SPOILERS...Some big warner brothers actors are highlighted in here, but in a "film within a film" kind of thing... Humphrey Bogart, Chester Clute, Cecil Kellaway, Jack Carson. And of course, Grady Sutton! Not a lot of info on this one... only 96 votes as of now. So the rich, old guy thinks he's dying, and leaves all his money to some chick, but the "why" is some big secret. Right from the start, the boyfriend and girlfriend are arguing about the importance of having (or not having) money, and how the balance of power hinges on who has it. It gets kind of corny... suddenly the show they are watching features a couple having the exact same fight. and the old guy doesn't die! It was a little annoying. kind of much ado about nothing; the rich old guy wants his money back, and seems overly concerned about why the wife hasn't mentioned the money to the husband. lot of running around the mulberry bush. more things that don't really make sense. script needs tightening up or something. i can see why this one is only rated 6 stars. Directed by Fred Decordova... who directed the Johnny Carson show all those years. its okay. This has the feel of a film that started out as a play... lots of talking. the cut-aways to the TV shows within the show throw off the timing or something.
9 Reviews
If only life were more like the movies.
mark.waltz7 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Then more dying single millionaires without heirs will be finding complete strangers to give their money to. We got this in 1932 with "If I had a Million", and there have been variations of that theme for years. Here, it's the apparently dying Cecil Kellaway who what's the name out of the phone book and has his attorney Ernest Truex walk up to Joyce Reynolds and hand her the check, no strings attached.
But then he finds out that he is not going to die and decides to get the money back, moving into the boarding house where Reynolds and her husband Robert Hutton live. With Reynolds holding the purse strings and Hutton a struggling writer, it soon becomes a national case of interest when Reynolds and Hutton file for divorce. Other marriages break up over arguments of the case, and public opinion from the male perspective indicates that the wife should share for money just like a husband would be expected to do in a divorce case.
This gives a nice little gender twist, and it's one of the few times that equal rights have been dealt with especially from that perspective. The film is loaded with cameos by Warner brother contract players who appear either on screen as a part of movie scenes (filmed exclusively for this movie) and fantasies in movie fan Reynolds' mind. Kellaway is playing a character that Sydney Greenstreet would also have been perfect for. In fact I remember another Warner Brothers movie from 1947, "That Way With Women", that dealt with a similar theme where a man (Dane Clark) was the recipient of money from a person he didn't know.
So you get Jack Carson, Janis Paige, Humphrey Bogart, Eleanor Parker and Alexis Smith in on-screen cameos, and it's interesting to see Bogart (then the king of Warner Brothers) agreeing to do such a role. This works out being better simply because the writers really took this beyond the type of romantic screwball comedy that had been done for years, and while it is certainly unique, it would have been better had they dealt with the gender issues before the last reel.
But then he finds out that he is not going to die and decides to get the money back, moving into the boarding house where Reynolds and her husband Robert Hutton live. With Reynolds holding the purse strings and Hutton a struggling writer, it soon becomes a national case of interest when Reynolds and Hutton file for divorce. Other marriages break up over arguments of the case, and public opinion from the male perspective indicates that the wife should share for money just like a husband would be expected to do in a divorce case.
This gives a nice little gender twist, and it's one of the few times that equal rights have been dealt with especially from that perspective. The film is loaded with cameos by Warner brother contract players who appear either on screen as a part of movie scenes (filmed exclusively for this movie) and fantasies in movie fan Reynolds' mind. Kellaway is playing a character that Sydney Greenstreet would also have been perfect for. In fact I remember another Warner Brothers movie from 1947, "That Way With Women", that dealt with a similar theme where a man (Dane Clark) was the recipient of money from a person he didn't know.
So you get Jack Carson, Janis Paige, Humphrey Bogart, Eleanor Parker and Alexis Smith in on-screen cameos, and it's interesting to see Bogart (then the king of Warner Brothers) agreeing to do such a role. This works out being better simply because the writers really took this beyond the type of romantic screwball comedy that had been done for years, and while it is certainly unique, it would have been better had they dealt with the gender issues before the last reel.
