Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

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

arfdawg-1 In this sequel to Father of the Bride (1950), Stanley Banks learns that his daughter Kay is going to have a baby. When they get the news everyone except Stanley is overjoyed. His wife and grandmother-to-be Ellie broadcasts it everywhere and all Stan can do is worry about the practical things like how his son-in-law Buckley can afford it. Well, having not long ago paid for the wedding, Stanley has no intention of bearing any of the expenses involved. Buckley's parents and Ellie are overjoyed at the news and virtually take over redecorating the young couple's new house. Crisis and false alarms take over their lives and when the child is born, the only person he doesn't seem to like is Stanley. A walk in the park - and absolute panic when Stanley misplaces his grandson - seems to resolve the situation.The print I saw was good but the sound was muffled. This film was made at a time when Hollywood started to direct films like TV shows. That's not necessarily a negative.Tracy's wive in this movie looks 35 years younger than him. He looks like he should have been the great grandfather, not the grandfather.It's a very bumper type movie transitioning from the 40s to the 60s.Not exactly my cup of tea, but not a horrible movie.

zetes In honor of Elizabeth Taylor. This is, of course, the sequel to Father of the Bride, which, in all honesty, I found to be a middling comedy at best (I actually prefer the Steve Martin version from the '90s, though I'll admit that one's nothing special, either). Father's Little Dividend is no better, and it's done no favors by the absolutely putrid public domain copies floating around (including the version on Netflix Instant, which is where I watched this; I've seen bits of it before on TCM and the copy they show is much better). Taylor is really a supporting character in this movie (and the first one). This is undoubtedly a Spencer Tracy vehicle through-and-through. He narrates the picture and is on screen about 90% of the time. And he's charming, of course. As are Taylor and Joan Bennett. But few of the jokes work. The drama actually works a little better. The best scene in the movie is the one where Tracy speaks to Taylor after she decides to leave her husband over a petty argument. It could have been played for laughs, but it's used as a nice father/daughter moment. The part at the end where Tracy loses his grandson is downright scary when watching it today. He left him alone for 30 minutes in a park! It's played for comedy, but today he'd rightly be arrested!

Steffi_P There's nothing about a sequel that necessarily makes it bad. Sometimes stories are left open-ended so that a follow-up makes sense, or writers may be able to top their previous effort by putting a new spin on the material. There are also some great movie franchises where the same characters can be recycled for numerous stories. However one type of sequel that almost inevitably turns out turkey is the cash-in rehash of a recent hit movie, the hope being that reuniting the same crew and characters will strike the same box office gold without spending too much time, effort or money.In Father's Little Dividend, sequel to Father of the Bride, the "fast buck" motive was even faster than usual. The closeness of release dates indicates it was probably green-lighted while its predecessor was still in its theatrical run. It was shot in just twenty-two days (the kind of schedule a B-movie would usually get), perhaps because star Elizabeth Taylor and director Vincente Minnelli were scheduled to begin work on more important projects, A Place in the Sun and An American in Paris respectively, and the whole thing looks very rushed. The screenplay is riddled with plot holes and underdeveloped patches. Minnelli sticks largely to long, static takes and straightforward shot compositions. Not that there is anything wrong with such simplicity, it's just that Minnelli could usually work such magic with elaborate arrangements and delicate flow, which clearly he didn't have time for here.Father's Little Dividend also drops the device that made Father of the Bride work so well. Although it still retains a Spencer Tracy voice-over narrative and keeps him as the primary character, it is no longer quite so exclusively his story. In Father of the Bride he was a fairly passive character, but the focus was always upon his thoughts and his reactions as all the bustle of the wedding went on in the background. He is now a much more active character, but he is sharing the limelight far more with his co-stars. The result is that this is a far more routine piece of storytelling, without that unique take that elevated Father of the Bride above the average romcom. Taylor has a bigger role, probably to reflect her growing stardom, and in fact her heart-to-heart scenes with Tracy (something writer Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett are very good at) are among the nicest moments in the picture. However the larger parts for comedy players Moroni Olsen and Billie Burke don't work so well as the characters simply aren't funny or engaging enough.This is one of the few major studio productions to be in the public domain. Apparently MGM failed to renew the rights, perhaps due to oversight or simple lack of interest. As such it's available in dozens of shoddy, fuzzy-looking DVD editions, which to be honest pretty much do it justice. There's little point waiting for a nice restoration – the picture itself will always be a disappointment.

Snow Leopard This solid sequel to "Father of the Bride" has some good moments, and with the same cast on hand plus a similar story line, it feels very much like a direct continuation of the original. "Father's Little Dividend" is a cut below its predecessor, but it works all right in itself.Spencer Tracy once again plays the rather hapless Stanley Banks, and again he shows how good he could be in a rather thankless role. It's almost unfortunate that he seems so natural as a flustered or put-upon husband or father, since he often played such roles although he could do so many other things as well or better. But as far as this pair of movies went, he was certainly a fine choice, since he makes the character believable and sympathetic.Tracy's character is the focal point for the common kinds of changes and adjustments that families must make as the younger generation grows up. Although his reactions are often exaggerated, in general it is fairly easy to understand Stanley's constant feeling of apprehension about any and all changes.As with the first movie, Elizabeth Taylor works very well as Kay, giving her an appealing presence and a simple believability.The pace and the material of this one are not as consistent as they were in the first movie, and some of the comedy ideas come across rather awkwardly. But at other times the characters and cast make things work quite well, and in fact the simplest moments are some of the best ones in the movie.