Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

MartinHafer It's obvious when you watch this film that it was strongly inspired by the wonderful comedy "My Man Godfrey", though it never comes close to the quality or zaniness of this earlier hit. This isn't to say I didn't like "5th Avenue Girl"--it just isn't in the same league as "Godfrey".The film begins with a rich industrialist (Walter Connelly) meeting Ginger Rogers on a park bench. It's his birthday, yet no one in his family cares or took notice. On a lark, he invites this total stranger to go out partying with him. At first, she's hesitant. However, he can afford it and she's not used to this sort of life, so she agrees.The next day, Connelly awakens with little recollection of all the details of the night before, as he had gotten quite drunk. He's surprised, however, when Rogers turns up in his home--it seems he invited her to stay in the guest room. Now you'd think this would cause a huge problem with Connelly's wife...a strange woman in the house. However, that's the crux of the problem--his family doesn't really care. So, on a lark, he decides to take this to the next step--and pay Rogers to stay and pretend to be his mistress--though there is absolutely nothing between them. He just wants to make his no-good family take notice! As for Connelly and Rogers, they are both excellent in this film. I especially love Connelly, as he was a delightful supporting actor and here he gets a chance to play the leading man--with nice results. However, after these two, the film's cast and writing really falls short. In "Godfrey", the family was kooky--filled with eccentrics and oddballs. However, here in "5th Avenue Girl", the family just seems selfish and a bit despicable--a major problem for the film. The wife and son were just selfish jerks, while the daughter, to put it bluntly, is an annoying idiot--who's in love with a really, really annoying young communist. As a result, the film rests solely on Rogers and Connelly--with no real support from anyone. If this had been worked out, the film would have been more than a pleasant comedy--it could have been something exceptional. Still, it is charming and fun to watch--plus I'd watch Connelly in anything--he's that good.By the way, listen up for a great final line by Ginger--it's a doozy.

krdement Whether you regard this movie as a "flawed gem" or a "near miss" depends primarily upon your attitude toward Ginger Rogers, Walter Connolly and Tim Holt. I personally endorse any film starring Ginger Rogers. It is probably a sad truism that most people outside Miss Rogers' fan base think of her primarily as Fred Astaire's dancing partner and co-star and do not know that she was a huge and very versatile star in her own right. This is not one of her best roles, nor is it one of her worst. However, even in this role, she mesmerizes me with her mere presence. For me, her beauty and charm always radiate from the screen.In the thirties and forties, Hollywood embraced a number of actors with incredibly distinctive voices - Walter Brennan, Andy Devine, Wallace Beery, Eugene Palette, AND Walter Connolly, to name a few. I always enjoy seeing these actors for their unique vocal qualities alone. Here, Connolly is a treat not just for his vocal quality, but for his portrayal of a simple man elevated to an unanticipated level of affluence who is threatened with the complete loss of control of both his business and his family. He is simple, but not stupid. When he encounters Ginger Rogers in the park, he hits upon a scheme to salvage his family that ends up salvaging his business, as well. The film's plot revolves around this plan, and it is a great concept for a comedy movie.Tim Holt enjoyed two great roles in his career - the spoiled son, George, in The Magnificent Ambersons; and Bogey's sidekick, Curtin, in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Both stories are dramas, and he has serious, uncomplicated dramatic roles in both. To me, he was ill-suited to a comedy such as 5th Avenue Girl. Due to either the direction or his own initiative, he portrays a character that is not very clearly projected or very sympathetic. He never convinces me that he is actually "falling" for Ginger. He is her primary antagonist for most of the film, and he constantly rags on her. I suspect that Tim Holt is not capable of the nuanced performance necessary to convey his gradually increasing emotional involvement with Ginger or to create a more sympathetic character.In two key scenes, Holt abruptly attempts to plant a big kiss on Ginger. Both scenes are extremely awkward and detract from the film. The first attempt is on a park bench, without any indication that Holt has begun to soften his stance against Ginger. In an earlier scene, he grudgingly admits that she looks pretty in a new dress.The second scene is on the front porch of the family home. We haven't seen any build-up because the cut from the previous scene is so abrupt. All we see is Ginger shoving him and his unwanted kiss away from her - as she would any cad. If the movie had shown some growing tenderness and affection and warming dialog in the front porch scene, we would know that he is not just trying to jump her bones. But even in the few lines he has that are not critical of Ginger, his tone is harsh and accusatory. Thus, for me the lack of a sense of chemistry between Holt and Rogers is what keeps this film from being a classic comedy. It is still very enjoyable, whether you regard it as a "flawed gem" or a "near miss."

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre '5th Avenue Girl' doesn't work, but it's a fascinating failure. I was especially impressed by Robert de Grasse's superb camera work. On two different occasions in this movie, Ginger Rogers has a conversation with someone while walking down a steep flight of stairs: in both cases, the camera seamlessly precedes Rogers down the stairs, which means that de Grasse and his crew must have made the steep descent facing backward. Elsewhere, rear-projection footage of Fifth Avenue and the Central Park Zoo is blended with live actors (in a multi-level set for the zoo) in a manner that looks much more convincing than usual.The single worst drawback of this movie is the presence of Walter Connolly in a lead role as a Capraesque self-made millionaire who likes poor people. He meets a down-and-out young cynic (Rogers) at the zoo, and -- somewhat improbably -- he invites her to move in with him and work for him. Somewhat improbably, she accepts. Connolly has never impressed me in any of his roles. His high-pitched voice and indecisive manner are annoying. He's so weak and subdued here, we instantly recognise that there's nothing sexual about his proposition to Rogers. Which is part of the problem. This film would have been much better if Connolly's role had been played by Edward Arnold, bringing his usual hint of danger to this character.Franklin Pangborn, an actor who consistently *does* impress me, surpasses himself here in a deft performance as Connolly's sentimental butler. It's a delight to see Pangborn dispense with the 'nelly' mannerisms that he employed in most of his performances. Less impressive here is James Ellison as a chauffeur who spouts Marxist dialectic. Verree Teasdale, whom I've never liked, gives a performance here resembling a female impersonator.One of the consistent pleasures of Hollywood films from the 1930s is the frequent appearance of obscure character actors in delightful vignettes. We get one of those here, from Robert Emmett Keane as a man obsessed with sea lions. Charles Lane is cast against type: doing his usual sourpuss routine, but this time on behalf of the 'little' people.Connolly's character lives in a *huge* mansion overlooking Central Park, and the set by Van Nest Polglase is so sumptuous that it actually works against this film's credibility. There are some nice bits and bobs throughout this movie (including a showy turn by Jack Carson, strumming a ukelele), but we could have done without the lectures on the plight of the proletariat. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.

raskimono Ginger Rogers was good at doing this kind of roles and this is one of her best performances. The plot,an attack on the social strata of society; both the rich and the poor and the consequences that bereave who they are. Without a doubt, the star of the movie is the script. It's so good, it's basically impossible to muck up. Gregory La Cava, that serious and more respected directors of his time who is much forgotten today shoots and directs so wonderfully emphasizing every nuance of the script with style and wit improves on his NY critics winning direction in Stage door. Just a wondeful movie.