Silly and gimmicky, but fairly entertaining.
twhiteson18 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This was a tier-B Warner Bros. production starring lesser WB contract players.
The plot: bedridden, miserly millionaire, "Jonathan Turner" (Cecil Kellaway), has been informed by his doctors that he should already be dead due to some unknown malady. With death fast approaching, he orders his put-upon attorney, "Timothy Bull" (Ernest Truex), to give working-class secretary "Jane Barker" (Joyce Reynolds) one million dollars as an anonymous gift. He refuses to inform Bull how he knows Jane or why he wants to give her this money. Thus, Bull can't inform the disbelieving Jane as to the why of this spectacular change of fortune.
Jane has a boyfriend, struggling writer "Donn Masters" (Robert Hutton), whom she supports on her meager paycheck and wants to marry. Despite already providing Donn funds, she's convinced that he'll leave her if he learns that she now has a million dollars due to supposed male pride and society looking down upon men who let women support them. So, she keeps her good fortune secret and allows Donn to believe that they can be married on the $250 royalty check that he received for one of his stories. After their marriage, she surreptitiously keeps Donn mystified how that $250 continues to carry their finances. Yet, she fails to account for two things: 1) Donn never did mind being supported by a woman and 2) millionaire Turner miraculously recovered and has turned "Indian Giver" about that million dollars. Alleged hilarity ensues.
This is a very lightweight romantic comedy. Its plot is beyond silly. Why didn't Turner just add Jane to his will or, at least, make that million dollar gift conditional on his actually dying? Or if Donn was happy to share her $37.50/week paycheck then why would Jane think he'd have an issue with sharing her $1 million? However, this is NOT the kind of film that was meant to be taken seriously or think much about. It's a low budget B-film churned-out to hopefully draws quick smiles, make a quick buck and test whether its stars had an appeal with audiences. It served those purposes.
It does have some entertaining gimmicks. Jane is a big movie fan and we're shown her watching scenes of movies in which actual Warner Bros. A-listers are shown in over-the-top melodramatic moments: Jack Carson, Alexis Smith, Dennis Morgan, and Humphrey Bogart all make cameos as themselves. Bogart has the comic highlight by recreating Barbara Stanwyck's famous final scene from the 1937 weepie "Stella Dallas." Also, Jane has a couple of dream sequences in which she envisions her future, but these scenes have her and Donn as actors on a TV screen ludicrously over-acting poorly-written dialogue. (Hollywood getting some early digs at the alleged poor quality of nascent TV programming.)
Overall, this is easy and forgettable entertainment. Its stars are serviceable with Robert Hutton likeable and Joyce Reynolds cute (especially in those 1940's outfits!) However, their careers never rose and Warner Bros. dropped them after their initial contracts. Hutton would soldier on for another twenty years doing any acting gig for a paycheck until a debilitating injury ended his career. Meanwhile, Reynolds would quit Hollywood. Supposedly, she went to college and then started-up a preschool. Hollywood has always been very tough on most actors.
The plot: bedridden, miserly millionaire, "Jonathan Turner" (Cecil Kellaway), has been informed by his doctors that he should already be dead due to some unknown malady. With death fast approaching, he orders his put-upon attorney, "Timothy Bull" (Ernest Truex), to give working-class secretary "Jane Barker" (Joyce Reynolds) one million dollars as an anonymous gift. He refuses to inform Bull how he knows Jane or why he wants to give her this money. Thus, Bull can't inform the disbelieving Jane as to the why of this spectacular change of fortune.
Jane has a boyfriend, struggling writer "Donn Masters" (Robert Hutton), whom she supports on her meager paycheck and wants to marry. Despite already providing Donn funds, she's convinced that he'll leave her if he learns that she now has a million dollars due to supposed male pride and society looking down upon men who let women support them. So, she keeps her good fortune secret and allows Donn to believe that they can be married on the $250 royalty check that he received for one of his stories. After their marriage, she surreptitiously keeps Donn mystified how that $250 continues to carry their finances. Yet, she fails to account for two things: 1) Donn never did mind being supported by a woman and 2) millionaire Turner miraculously recovered and has turned "Indian Giver" about that million dollars. Alleged hilarity ensues.
