Christmas in Connecticut (1945)

Waste of time

Good start, but then it gets ruined

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

In Christmas in Connecticut, a Martha-Stewart-style columnist is actually a fraud, grinding out columns from her city apartment, who is suddenly asked by her boss to throw a Christmas dinner in the farm she doesn't actually own.That's a really clever idea for a movie, and I had a good feeling about it when I was googling for Christmas films I'd never seen, but alas, the experience was underwhelming. While the cast list is impressive, the script is weak and nonsensical and the direction is lackluster. I rarely laughed, I felt the story was full of holes, I thought one character was treated pretty shabbily just because he was boring, and I found the constant duplicity extreme even by the standards of 40s comedies, particularly since no lie ever catches up with anyone.The movie also didn't have a strong Christmasy feel to it.There was one thing though that, in the context of a 1945 movie, is rather wondrous. There are two very very minor roles by black actors, a delivery person and a waiter or busboy. And the actors are allowed to be normal, with none of the "Yas ma'ams" and dopey remarks typical of the period. In fact, the waitstaff guy gives a dictionary definition of a long word, which makes him one of the smarter people in the movie. The number of Hollywood movies that portray African-Americans as normal human beings is so vanishingly small that I'm always excited to discover one. Outside of that, though, I didn't enjoy this movie.My girlfriend, on the other hand, kinda liked it.

For the longest time I thought I'd already seen this picture, but reading the cast list when it appeared on a cable channel listing, I realized that wasn't so. I must have been thinking "Holiday Inn", having a similar style setting and taking place in Connecticut. Both also have a story that defies credibility, though this one has more humorous elements to make it a fun, breezy offering.Veteran actors step out of their usual film personas to create interesting characters here. Barbara Stanwyck usually goes for the strong willed woman type while Sydney Greenstreet often portrays a more somber character. I don't know how many times it might have happened, but this is the second time Greenstreet happened to be called a 'fat man' in a picture. He had the same distinction as Signor Ferrari in "Casablanca", a movie in which S.Z Sakall also appeared doing a humorous bit similar to the one he performs here as Felix Bassenak.You know, I think the screen writers missed an opportunity when they brought in the second baby to confound the guests at the Sloan residence. Wouldn't it have been neat if Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan) had to change the baby one more time and discovered that he had a spare part? Why didn't they think of that? Well as holiday films go, this one skirts the idea by virtue of taking place around Christmas time, but the tree is in place with the presents underneath, and even offers up "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem" as one of the musical offerings. If you decide to tune in, don't get mixed up like me and confuse it with other holiday flicks that show up around the same time of year. Especially when the opening scene begins the story on a German submarine!

It was interesting to watch a holiday movie in August. I do think these stories should air year round and not just in December. I had never seen Christmas IN CONNECTICUT all the way through. Well, now, I finally have. I found myself focusing on S.Z. Sakall's performance as Felix the cook-- you know, the guy who says "everything is hunky-dunky!" But in addition to Sakall, the rest of the cast shines too-- and it's obvious they were all having fun making this film. There's a lot of screwball comedy here, and the dialogue is just so intentionally silly in spots that you can't help but love it. Sakall's scenes with Stanwyck are quite good, but his scenes with Greenstreet are even better. And there's a scene at his restaurant early in the film where he walks around and doesn't have dialogue. If you watch that part carefully, you will see a great bit of improvisation. Truly one of the best character actors in Hollywood during the 1940s.

I found this movie disappointing. Which surprised me, because I like most of the actors and they do a decent job here. So what's the problem? Well, it all just seems too contrived.Barbara Stanwyck is fine as the female lead, although I don't see this as one of her outstanding performances (and there were many). Dennis Morgan is pleasant, as he always was; I typically enjoy him in a film. Nice to see Sydney Greenstreet taking one of his lighter roles. Reginald Gardiner, not always one of my favorites, is fine here as the husband to be (?). S.Z. Sakall plays S.Z. Sakall (he was no actor...always played the same role...but was adorable). And, Una O'Connor was as delightful, as always. So, the problem is not the actors.The problem is the script. Sort of a screwball Christmas story...but not quite. Disappointing in terms of romance. It had its funny moments, but not that many moments strung together. The only thing that really comes together in the story are the contrived circumstances.I'm not saying it's a bad movie. It's okay. Pretty average. But as much as I love a good Christmas movie, this just didn't light my Christmas tree. Okay to watch...once.