a_chinn Corny but likable Abbott and Costello comedy about the duo working at a dude ranch and discovering a Nazi plot (this was filmed during WWII after all). Most of the the comedy is their usual Who's-On-First-like word play and like a lot of Marx Brothers and other comedy pictures of the time, this one features several musical numbers. You also have Tom Conway and Kathryn Grayson, so there's a solid supporting cast, for this otherwise forgettable but entertaining enough of Abbott and Costello picture.

JoeKarlosi Abbott and Costello were huge stars over at Universal Studios during this time, and this was the first time they made a movie for another studio (MGM) during their peak years. The results are quite good as far as the comical shenanigans of A&C are concerned -- they engage in some pretty laughable situations and were really spot-on at their game here, having energetic fun; I wonder if they were trying harder to show that they could be just as good for a rival studio other than their own? But unfortunately it isn't all roses. MGM was noted for their musicals, and there is a lot of singing trickled about here -- though unlike some of the more upbeat ditties from the Andrews Sisters in the Universal movies, these interludes are cringe-worthy. I mean there's some downright AWFUL singing to be endured in RIO RITA. The worst is a lengthy cadenza performed by one of the lead ladies. Just brutal. Too bad, as this could have been a good solid vehicle for Bud and Lou. **1/2 out of ****

MartinHafer During the 1920-1940s, MGM made a ton of wonderful films. However, when it came to comedies (especially comedy teams), they really were inept. Here is the track record: With Laurel and Hardy, Hal Roach Studios released films through MGM and MGM didn't touch the productions. When they did a MGM films without Roach, it resulted in THE AIR RAID WARDENS and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE--two of their worst films.With Buster Keaton, he was a genius during the silent era. His first MGM film, the CAMERAMAN, was pretty good. But, then they soon began making sound films, they got the brilliant idea of pairing Keaton (a brilliant physical comedian) with Jimmy Durante (a loud and brash comedian). This mix naturally didn't work and they all but abandoned physical comedy. This effectively ruined Keaton's solo career.With the Three Stooges, the studio didn't know what to do. So, they let them go after making a few bizarre films, like DANCING LADY, where the Stooges played solo acts in a Clark Gable and Joan Crawford film.With the Marx Brothers, although A NIGHT AT THE OPERA and A DAY AT THE RACES were classics, soon the studio put them in insipid formulaic films like THE BIG STORE and AT THE CIRCUS. Gone were their wild and crazy earlier style of films and many believe their films with Paramount (DUCK SOUP, HORSE FEATHERS and others) were their best and most consistent films.With Abbott and Costello, after a long string of very successful films with Universal, they were "loaned out" (i.e., bought for several films) to MGM. This resulted in three rather bland films. MGM decided the team was a flash in the pan and returned them to Universal--after which, the team went on to make many very successful films.So, the fact that I wasn't impressed with RIO RITA is no big surprise--the MGM folks simply had no idea how to make this type of film and spent very little making it. This is very surprising that with the success of Abbott and Costello in their previous films. That MGM (a very high-class studio) would make such a cheap looking film was amazing and it was much cheaper than the films the team did with a much smaller Universal Studios. For example, in the bad segment at the garage near the beginning of the film, you can see the seam in the "sky" and the sound is terrible--like they are filming in a warehouse--which is what they seemed to be doing throughout the film. To make things worse, they used very cheap background paintings. Why, oh why, didn't they do any location shooting? The total effect is pretty claustrophobia-inducing though still watchable.Aside from bad sets, the film features a lot of singing--and awful lot of singing. I guess the studio saw it more as a Kathryn Grayson and John Carroll film instead of an Abbott and Costello one. MGM can't completely blamed for this, as all but one of their previous films at Universal had too much music as well. As to the humor, while Bud and Lou seem game, the routines aren't particularly good or inspired. Having them in a very contrived plot involving Nazi agents in Mexico(!) also didn't help.Overall, watchable but that's all. A definite comedown from their prior films.

[email protected] This was Bud and Lou's only film for MGM, which was their good fortune. It's surprising that Universal Studios, for which A and C were prime money-makers, would have lent them out. They must have sent someone to Universal in exchange. Most of the team's Universal films, no matter how silly the premise, were usually tightly constructed around their personalities and abilities, which were mostly a series of set pieces within a flimsy plot, except The Time of Their Lives, when they portrayed characters in the story line, without any of their routines. Many consider this their best film, though I don't agree, despite its departure from their formula. At any rate, MGM showed itself unable to use their talents to the foremost, as was the case in their use of the Marx Brothers in their three last MGM films. There are several excellent routines, but they are submerged in a tedious and unbelievable plot of romance and espionage. MGM was developing Kathryn Grayson (who does not get star billing) as a contract player, and would probably have taken advantage of A and C's box office appeal to showcase her. Unfortunately, her performance is quite wooden; though perhaps she could not do much with the material given. Later on she developed at least a degree of charm, if not strong acting talent, in some of MGM's large-scale musicals, especially Show Boat. If you are an A and C fan, make good use of your fast-forward.