed enough to create tension (from his inability to just let a good story lie). He immediately gets on well with Jennifer. The pair share good chemistry, and I appreciate the movie having a Scotsman as the romantic partner!

Friendly rival Angela serves as the closest thing the film has to a villain. It's funny how the motives of both the 'villain' and Jennifer actually align. Angela believes her to be a sensation hunter and plans on killing the story. Jennifer meanwhile decidedly isn't a sensation hunter, and is just as eager to squash it. I wish a little more was done with this, like the two women actually working together, but at least it's not bad.

I was a little disappointed with the conclusion, since now no-one will believe Jennifer's powers are real. But I suppose it's ok, since she never wanted that anyway, but Jock's job will certainly be worse for the wear!

The ending itself is a funny way to close out the movie, perfectly fitting for the story.

The cast here is plenty of fun. Sally Ann Howes is a delightful lead. It's a treat seeing her this young, when all I know her from directly is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, almost 20 years later. On that note, here as her patriarchal figure (uncle instead of dad) is James Robertson Justice! He's always a hoot, and is his typical blustery self. Doing a fine job is Gordon Jackson, coming across just as mature as his Professionals days. Nigel Buchanan is good as the beleaguered Roy. Everyone else is fun, and there are even a duo (Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne) who recur as different characters. I never even noticed! I appreciate the subtlety, even if the film might've done too good a job of it.

The visuals here are very nice. While this may have been a more lower budget film, you'd never notice, due to wise directorial choices, nifty effects, and some really neat cinematography in some shots, including a subtle but interesting shot of a lorry driving out of the night fog. The parachute scene is well filmed too.

Stop Press Girl is a charming little movie. If you're keen on early British cinema, this is perfect to check out, and for me is just as good as the likes of Miranda.

Fools Rush In

Pamela Dickson is a young girl on the cusp of marriage, but having cold feet. It's not that she doesn't love fiancee Roy, but in part due to her mother's tempestuous divorce, and her own bad habit of overthinking, Pam insists on postponing the wedding until both she and Roy really understand what it means to get married. Meanwhile, her long-absent father reappears to a mixed reception, and Pam jumps at the opportunity to get to know him. After all, if he's a rotter, the divorce makes sense. But what if he's a perfectly upstanding chap...

Fools Rush in is an example of a simple, nice comedy from England. Simple yet effective. The theme is all about the institution of marriage, and leads to some funny scenarios. It's surprisingly un-dated for it's time, with all its talk of divorce and remarriage. This is still 1949 though, and there are some scenes and exchanges are bound to cause a chuckle or an eye roll.

The story moves along at a fun pace, although I did wish it would hurry up and explain just why Pam's parents divorced, because that mystery keeps most of the cast on edge wondering, and there's no good reason to leave us hanging. If knowing the answer will set everyone's minds at ease, it's a wonder why the parents doesn't just tell them.

Some moments are a little cringey, but are always resolved quickly. Like when Paul gets revenge on the snooping maid by pretending to be a masher. I thought that would cause no end of trouble, but everyone catches on pretty quickly that it's all an act.

Really there was only one thing I disliked about Fools Rush In-The ending. It's hard to tell exactly what's happening, since the action is all offscreen, but either Pam is getting spanked, or...! If the former, it's not exactly fun (characters getting spanked can be an amusing comeuppance and way of ending a movie, although in this case it's a bit much for such a sweet character). If the latter though it's a really misguided and unpleasant way for the movie to wrap up!

Pam is a mixed protagonist. Nice, and surprisingly intelligent! A little too much for her own good, really, much to the frustration of all those around her. I did start to get a bit annoyed with her wishy-washiness by the last act, and was happy to see her eventually see reason. Her fiancee Joe tries his best to cope with the situation, and you feel for the poor guy. It gets to a point where he can't seem to do anything right, like going in for a kiss and forgetting to remove his cigarette.

Pam's mother Angela is naturally bewildered by her daughter's actions. She has a nice relationship with her new partner, Sir Charles. He's a decent guy, though I wasn't a fan of their split-up at the end. It felt like it only happens because the writer wanted it, and not because it was natural. Instead the film concocts a bizarrely sudden reason for them to call it quits, and Angela decides to shack back with her ex, the very same night!

Paul is likewise a perfectly amiable gentleman, and not at all the cad his daughter expected him to be. Although it's weird how there isn't anything wrong with him. He's kinda made out to be perfect, really, which is a bit disappointing. Cheeky maid Millicent gets a few laughs, especially with her scheming later on

The cast all do a fine job here. Sally Ann Howes is sweet as always, even when her character enrages, while Nigel Buchanan gets to be the main love interest this time, and is amusingly exasperated. Guy Rolfe delivers a believable performance, and the remainder of the cast is made up of fun ladies.

The dialogue is the best part of Fools Rush in, and an absolute hoot all these years later
Regarding passion: "You don't get swept off your feet by personal regard." "I prefer to say she was infatuated." "What's the difference?" "Miss Pam, I will not stand here and listen to you accusing your mother of passion."
"I know it sounds mad, but when you came in this morning you seemed so nice, and I thought well if he's a rotter it doesn't show. And that's disturbing. And if he's not a rotter, why couldn't mummy get on with him? And that's even more disturbing!"
"Pam, I will not allow the Encyclopedia Britannica to interfere with my affairs"
"Oh, that revolting old creature!" "Which revolting old creature?"

Overall, Fools Rush In isn't anything special, even among its own ranks, but it's a breezy enough watch, and has some golden dialogue to help elevate it. It's worth watching for fans of old British comedy, and doesn't fail to deliver that quaint charm, even if it isn't a classic...