Dorathen Better Late Then Never

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

ecapital46 Very seldom is the remake of a film better than the original, but this film is pleasantly one of the few exceptions. First of all, it is unknown to this reviewer why this film was remade so soon. Generally, film remakes are done after a generation of time has passed (20 years), but this film was remade just 8 years after the original in 1933. In addition, the original film cast was led by a cadre of Hall of Fame performers in their own right - Myrna Loy, Alice Brady, Frank Morgan, Ann Harding, and Robert Montgomery. You'd figure with a cast this good, how is any remake going to improve on those performances? Logical question. Yet, remarkably the five leads in this remake, pound for pound, improve on each of the original performances.

rbrb Entertaining flick, taken from a stage play.Writer is in love with her womanizer publisher who is already married.The writer's boy friend for his own motives sets the writer up to meet the publishers' wife with interesting consequences.The picture starts slowly but gets a up a head of steam and:I expected an explosive climax, but this is not that kind of film, nevertheless a clever story with an intelligent script.In my opinion the 2 male leads ought to have switched roles.In any event an enjoyable and watchable movie deserving:7/10

misctidsandbits Hey, I like both versions of this film. Not into parsing them either. The assembled talent, story, parts, clothes, set. This is the kind of movie I like to watch multiple times. First, watch the movie through. Then, maybe follow separate characters through. There's a lot going on simultaneously. Then, watch the clothes. Then, check out the house, furniture, etc. There was so much style put into these. All of these elements are what made these 30's and 40's films so special. I don't understand why all the comparisons and nitpicking.In both versions, the lady of the country house is something of a wonder - Spring Byington here. I like the Jimmy part a lot, and thought both actors did him well. He's the kind of guy who makes a wonderful friend, though he could get on your nerves at times. He's a young man who will settle down and make a good husband, reliable and good company along the way. Woodruff was an older man who hadn't settled down, self-centered, made a bad husband and rather a dullard actually.I think the sorting out between the women worked for both of them. The wife shook off the dead weight or drew her line anyway; the "girl friend" woke up from her naive daydream. We hope the husband woke up as well. Looks like Jimmy has a chance to come out on top as well! What's there to be so cynical about?

MartinHafer This film earns a 6 purely because of the good acting and the usual MGM polish. However, the plot itself really disappointed--it should have been a lot better.The film begins with a writer (Joan Crawford) all giddy because she's fallen in love with a man (Herbert Marshall). The problem, however, is that he's married! And the man who inexplicably wants Crawford (Robert Taylor) decides the best way to break up this elicit romance is to introduce the "other woman" to the sweet and very, very long-suffering wife (Greer Garson). However, there are many, many problems with the plot:1. Why would Marshall want Crawford? Garson is a lovely wife and generally played Mary Poppins-like wives that are "practically perfect in every way" in all her films.2. Why would Taylor want a woman who is having an affair with a married man?3. Why would Garson put up with Marshall when she knows about his many infidelities?4. Why would the two women handle the affair so civilly and nicely? While not every wife would "get Jerry Springer" on the other woman, almost none would be as sickeningly sweet, forgiving and understanding. And, for that matter, the other woman by her very nature is selfish--why would she suddenly feel guilty?5. Why would the audience want to see such a tame "altercation"? There were no fireworks....nothing!Overall, an incredibly dull film with lovely acting (particularly by Garson) and a nice polish. So, it looks good but is pretty empty. And, now that I think about it, a lot like the similarly dull "The Grass is Greener".