Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

JLRMovieReviews Norma Shearer is the title character, The Divorcée. She was happily married to Chester Morris, when an ex of his shows up to rock the boat. Not believing in the adage, two wrongs don't make a right. She promptly goes out and has an affair with Robert Montgomery, a supposed good friend of Chester's. But Bob always liked her anyway. When Chester finds out about her affair they split up and file for divorce. That's essentially the plot. Will they get back together? Will love, understanding, and common sense win out? I had seen this years ago and didn't like it then; maybe I didn't like the stupidity of the characters. But, upon seeing it again recently, I found it to be surprisingly well made, realistic, and very risqué in parts. Not that I like what each other were doing any better, but I think this time I saw beyond the actual plot and recognized good acting. What's so terrible! about the film is the double standard that is implied (or is it stated right out) - that Chester didn't like her affair and had to have a divorce, but wanted her to forgive and forget his. What makes his pride so important? Why couldn't she demand a divorce! The fact is she loved him. True, if she hadn't had her affair and just let things ride, things would have gone on the same. But the main point of her affair, I think, is that she couldn't be walked over and was taking charge of the situation by being in the driver's seat. I would think the sheer idea that he was affronted by her affair would be just too much for average woman watching the film. The Divorcée is one mature film that needs to be seen more often. Norma Shearer won an Oscar for it. What was that saying about the 1930s values? That they endorsed her affair? That they felt she changed and learned her lesson? Or that, Ms. Shearer simply turned in a good performance? They did tend to give out Oscars back then for more sentimental reasons. See the film and judge for yourself.

rsternesq The movie is dated and the sound uneven. There are lots of things to critique but there is one element that is sublime and that is the star. If Norma Shearer is not one of the reasons that film actors became known as "stars," I'll eat my proverbial hat. She glows, she shimmers, she gives off light and heat. What a beautiful presence she brings to us across the decades. A star she was and a star she remains, undimmed. I recommend this movie to all, particularly to our current generation of actresses who think that skin equals sex appeal. I just finished watching this almost 80 year old movie and went through the entire range of cable choices (more than 80 other program choices) and not one had an actress who could hold a candle to this unforgettable star.

ccthemovieman-1 This is a very dated soap opera but I wanted to see it because I often like classic films and I've never actually sat through one that starred Norma Shearer.Was Norma Shearer a sexy woman? I found her just okay, nothing special. At times she's attractive; other times not so. She giggles in here a lot and - like Jean Harlow - likes slinky dresses.The dialog in most "talkies" up until the later 1930s is very dated, especially in the "Pre-Code Era." Actually, I find it fun to hear these odd expressions of the day, but all the "darling" this and "darling" that get a little nauseating after a short time and the corny lines, hysterical women, sexist men, etc., wear thin fast.In essence, this was a woman's movie with the message that it's NOT all right for a man to cheat on her husband but bad if a woman does. I buy that. As you all know, it's bad if either does! That's the only problem. This idiot husband, played by Chester Morris, makes an absolute ton of stupid remarks after admitting he had an affair with "Janice" and that "it doesn't mean a thing."However, that same night after he shuffles off to Buffalo for a work assignment, she hits the sack (not shown) with a buddy. Two wrongs make a right? Of course not, but Shearer's character "Jerry" and her response to the whole thing is interesting to watch. And, yes, she slowly sees the error of her ways and "repents" at the end. That ending may be predictable, but it will still draw a tear or two to your eyes.The film gets really sudsy the last half, especially in the last hour. I thought, "Wow, this would play well on the Lifetime Network - what a women's soaper." So, if you like that sort of thing - nothing but men and women in and out of all kinds of relationships and talking about them - then this film, dated or not, is for you.

tfun28 It is funny how the film portrays love. In the beginning it shows the perfect relationship between Ted and Jerry in a rather comedy like fashion (e.g. as they are joking with the boy (their future kid?) who disturbs them in their love nest). Also they are talking to each other more like friends than sexual partners. At one point they kiss in front of the father and their friends, as if to prove, that their love has nothing to do with sexual desire. That's why, in my opinion, the first 20 minutes are rather dull: the relationship looks superficial.The drama kicks in with the twentieth minute when the sexual drive starts a life of its own after three years of marriage. With the sexual desire of Ted, suffering starts, and the film has its first brilliant scene: Jerry surprises Ted being embraced by a woman. Now the other side of Ted - who presumably was such a nice, perfect, asexual man - is shown: He got "plastered" one day and went to bed with another woman. For him it is the drive which made him to it, so he can say: "it is not a thing" in the sense that it is not himself, but the animal inside him that forced him to do it. So the modern question the movie rises is: how does a love relationship looks like, that isn't affected by infidelity? Can they arrive at a deeper, more honest form of love, that includes the sexual desire? The answer the movie gives, in my opinion, is no. Love and sexuality are different things. First of all the latter is associated with the parties, the booze, the jazz music, shortly a decadent, hedonistic lifestyle devoid of happiness. Secondly the somewhat lynchian scene with Dot, Jerry and Paul. It is obvious, that the relationship between Dot and Paul is neither love nor sexual - it is full of pity, guilt and reproaches. Nevertheless Jerry refers to it as a marriage worth saving. (Why? - fidelity itself is more important than love or sexuality?) In so far I think the film has a conservative touch after all. But the strength and self-confidence of the woman characters is way ahead of its time (even compared to the femme fatale of the film noir period, who were in some way or another evil by seducing the men)