BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Steineded How sad is this?

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JohnHowardReid This comedy of manners with a theatrical background offers a good First Act, but bogs down in the Second Act, and then drops right down completely and absolutely in the Third. Mind you, the proceedings are not helped by the blatant over-acting of Genevieve Tobin!Keighley's direction is lively enough in the First Act, but is as dull as the script in Acts Two and Three! All the talking, talking, back and forth, seems to go on forever!The movie's production values don't impress either!At least the title is dead on! No time for comedy, for sure!

richard-1787 I stuck with this movie because I have a head cold and didn't have the energy to do much of anything else. But if I had had the energy, I hope I would have given up on it early on, when Stewart's character becomes thoroughly disagreeable. This is the story, often told, of an artist who becomes a success and then is led astray by a woman who promises to bring out his "potential." But the script is not well-written. None of the changes are prepared in advance. We don't ever really see why/how Amanda can seduce Stewart away from Rosalind Russell. And then there are all sorts of gratuitous slams at the Black maid, played by Louise Beavers. In short, this movie did nothing for me. I can't imagine that S.N. Behrman's play, on which it was based, could have been this uninvolving.

krdement This is a peculiar film. I think that this film suffers for being a little schizophrenic. It starts out as a light romantic comedy, but it morphs into a much darker film. Similarly, Jimmy Stewart starts out much like his Mr. Smith character come to the big city, but he morphs into Smith's boozing, egotistical, dark alter-ego. During this phase of Stewart's career, this is a rather interesting departure from his normal aw-shucks, ingenuous protagonists. It both hearkens back to his role in After the Thin Man and anticipates his roles in the Anthony Mann Westerns. It is interesting, and Jimmy pulls it off well.The film also suffers because of the script. Some of the dialog is very artificial and wooden - more like prose in an essay than dialog.For me the strength of this film is Rosalind Russell. She handles a difficult character very admirably. Her character, Linda (Paige) Esterbrook, is so full of wise toleration, restraint and understanding that it is close to unbelievable. At times her dialog is unnatural in the extreme - check out the scene where she goes to the Swift residence and confronts Amanda. I think most actresses would have become wooden delivering such stilted lines. And Genevieve Tobin does very well with her lines, too, although they don't seem to be quite as artificial as Russell's; plus her character is more artificial than Russell's. While Russell's character is making comments full of double meaning that kind of fly over Amanda Swift's head, Swift's remarks are pretty straight forward. Russell's dialog seems similarly difficult in most of her scenes. Yet imbuing them with her own down-to-earth persona, Russell pulls them off about as well as I could imagine.The scene between Linda Esterbrook (Russell) and Amanda Swift (Tobin) makes it clear that this film had pretty lofty pretensions that are not altogether realized. I think it is supposed to be a film along the lines of All About Eve, but doesn't capture the same satirical tone. This is an interesting film, even if not fully realized or altogether enjoyable.

tjonasgreen Successful comic playwright Jimmy Stewart decides that the times he is living in call for political drama instead of laughs. His stage star wife disagrees and must win him back from the clutches of the pretentious matron who has him in her thrall. Though one would think that the tall, lanky duo of Stewart and Rosalind Russell would be perfect together, they disappoint. They manage some charm and chemistry in the early parts of the film, but both surrender to stridency later on, and this movie has none of the fast pace or glossy sheen a sophisticated comedy set in Manhattan should have.What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.