Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

MartinHafer The first portion of "No Time for Comedy" is excellent--and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, somewhere around the middle, it was like the characters had head injuries (particularly James Stewart) and began acting weird...along with some new and annoying friends. As a result, the film really lost its momentum and its way.The film begins with a playwright (Stewart) being called to Broadway to do some re-writes for the play. They are in rehearsals and the play just doesn't quite flow the way they'd hoped. Stewart is not at all like they expected. After all, the play is a smart drawing room comedy featuring the upper crust--and Stewart is some Midwestern yokel who has never even been to the big city or been with the smart set. After some teething problems, however, the play is a success. This part of the film is very charming and seeing him and Rosalind Russell together was a treat.The next portion of the film really stopped making sense. Now that Stewart and Russell are married, suddenly the sweet guy has turned into a major butt-head--a very selfish one at that. Now he drinks heavily and begins hanging out with the world's most superficial and annoying married woman anyone could imagine (Genevieve Tobin). While I hated the change in Stewart's character (since it seemed so out of character), everything about Tobin was wrong...100% wrong. Her character made no sense at all and was played so broadly you'd wonder how any semi-sane person could fall for this super-annoying....'lady'. Also incongruous is her husband (Charlie Ruggles)--he simply made no sense at all as the annoyed but unbelievably passive rich husband. At this point, the only person who comes off halfway convincing is Russell...but even she occasionally behaves oddly. It was really as if the film had two different writers who didn't even read each other's scripts before combining them.The overall film really looks like two separate films. The first half I'd score an 8 and the second I'd score a 3. It really would have been improved with a revision...a re-write like Stewart's character was called in to do when the movie began. Not a good film, though it looks nice and has some lovely scenes. The bad just outweighs the good.By the way, after Stewart behaved abominably through much of the film, why would Russell's character STILL want him?! What sort of screwy message is this projecting at women?!

nycritic Russell and Stewart. Both actors with career highs the previous year, 1939 -- she with THE WOMEN, he with MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON which earned him his first Academy nod for Best Actor. Both with careers entering high gear at the dawn of the 40s with fine performances, she in HIS GIRL Friday, he with THE PHILADELPHIA STORY for which he finally did win the Oscar. Together they should have succeeded together as main players in a movie.So what failed? The fact that this was a truly awful story, ill-conceived for any medium, stage or film, and the fact that Stewart's role is not very sympathetic -- a rarity. He comes across too petty, irritatingly self-involved with his own success as a writer that one also wonders why Russell's character, a successful stage actress, would stay with him at all. In today's world, a divorce would have been in order faster than yesterday's news, and even then they were taking place within the rich and famous. Which makes me go to the second problem in the film --Russell plays a role that Greer Garson could practically sleepwalk through, and does so in a way that makes you feel sorry for her, but also makes you want to dive into the screen and smack her with something hard. Comedy was her specialty -- this was Russell trying to prove she could also do drama, and it does not work in her favor.And what on Earth is Genvieve Tobin doing in this film? She looks crazy from the start, so completely affected she makes "stage British" look genuine, and her presence brings the film to a dead halt. That she doesn't quite get her comeuppance for nearly destroying a marriage is beyond me.Louise Beavers fares even worse: she plays Russell's maid and what she does is repeat her "resigned, but jolly" role until it's dead on the floor. But, to give her credit, she does get screen time, and high billing in a time when black actors/actresses were barely seen.NO TIME FOR COMEDY drains the life out of the comedy and remains only a footnote mention in both Russell's and Stewart's careers.

marcslope ...and why doesn't Warner Brothers know what to do with them? This feeble adaptation of a Broadway hit is comedy-drama of the clumsiest kind, veering uncertainly and arbitrarily between one genre or the other with no grace or logic. Nor are the stars well used: Despite his natural charm, Stewart can't hide the fact that his character is basically a lush and a spoiled child. Russell keeps doing irritating Greer Garson great-lady things, pointing her nose and clipping her diction and suffering with a noble smile. Louise Beavers, another trouper, is made to do demeaning dumb-maid stuff. Then there's that noisy Warner Brothers music, telling us exactly how to feel every damn minute.One grace note: Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, who were paired so well in "One Hour with You" nearly a decade earlier, are coincidentally back in similar parts. He's as dry a light comedian as you could ask; she makes much out of little. But the movie keeps yelling how charming it's being, and trying to pass off boilerplate dialogue as repartee. 'Tain't funny, and it's not convincing as drama, either.