This is a very lightweight romantic comedy. Its plot is beyond silly. Why didn't Turner just add Jane to his will or, at least, make that million dollar gift conditional on his actually dying? Or if Donn was happy to share her $37.50/week paycheck then why would Jane think he'd have an issue with sharing her $1 million? However, this is NOT the kind of film that was meant to be taken seriously or think much about. It's a low budget B-film churned-out to hopefully draws quick smiles, make a quick buck and test whether its stars had an appeal with audiences. It served those purposes.
It does have some entertaining gimmicks. Jane is a big movie fan and we're shown her watching scenes of movies in which actual Warner Bros. A-listers are shown in over-the-top melodramatic moments: Jack Carson, Alexis Smith, Dennis Morgan, and Humphrey Bogart all make cameos as themselves. Bogart has the comic highlight by recreating Barbara Stanwyck's famous final scene from the 1937 weepie "Stella Dallas." Also, Jane has a couple of dream sequences in which she envisions her future, but these scenes have her and Donn as actors on a TV screen ludicrously over-acting poorly-written dialogue. (Hollywood getting some early digs at the alleged poor quality of nascent TV programming.)
Overall, this is easy and forgettable entertainment. Its stars are serviceable with Robert Hutton likeable and Joyce Reynolds cute (especially in those 1940's outfits!) However, their careers never rose and Warner Bros. dropped them after their initial contracts. Hutton would soldier on for another twenty years doing any acting gig for a paycheck until a debilitating injury ended his career. Meanwhile, Reynolds would quit Hollywood. Supposedly, she went to college and then started-up a preschool. Hollywood has always been very tough on most actors.
It is about Joyce Reynolds's eyes.
mkilmer14 April 2007
ALWAYS TOGETHER is a cute movie with a clever plot device, the conclusion never seems preordained. Robert Hutton is fine for the part of ne'er-do-well writer Donn Masters, tossing aside what one would think was the proper relationship between masculinity and money in a coupling. Joyce Reynolds has the eyes of star-crossed movie-goer Jane Barker, who comes by a huge sum goes through the film confabulating that incredible reality with the drama of the latest picture.
She gets the money from multi-millionaire Jonathan Turner, with Cecil Kellaway performing splendidly in that role. Having given it, through his attorney, Timothy J. Bull (Ernest Truex, Turner finds he's not going to die and sets about to go to great lengths to get his money back.
Without giving away the ending, it is very clever. The millionaire and his attorney are absorbed by the fantasy, while Jane and Donn confront their new reality.
There are gaps in the story, leaps of plausibility, but it is after all a movie, and a fun one at that. Remember, Joyce Reynolds had beautiful eyes, and the movie is about what Jane Barker sees and how she sees it.
She gets the money from multi-millionaire Jonathan Turner, with Cecil Kellaway performing splendidly in that role. Having given it, through his attorney, Timothy J. Bull (Ernest Truex, Turner finds he's not going to die and sets about to go to great lengths to get his money back.
Without giving away the ending, it is very clever. The millionaire and his attorney are absorbed by the fantasy, while Jane and Donn confront their new reality.
There are gaps in the story, leaps of plausibility, but it is after all a movie, and a fun one at that. Remember, Joyce Reynolds had beautiful eyes, and the movie is about what Jane Barker sees and how she sees it.
Warner Bros. explores the upper limits of how much money . . .
