tbarrd To be best appreciated this enjoyable movie needs to be considered in view of the times in which it was made. In early 1944 the US was 2+ years into WWII with families torn apart and rationing everywhere making daily life everything from inconvenient to quite difficult. Movies made during this time have a certain recognizable tone to them --- the public wanted to escape from the world, as they wanted to do a decade earlier that resulted in so many of the box office successes of the depression-era movies, but now with the added patriotism and "we will win" message of the dramas. So here comes this goofy story from Columbia Pictures, made in early 1944 and released just a few days after D-Day 6/6, about a dancing caterpillar named Curly, whom, in a clever touch, the audience never sees. Cary Grant, then a major star, plays the part with real enthusiasm that almost always is believable. A good supporting cast, including the very underrated James Gleason, and the always adorable Janet Blair. Notable is Gabriel Heater's brief appearance. Heater was the Walter Cronkite of the day, a respected media voice famous for his "There's Good News Tonight" radio lead in. If Heater said it, then you could believe it. In the movie Heater is shown in one of his broadcasts assuring us that Curly is real, folks! Note how well he gives his performance --- like an experienced actor delivering his lines, not as a celebrity woodenly read lines off of cue cards. However, the scenes where world renown scientists 'test' Curly do not work. They're like something from a Three Stooges short. Maybe that was the point. Makes you wonder if it is just a coincidence that the 'worm' is named Curly. All in all, an enjoyable hour and a half with the expected happy ending.

Irishchatter I found this movie alright but they could've let us see the dancing caterpillar. Yeah they keep banging on about how unique this caterpillar is but, we haven't seen what he looked like in the box. Yeah we saw him as a butterfly in the end, it still doesn't make sense on why they didn't show him to us. He might as well not existed at all!Also I thought the little boys sister wasn't a good role model type because,when Carry Grants character was looking around for the caterpillar, she didn't even stop him. Instead she always had that "i give up, let the bro speak to him on not selling" attitude. Janet Blair should've developed the character more than acting as a lazy protective sister. I have no doubt she was a great actress back then but seriously, I don't think is the best movie she has ever done! The reason I got around to watching this movie was because Looney Tunes character Michigan J. Frog, was based on the caterpillar. However, I think Looney Tunes did it better than this anyway.I also got around watching this because of Carry Grant. He's the best actor, out of all of them. Including the wee boy. That's why I'm giving this a 6/10 is Carry Grant and Ted Donaldson are legends.

MartinHafer Humphrey Bogart starred in SWING YOUR LADY. Clark Gable starred in PARNELL. And, John Wayne starred in THE CONQUERER. All three films have obtained almost mythical status as absolutely wretched films that these top stars were justly ashamed of making. Whenever I have read books about bad films, they are almost certain to mention these three films. Then how is it that ONCE UPON A TIME didn't get mentioned?! This has to be one of the schmaltziest, sappiest and dumbest films I have seen in some time--and it stars Cary Grant during the height of his career. My assumption is that the only reason this film somehow slipped through the cracks was because by 2007, the movie has almost been completely forgotten and is practically never shown on TV and hasn't been available on tape or DVD until very recently. However, as Turner Classic Movies just recently obtained the rights to show classic films from Columbia Pictures, this turkey is now available for free (this is the ONLY way I'd see this one) and is a must-see for those who love seeing famous stars in wretched films.Now technically, the film isn't that bad, as it has a competent cast and all. But the problem is a premise that is so stupid and so saccharine that you almost need to see it to believe it! The plot, believe it or not, is about a dancing caterpillar that belongs to a cute kid who looks quite a bit like the kid who played Larry Mondello on the LEAVE IT TO BEAVER television series. When Broadway producer Grant discovers the kid and his dancing bug, he realizes this might be a chance to dig himself out of a huge financial hole. All he needs to do is convince the kid and his overprotective sister that he really cares about the kid and is looking after his best interests--while he's really just planning on making a fast buck. The "big twist" that brings everything to a climax and melts cold Cary's heart is when the caterpillar is lost and the boy becomes heartbroken. But, in the end, it turns out that Curly the caterpillar didn't vanish--he simply turned into a butterfly. What an amazing "twist"--a caterpillar turning into a butterfly!! And, to make it worse, everyone acts as if this is somehow amazing and everyone lives happily ever after!!!! What's so amazing about this? Had the caterpillar turned into a cow or done brain surgery, then THAT would have been amazing.Even as kids' fare, this is a terrible film. To sum it up in the word used by my students, the film is "craptastic"!! Cary should have been truly ashamed of himself. Could Roy Cohn (the head of Columbia Studios) have forced him to make this movie through blackmail? This is the only rational explanation for Grant in this stinkeroo.

moonspinner55 'Dancing Bug Cuts a Rug'...or rather, 'How Did Cary Grant Get Roped Into This?' Theatrical producer, a "part-time genius" with three flops behind him, needs $100,000 to save his theater; he befriends an orphaned tyke with a bottle-cap hat, the boy's stone-cold chorine sister (who is roughly two times older than the kid), and the boy's caterpillar...who "dances" to "Yes Sir, That's My Baby". Elongated Aesop, although even Aesop provided a thoughtful moral. This one is just piffle, with the contrivance that the whole world would be chatting about such a miraculous event as a bug with an ear for music. This is the movie that launched a thousand worm jokes, and it's meant to be ironic that Grant (as the showman-turned-huckster) is the biggest worm of all. A box-office disaster in 1944, the film has not improved with age. Ted Donaldson is cute as the youngster, and Ann Loos has a funny scene playing Grant's put-upon secretary, but the insipid rest can easily be forgotten. * from ****