Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

JohnHowardReid This movie seems to have sparked an almost even mixture of highly favorable and downright negative reviews. I'm afraid I agree with the negative brigade. After the box office disaster of "Beau James" (1957) in which Hope invested his own money and literally lost his shirt, he seems to have taken any assignment that came along. (Personally, I thought "Beau James" was an absolutely terrific movie. I loved it, but hardly anyone agrees with me). Anyway, for whatever reason, I think most of us would agree that Bob Hope made some very poor films in the 1960s, starting with the verbose but unfunny "The Facts of Life"; continuing with "Bachelor in Paradise" (which starts amusingly, but the promise of its sprightly opening scenes is unfortunately not realized); recovers a lot of momentum with "Road to Hong Kong" (even though it's one of the least amusing of the "Road" pictures); then really plumbs the depths with "Critic's Choice". For me, it's a movie with no virtues at all. The characters are not just unsympathetic, they're thoroughly unpleasant. As a result, everything they do and say is negative. Maybe it worked well on the stage, where the audience is less involved, less close to the venal, utterly selfish, self-promoting characters. Maybe?

bigverybadtom I saw the video in the library and the box advertising certainly made the movie sound good, as well as the all-star cast listed. But on bringing it home and watching it, neither my mother or I cared for it or bothered to see it to the end. There were hardly any laughs and the whole thing was basically unappealing.Perhaps the play it was based on was much better. But theater critic Parker was simply a mean-spirited and unlikable man, destroying theater productions by his bad reviews, being obnoxious to family and friends, sneering at his wife's creative efforts, yet expecting people to like him anyway. He also attaches too much importance to his job, saying he would lose his self-respect if he didn't review things as he did. If Lucille Ball, who played his wife, acted as she did in her other roles, she would have reacted far more strongly to him. This is one of the dullest performances of her career.

Neil Doyle BOB HOPE and LUCILLE BALL do okay in this mild comedy about a woman (Lucy) who decides to show her theater critic hubby (Hope) that she can create a play based on her family relatives.RIP TORN is amusing as the director of Lucy's play, working on it night and day to put it into shape while Hope seethes with jealousy. Meanwhile, his ex-wife, MARILYN MAXWELL, is around often enough to keep Lucy irate enough.The friction between theater critic and playwright comes to life whenever they trade barbs. The comedy aspects fall flat once in awhile with the more serious moments given more emphasis than usual in a Bob Hope/Lucille Ball comedy.JESSIE ROYCE LANDIS does nicely as Hope's mother. This isn't the typical fare expected of Hope or Ball, but it has its moments where the plot elements have more dimension than usual in a caper of this sort.Hope has his usual one-liners."What are you trying to do--drown your troubles?" a bartender asks him."No, I'm just teaching them how to swim."

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.