oscaralbert20 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
. . . people can possess without becoming crass mercenary demonic Menaces to Society during ALWAYS TOGETHER. It turns out that this amount is well under one million dollars. This means that, even adjusting for inflation, the always eponymous Warner Bros. are warning America that when the Revolution against America's Tyrannical Obscene Accumulators Displaying Stolen Oodles of Looted Stuff (that is, the TOADSTOOLS) comes, millions of them must go! ALWAYS TOGETHER's lead villain, "Jonathan Turner," epitomizes the corrupt corporate Communist brand of Capitalism that has made the USA just as Hellish as Russia. Turner's fortune is a wobbly house of cards based upon the systematic swindling that the U.S. courts have been molded to protect, ALWAYS TOGETHER reveals. If We "Little People" are not cheated out of Life itself--as "Jane Barker's" dad is here--we are doomed to find ourselves cold and wet, standing empty-handed in the rain, catching bleary glimpses of the Fat Cat One Per Centers living it up while we weep for our stolen birthright like "Humphrey Bogart" did at the close of YESTERDAY IS GONE. However, Warner reminds us that Tomorrow lies just beyond the close of Today, giving us time to Rise Up and seize back our Well Being from the Turner-like scoundrels who have debased all levels of Government in order to Lord it over us. The hour has come to stop "Paddock" and his fellow millionaires from gunning us down one-by-one from their high windows, Warner warns us. ALWAYS TOGETHER suggests that we follow Jane's lead and give the money moguls a cold shoulder (preferably by stripping them of their citizenship, bump stocks, furs, and ill-gotten wealth while forcing them to self-deport Antarctica way).
Sometimes the laughs are a bit thin...
planktonrules27 September 2009
The premise for ALWAYS TOGETHER isn't that bad provided you suspend disbelief, but the film just doesn't quite work for me--probably because the humor is occasionally a bit broad and the characters are seldom believable.
The film begins with a cranky old multi-millionaire (Cecil Kellaway, in one of his few acting misfires) on his deathbed. In a strange last request, he tells his lawyer to give $1,000,000 to Jane Barker (Joyce Reynolds)--even though he and Miss Barker have never met! This is not like IF I HAD A MILLION or the TV show "The Millionaire"--there is some reason he chose her, though this isn't revealed until the end of the film.
At first, Barker thinks the lawyer is either crazy or playing a trick on her. However, eventually she realizes it's true--she's now worth a million. However, her fiancé (Robert Hutton) is a very proud sort of person and she doesn't know if having the money will hurt their chances of getting married, so she keeps this to herself and they wed.
Shortly afterwords, Kellaway recovers and wants his million back. When the lawyer points out that Kellaway has several million more already, this does not deter the millionaire from doing some horrible scheming to get the lady to want to give the money back. For example, he deliberately makes sure the husband finds out about the money. Ultimately, the plan seems to work--as the money appears to be destroying this young marriage. Can the young couple sort everything out? Will the greedy old millionaire get his money? By the end, does anyone really still care?
As I said above, as the film progresses, the humor and characterizations become broader and less believable. Up until about halfway through the film, I liked ALWAYS TOGETHER a lot. By the latter portion, I almost turned it off but somehow stuck with it to the end (which, happily, did improve--thanks to the funny scene with the Judge and a nice plot twist). All in all, it's obvious that this B-movie did not spend a lot of effort on the plot and working on the actors' reactions (which occasionally seemed over the top). Hutton was completely uninteresting and Reynolds, though exceptionally beautiful, seemed a bit too kooky the be a real person. Watchable but occasionally tedious.
The film begins with a cranky old multi-millionaire (Cecil Kellaway, in one of his few acting misfires) on his deathbed. In a strange last request, he tells his lawyer to give $1,000,000 to Jane Barker (Joyce Reynolds)--even though he and Miss Barker have never met! This is not like IF I HAD A MILLION or the TV show "The Millionaire"--there is some reason he chose her, though this isn't revealed until the end of the film.
At first, Barker thinks the lawyer is either crazy or playing a trick on her. However, eventually she realizes it's true--she's now worth a million. However, her fiancé (Robert Hutton) is a very proud sort of person and she doesn't know if having the money will hurt their chances of getting married, so she keeps this to herself and they wed.
Shortly afterwords, Kellaway recovers and wants his million back. When the lawyer points out that Kellaway has several million more already, this does not deter the millionaire from doing some horrible scheming to get the lady to want to give the money back. For example, he deliberately makes sure the husband finds out about the money. Ultimately, the plan seems to work--as the money appears to be destroying this young marriage. Can the young couple sort everything out? Will the greedy old millionaire get his money? By the end, does anyone really still care?
