JohnHowardReid This comedy of manners with a theatrical background offers a good First Act, but bogs down in the Second Act, and then drops right down completely and absolutely in the Third. Mind you, the proceedings are not helped by the blatant over-acting of Genevieve Tobin!Keighley's direction is lively enough in the First Act, but is as dull as the script in Acts Two and Three! All the talking, talking, back and forth, seems to go on forever!The movie's production values don't impress either!At least the title is dead on! No time for comedy, for sure!

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.

davidjanuzbrown If you are a James Stewart fan, this is a film to avoid. It starts with his stupid character Playwright Gaylord 'Gay' Esterbrook, who is a combination of Peter Morgan Jr (His character in "Vivacious Lady" who marries entertainer Francey (Ginger Rogers) on his first trip to New York), Jefferson Smith from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", and David Graham (The killer in "After The Thin Man). If you have seen these films, you know that they are very naive characters who are not what anyone expects (Particularly at the end). Here he marries actress Linda Paige (Rosaland Russell), also on his first trip to New York. However, he becomes a nasty, drunken, cynical character who cheats on Linda with 'Mandy' Swift (Genevieve Tobin), and becomes the exact opposite of his Jefferson Smith character. In fact, becomes a hater to the degree of Graham (Who really despises Selma Landis( Elissa Landi) to the extent of framing her for murder, while being a spineless weasel). The only reason this film does not get zero stars is Russell (Although I certainly preferred Rogers (And the supporting cast) in "Vivacious Lady"). I even wonder if they used the word "Gay" in the homosexual context back in 1940, because you think of gay, cynical and drunk (Sometimes together) and playwright in the same context. NOT terms you use to describe Jimmy Stewart. In other words, Stewart fans... Avoid.

tjonasgreen Successful comic playwright Jimmy Stewart decides that the times he is living in call for political drama instead of laughs. His stage star wife disagrees and must win him back from the clutches of the pretentious matron who has him in her thrall. Though one would think that the tall, lanky duo of Stewart and Rosalind Russell would be perfect together, they disappoint. They manage some charm and chemistry in the early parts of the film, but both surrender to stridency later on, and this movie has none of the fast pace or glossy sheen a sophisticated comedy set in Manhattan should have.What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.