Nonureva Really Surprised!

Steineded How sad is this?

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

atlasmb Lucky Partners, released in 1940, paired Ginger Rogers with Ronald Colman. The movie starts with Colman (Dave Grant) wishing a stranger "Good Luck!" as he passes her (Rogers playing Jean Newton) on the sidewalk, catching her off guard. After a brief exchange, they continue on their ways. Right away, the director is letting us know that this is a whimsical story, so criticisms about its implausibility should be few.It turns out that Jean, who is engaged to Freddy (played by Jack Carson), crosses paths with Dave again, sending the story of this romantic comedy on its way. I was pleased to find this film uses both broad humor and comedic subtlety, with elements of farce. Director Lewis Milestone uses a deft touch to keep us guessing at the next plot twist and to keep the chuckles coming. I'm afraid I was not cognizant of Milestone's accomplishments before seeing Lucky Partners. He won the Academy Award for All Quiet on the Western Front, and directed the excellent Front Page, and the quirky Hallelujah, I'm a Bum. Milestone was known for his innovative filming techniques and his quirky sense of humor. Ronald is his usual smooth self (does anyone else think Hugo Weaving was copying his voice in V for Vendetta?); Ginger, who I am partial to, plays her vivacious, funny-face persona. She would win the Academy Award for her role in Kitty Foyle, also released in 1940.There are some humorous supporting cast portrayals, particularly the hotel maid who is the victim of Ginger's curious behavior.Before it ends, the story morphs into a mystery that resolves in a courtroom setting.Watch how the director creates viewer interest by allowing action to occur off-screen; he is very good at that. When the two men go into the back alley to fight (off-screen), watch Ginger's face. And you can see the moment (crossing the bridge)when Ginger realizes how much she cares for Ronald, accomplished without words--evidence of Milestone's silent film experience.I really enjoyed this film.

vincentlynch-moonoi Ronald Colman fascinates me. Perhaps more than any actor ever to grace the Hollywood sound stages (and silent-era stages), he is a truly unique actor. And, as the epitome of suaveness, with that once-in-a-lifetime voice, like Jack Nicholson and Spencer Tracey, I can enjoy a Colman film if for no other reason than to revel in his screen persona. Having said that, this is far from Colman's best film, but it is pleasant enough. Due to the era -- 1940 -- one might expect this to be a screwball comedy. Rather, it is a sophisticated comedy, so don't expect to laugh out loud...it's just not that kind of film. Ginger Rogers is also very pleasant here, and Jack Carson plays his role of jilted fiancé perfectly (he really was quite a versatile actor). Some people believe that the obvious difference in the age of Colman and Rogers makes this film improbable, yet I can imagine Hepburn and Tracy in the star roles, and that age difference wouldn't have bothered us. Spring Byington is pleasant, but in terms of the character actors who fill out the playbill, it is -- as is often the case - Harry Davenport (as the judge) that really shines here.As a Colman fan, I enjoyed this film. It's pleasant, humorous, and heartwarming. It's perfect for a night in front of the fireplace and television.

LIND77777-1 Archetypal screwball comedy, but lacking vitality. One expects a lot of enjoyment from a movie starring Ginger Rogers, Ronald Colman, and Jack Carson, with a fine supporting cast, and a plot involving the Irish Sweepstakes. However, one doesn't get it. Partly it's the age difference-- Colman was 48, a stretch for the part he was playing, Rogers was 29 and in her prime. The movie's theme is "opposites attract" but it didn't work--instead, there was just a total lack of chemistry. There was a lot of charm in the courtroom scenes, with the endearing Harry Davenport as judge. However, overall the film was unbearably slow-paced. Too bad, It could have been a comedy delight.

sasha-striker I'm going to argue that this movie isn't supposed to make sense as some people have written. It's the type of film, for me personally as a teenager at least, one would love to watch and imagine that you are Ronald Colman. I mean here you have the beautiful Ginger Rogers (who by the way reminds me of Esther Williams in this movie) and a complete stranger who manages to enchant her out of the blue. It's every man's dream to find that beautiful girl, and for me, I spent the whole movie wishing Colman luck in getting Rogers. So for those of you who say the plot is improbable, it is, but thats the point. I think the movie is supposed to reflect every man's wishful fantasy, not reality.The chemistry between Ginger and Colman was all right, not the best I agree, but still it wasn't awful. If you are going to be watching this movie, I suggest you watch it with an open mind, don't consider the improbability or anything else, just follow the plot and don't think too hard. Do that at least the first time, cause thats the way it was supposed to be viewed in my opinion.The only thing I didn't like was the ending of the movie. The court room scene seemed a little bit rushed and not the kind of ending one would like. The beginning was OK, it set up the movie. The middle was very good, witty, romantic and comical. And you would expect it to finish comically, but I agree with the previous posts that the producers seem to have run out of ideas. Nevertheless, it is worth watching for the middle part alone. Enjoy.