As I said above, as the film progresses, the humor and characterizations become broader and less believable. Up until about halfway through the film, I liked ALWAYS TOGETHER a lot. By the latter portion, I almost turned it off but somehow stuck with it to the end (which, happily, did improve--thanks to the funny scene with the Judge and a nice plot twist). All in all, it's obvious that this B-movie did not spend a lot of effort on the plot and working on the actors' reactions (which occasionally seemed over the top). Hutton was completely uninteresting and Reynolds, though exceptionally beautiful, seemed a bit too kooky the be a real person. Watchable but occasionally tedious.
Great gimmick, feeble film
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre15 October 2003
'Always Together' is a low-budget Warner Brothers drama with one of the cleverest gimmicks I've ever seen in any movie. That gimmick is probably the only reason why you'll want to see this film. Unfortunately, the gimmick is used in the service of a turgidly dull and unsympathetic plot line. If only this gimmick had been saved for a better movie!
The plot is simple, dull and implausible all at the same go. Jane and Don are impoverished newlyweds. Although they badly need funds, Jane is convinced that money is the root of all evil. A wealthy eccentric, dying from one of those convenient B-movie diseases, bequeaths a million smackeroonies to Jane. She accepts the aforementioned smackeroonies with unlikely reluctance, but without telling Don. Then the dying millionaire recovers, and he wants his money back.
The lead roles in this film are played by actors who never attained stardom, mainly because (how can I put this tactfully?) they stink. As the millionaire with the boomerang bankroll, Cecil Kellaway is a bit less twinkle-twee than usual. Ernest Truex (who usually annoys me) is impressive in a supporting role. A special dungeon in the deepest circle of Hell is reserved for Chester Clute, the most annoying actor in the entire history of Hollywood, who plays here a (much too long) brief role in the proceedings.
Oh, yeah: that gimmick. Like the character played by Mia Farrow in 'The Purple Rose of Cairo' (a much better movie than this one), Jane tries to forget her troubles by going to the movies. Conveniently, the actions of the characters she watches on screen at the matinees seem to parallel the situations which Jane is experiencing in her own life. Now here's the great part: the characters in these films-within-the-film are played by actual movie stars, instantly recognisable. Humphrey Bogart does a brief scene, weeping near a windowpane. Errol Flynn gets a look-in, as do Alexis Smith and Jack Carson. 'Always Together' is a Warners film, so it's not surprising that the actors in these films-within-the-film are all actors under contract to Warners: the impressive part is that they're all Warners STARS, rather than merely contract players. This reminds me of a running feature in the TV series 'M*A*S*H', which was produced by 20th Century-Fox: whenever the 'M*A*S*H' unit had a movie night, the movie was always (by some amazing coincidence) an old 20th Century-Fox film.
This sludge was written by Henry and Phoebe Ephron, a couple of hacks who were deservedly forgotten ... but who are now well-known again due to the recent prominence of their daughter Nora Ephron. I'll rate 'Always Together' 3 points out of 10, solely for the brief performances of the famous actors in the films-within-the-film.
The plot is simple, dull and implausible all at the same go. Jane and Don are impoverished newlyweds. Although they badly need funds, Jane is convinced that money is the root of all evil. A wealthy eccentric, dying from one of those convenient B-movie diseases, bequeaths a million smackeroonies to Jane. She accepts the aforementioned smackeroonies with unlikely reluctance, but without telling Don. Then the dying millionaire recovers, and he wants his money back.
The lead roles in this film are played by actors who never attained stardom, mainly because (how can I put this tactfully?) they stink. As the millionaire with the boomerang bankroll, Cecil Kellaway is a bit less twinkle-twee than usual. Ernest Truex (who usually annoys me) is impressive in a supporting role. A special dungeon in the deepest circle of Hell is reserved for Chester Clute, the most annoying actor in the entire history of Hollywood, who plays here a (much too long) brief role in the proceedings.
