Brendon Jones
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
wes-connors
Broadway theatre critic Bob Hope (as Parker Ballantine) is known for his stinging reviews of bad plays. When beautiful red-haired wife Lucille Ball (as Angela "Angie " Ballantine) decides to become a playwright, Mr. Hope decides he will be completely objective in reviewing her work. Hope doesn't like the first draft and refuses to help Ms. Ball during re-writes and run-throughs. Ball is encouraged by a producer's interest and works closely with younger director Rip Torn (as Dion Kapakos); a romance, or the potential for one, develops. Meanwhile, Hope is perused by still-interested first wife Marilyn Maxwell (as Ivy London)...With all the re-writes, it's odd nobody re-wrote "Critic's Choice"...Hope's character is unlikable, and he's not a competent reviewer; he walks out of the opening play, which the audience enjoys, and declares it bad. Hope writes a review of Ball's play even though he was too drunk to see anything. Hope should have helped Ball and excused himself from reviewing her play. The relationship between Ball and Mr. Torn is confusing. Little Ricky Kelman (as John) should have been Ball's son; in the original play, the character "Angela" was too old to have a 12-year-old son. By the way, young Kelman and older Jessie Royce Landis (as Charlotte "Charlie" Orr) do well in supporting the legendary co-stars.**** Critic's Choice (4/3/63) Don Weis ~ Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Ricky Kelman, Rip Torn
tday-1
based on a Broadway show by Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby) author,really bizarre tale of a theater critic and his wannabe playwright wife. Bob and Lucy appeared in other films but this one was their worst. The critic doesn't even bother to stay through the plays.He leaves in the middle and goes back to office for hatchet job. He's bombed out of his mind when he sees wife's play and then destroys it in print. How unfair is that?The idea,I suppose,was to show the folly of a wife trying to leave the nest for her own career and serving hubby was all the fulfillment she needed out of life. I saw this film when I was nine and even then I thought it was unfair Lucy didn't get to have a success as a playwright. Bob seemed pompous and overbearing,like the typical hubbys in fifties and sixties films who were threatened by their wive's success.
Ripshin
I will assume that Ira Levin's original Broadway play was much better than this dull, tedious film. It has obviously been altered to fit the acting styles of Ball and Hope. Lucy's role comes across as a toned-down version of her Lucy-wants-to get-in-show-business character, and Hope hams it up as the husband. Scene after scene comes across as rather pedestrian. The sets and cinematography are fine, and Edith Head provides Lucy with great costumes. Perhaps fans of the then-running "Lucy Show" made this film a success. However, 1968's "Yours, Mine and Ours" is a much better vehicle for Ball, even if her advanced age made that role unrealistic. In retrospect, Lucy comes across as annoying and passive in this film. In addition, the child actor Ricky Kelman is extremely irritating as the son of Hope, and step-son of Ball.
moonspinner55
Torturous farce based on Ira Levin's stage hit about nasty East Coast theater critic who insists on writing the review for his wife's new play. Bob Hope is utterly unpleasant throughout this ham-handed dud, which was apparently more sophisticated in its original form. Lucille Ball gets in a few choice moments, but the lousy finale cheats her and the viewer. An unmitigated disaster which probably looked more promising on the deal-table at Sardi's than it does on the screen. Don Weis is responsible for the flat direction; Charles Lang photographed, in blurry reds and depressing grays. If this is the continuation of "The Facts of Life", I'll stick with Hope and Ball from 1960. * from ****
