Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

vincentlynch-moonoi Yes, this movie is a bore. And I say that as a movie fan who almost always enjoys the work of Irene Dunne and Ralph Bellamy. But frankly, this movie is little more than stuffy high class pap. Unfortunately, that seemed to be a common trait with quite a few movies in the early years of the Depression -- an obsession with the wealthy.The story here is pretty simple -- Tony (Dunne) and Jim (Bellamy) Dunlap are happily married. But, dependable old Jim had once been in love with another woman who comes back to haunt everyone. So the old love steals Jim away from Dunne (yawn) and the question is -- will she keep him and will Dunne fight back. It's all rather trite and not at all clever.There's not a single performance in the film that I could admire. Certainly the worst film of either Dunne or Bellamy that I've ever seen.

lianfarrer This film was described as a comedy on the cable station listing, and with a cast that includes those great screwball stars Irene Dunne and Ralph Bellamy (see "The Awful Truth"), I expected a light and zany marital farce. Far from it. Despite the nonstop string of quips, clever insults, and arch comments, this film is at its core a rather cynical and serious take on the institution of marriage. Given that it was directed by John Cromwell, I guess I should have anticipated that there'd be something more substantial lurking under the glossy comic veneer.Things start straying from the formula-comedy path in the very first scene. When hubby Ralph talks to his doting wife Irene, the expected marital banter soon devolves into a rather distasteful display of selfish rudeness on his part. There's not the slightest glimpse of any qualities that would make his wife so devoted to him. His subsequent behavior with old flame Constance Cummings stamps him indelibly as a cad and a fool. Still, I expected him to come to his senses after one night's infidelity and do something noble to win back Irene. But he kept on behaving like such a louse that I found myself rooting for her not to take him back.... even though I knew this was not likely to happen in a Hollywood film from this era, especially when the couple in question had a child.Another noteworthy departure from the standard-issue Hollywood formula is the affair between bad-girl Constance Cummings' character and the character portrayed by Sidney Blackmer. It's made quite explicit that she had picked him up under disreputable circumstances and that they have some sort of kinky relationship going on. Blackmer manages to show us a man who is suave, creepy, and admirable in one package.(He may behave amorally, but at least he's honest about it.)Meanwhile, I was surprised and delighted to hear two strong, intelligent, independent-minded female characters (Irene Dunne's and Kay Johnson's) expressing some rather enlightened ideas about marriage and womanhood. No doubt this had something to do with the fact that both the screenplay and the play upon which it was based were written by women. As the film progressed, I began to hope for something truly revolutionary: that Irene would dump her unworthy husband even if he decided to return to her. If I'm not mistaken, she looks like she's not completely surrendering to him in the final clinch that closes the film. The ending is not the definitive feminist statement I was hoping for, but it's just ambiguous enough to leave the door open for that sort of interpretation if you're inclined to see it that way. It's a great illustration of how "Pre-Code" signifies much more than overt sexuality and "immoral" behavior; had "This Man Is Mine" been made just one year later, there's no doubt Irene would have pulled the noble self-sacrifice routine to win back her boorish husband, if only for the sake of their child.This is an original, deftly-written film that keeps you guessing throughout. I appreciated the attention given to creating interesting, complex characters—even the minor ones have distinctive personalities and quirks. And hooray to the scriptwriter, director, and Ralph Bellamy for not trying to show in the end that his character is a great guy underneath it all! Performances by just about the entire cast are nuanced and compelling, with the three leading ladies meriting special praise.Those who view this film as a lesser version of "The Women" are I think missing the point.... there's a lot more going on here than the bitchy (albeit well-written) catfights. Give it another look and see if you agree.

David (Handlinghandel) This has a great cast. Ralph Bellamy is always good and here he is not an object of ridicule. Of course, I watched it for Irene Dunne. And she is the fulcrum of the piece, looking mousy but acting like a tigress. Sidney Blackmer, who became a distinguished stage actor, is convincing and quite attractive as a rich bad boy.The two standouts are Kay Johnson as Dunne's sister-in-law and the fine actress, also a marvelous stage performer many years later, Constance Cummings.The Cummings character is the best developed and most interesting. Just back from a divorce and ready for trouble, she is like a character from "The Women." Her role is a bit more well rounded than the characters in that movie.

Sharclon8 I probably saw this on American Movie Classics and did not tape it, not realizing that my chance would not come again. This movie is fun. Irene Dunne was in the early years when she was still playing heroic roles and here she plays the wife who is done wrong. It was refreshing to see Ralph Bellamy who so often played the put upon boy-friend who lost the girl to Cary Grant, as instead the object of desire fought over by the two women. But as I remember the movie it is Constance Cummings who gets to steal the movie because she is given some of the most interesting reasons for husband stealing, forgiveness of same and even has the audacity to lecture Irene Dunne -in a very sophisticated, urbane way of course. I wish it would come out of DVD. Failing that I wish Turner Classic Movies or AMC would run it again so I can tape it.