Oh, yeah: that gimmick. Like the character played by Mia Farrow in 'The Purple Rose of Cairo' (a much better movie than this one), Jane tries to forget her troubles by going to the movies. Conveniently, the actions of the characters she watches on screen at the matinees seem to parallel the situations which Jane is experiencing in her own life. Now here's the great part: the characters in these films-within-the-film are played by actual movie stars, instantly recognisable. Humphrey Bogart does a brief scene, weeping near a windowpane. Errol Flynn gets a look-in, as do Alexis Smith and Jack Carson. 'Always Together' is a Warners film, so it's not surprising that the actors in these films-within-the-film are all actors under contract to Warners: the impressive part is that they're all Warners STARS, rather than merely contract players. This reminds me of a running feature in the TV series 'M*A*S*H', which was produced by 20th Century-Fox: whenever the 'M*A*S*H' unit had a movie night, the movie was always (by some amazing coincidence) an old 20th Century-Fox film.
This sludge was written by Henry and Phoebe Ephron, a couple of hacks who were deservedly forgotten ... but who are now well-known again due to the recent prominence of their daughter Nora Ephron. I'll rate 'Always Together' 3 points out of 10, solely for the brief performances of the famous actors in the films-within-the-film.
But it's actually funny!
crewbie3 October 2006
I was fully expecting this one to be the usual trite, mildly amusing romances that proliferated during this period. I would've been okay with that, except it wasn't - it was so much more. More original and way more than mildly amusing.
It dodged the first bullet of triteness when the love story was not between the millionaire and the girl, but between the girl and her (broke) boyfriend. Then, instead of the boy being affronted by the prospect of being supported by his wife's money (as in the hilarious movie clip shown at the beginning of this movie), he reacts in a perfectly sensible and realistic manner.
Beyond the freshness of the plot itself, it was genuinely funny, causing me to laugh uproariously several times. I don't want to ruin any of the gags; just keep in mind this is a satire of the usual rags-to-riches comedy, not dumb and dumber comedy. I found Always Together to be quite entertaining and fresh.
It dodged the first bullet of triteness when the love story was not between the millionaire and the girl, but between the girl and her (broke) boyfriend. Then, instead of the boy being affronted by the prospect of being supported by his wife's money (as in the hilarious movie clip shown at the beginning of this movie), he reacts in a perfectly sensible and realistic manner.
Beyond the freshness of the plot itself, it was genuinely funny, causing me to laugh uproariously several times. I don't want to ruin any of the gags; just keep in mind this is a satire of the usual rags-to-riches comedy, not dumb and dumber comedy. I found Always Together to be quite entertaining and fresh.
Stylish and amusing!
JohnHowardReid2 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to believe this stylishly directed movie was turned out by Frederick De Bonzo Cordova. True, it was produced by Alex Gottlieb, one of the most intelligent and capable men on the Warner Brothers' lot. Even more importantly it was conceived by the Ephrons and cleverly revised by the witty Izzy Diamond (later a close associate of Billy Wilder). It wouldn't surprise me if it was Izzy's ingenious idea to make Jane a keen picturegoer, treating herself (and us) to such side-splitting gems as "Million Dollar Lady" and "Yesterday Is Gone".
However, the situations are even more laugh-provoking "off screen". The characters have been imaginatively conceived in a solidly realistic way. Their reactions always seem perfectly natural, but this only makes them even more delightfully amusing. As a result, many of the lines and "business" come across as very funny indeed.
Vivacious Joyce Reynolds and the normally glum (but brilliantly cast here) Robert Hutton make an excellent team, although impishly irascible Cecil Kellaway has all the best lines and easily manages to steal the film (with a close assist from Ernest Truex and a host of hilarious character players led by Ransom Sherman and Tom Dugan).
Production values are absolutely top-drawer with strikingly moody photography from Carl Guthrie, great (in both senses of that word) sets from Leo K. Kuter and a very pleasant music score from Werner Heymann.
Vivacious Joyce Reynolds and the normally glum (but brilliantly cast here) Robert Hutton make an excellent team, although impishly irascible Cecil Kellaway has all the best lines and easily manages to steal the film (with a close assist from Ernest Truex and a host of hilarious character players led by Ransom Sherman and Tom Dugan).
Production values are absolutely top-drawer with strikingly moody photography from Carl Guthrie, great (in both senses of that word) sets from Leo K. Kuter and a very pleasant music score from Werner Heymann.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
