IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

vincentlynch-moonoi Humorous, but not out and out funny. This is Joe E. Brown in one of his earlier films...before he had really formed his on screen persona. Perhaps the best bit in the film is the segment where he is being medically tested...again, humorous, but you're not going to laugh out loud.The basic plot is that two down-and-out newspaper reporters get roped into their own lies, with Brown letting people believe he is a famous pilot.The casting is interesting. Brown was still in a formative period. Lawrence Gray as a fellow newspaper reporter was decent, and certainly much better than Jack Whiting in another of Brown's 1930 films. Ona Munson is the female lead here (her first starring role). Never heard of her? Yes you have -- Belle Watling in "Gone With The Wind"! Walter Pidgeon is rather dashing here as the opposing pilot...although he had appeared in several films when this film was produced. Frank McHugh is around again, and does somewhat nicely here, though clearly he had not develop his screen persona yet, either. Interestingly, this was made as a musical, but all but one musical number was cut from the American release since audiences had soured on musicals. No known full prints exist with the musical numbers intact. The finale -- an air race -- had potential, but wasn't realized. How can no one fly a plane and remain in the air that long???This film is better for Joe E. Brown fans. His better films are yet to come.

ksf-2 My least favorite Joe Brown film. I LOVE Frank McHugh and Waldo Pidgeon, but the bad jokes, bad acting, and bad script are just all too silly. The first time I saw this, I wondered why no director was credited, and now we now why. And another thing. Why do all the women talk in that screechie high pitched voice in films from the 1930s?? Was that really the rage during the 1930s? I'm sure I sound like a grumpy old man by this point, but it really is pretty lame. Interesting piece of spinning equipment when they are giving "Rollo" the exam up on the roof. Was that some real testing equipment, or had they just come up with something silly for the film. You can tell talkies were relatively new.. they still use title cards in this one. Most of the film is like a three stooges scene. Ah well. They can't all be great. It's just "okay. There were a couple fun and funny scenes here and there, so it wasn't a total washout. just my three and a half cents.

frankebe I'm inclined to agree with the positive reviewers about this film. After reading the most negative review, and then actually watching the film itself, I wonder what some of you expect from a comedy. Certainly, this is not a Marx Brothers film and Joe E. Brown is not Groucho Marx. So what? It is a LIGHT comedy, a screwy comedy, and a character story. What's wrong with that? I can't watch Three Stooges ALL the time! As it is, I agree with those who thought that this is a very funny movie; the exposition in particular had me practically clucking in pleasure at Brown's outrageous characterization. It does greatly help to see Joe E. movies in first-rate condition on a big screen. I saw the new DVD release from the Warner Brothers Archives, apparently struck right off the original negative or a safety negative, watched it on a 55" flat screen, and it came across very nicely. There are a lot of things to look at in such a pristine print of a film this old and this well made. The actual filmstock was different back then, a little more grainy but very clear, immediately giving the movie that ancient 'vintage' quality, which I find engaging (I associate it with my favorite films of my childhood black-and-white TV viewing). The styles of hair, dress, and architecture are very clear and interesting (the "heart test machine" is particularly quaint). The painted backgrounds are beautiful and perfect, and the rear projection during the rather hair-raising finale is EXCELLENTLY done (as is the rear projection in the train). This is a very high-quality, high-production-value film with loads of extras and great care taken of all the cinematic details.The flying bed and the unexpectedly bizarre physical exam are two highlights and both are very funny. No wonder there are no consequences for the main characters' charade—they are obviously not the only frauds in this story! AND, for those of us who want to see more of Brown's specialty acts, he DOES get a funny song!It's not a great film like a Chaplin film, or 'Duck Soup' or a wildly inventive W.C. Fields movie, but it is a COMPLETELY enjoyable Sunday-afternoon film, done up in perfect 1930s style, which I will rate 8 stars out 10. Not a film I'll look at over and over, but definitely a Keeper.

mark.waltz The same cast of 1929's "Top Speed" gets together for similar farcial fare in "Going Wild", a comedy about a nobody being mistaken for a famous pilot. Brown, of course, is the unfortunate nobody who must quickly train to learn how to fly. This leads to some hysterical sequences involving a murphy bed attached to a vacuum cleaner, an X-Ray machine, and a flying machine similar to the one used by Marie Dressler in 1932's "Emma". The flying sequence is similar to the boat sequence used in "Top Speed". There is one minor song between Joe E. Brown and Laura Lee which is tamer than anything they did in their previous film together. Lawrence Gray replaces Jack Whiting as the romantic lead, but Frank McHugh repeats his drunken supporting role. A few years away from stardom, Walter Pidgeon makes a memorable villain.