vincentlynch-moonoi This film had two strikes against it (at least for me) to start with -- it's another 1930s comedy about a missing heiress and a cast with which (other than Frederick March) I wasn't very familiar. I almost turned it off after the first 10 minutes, but I'm glad I stuck with it. It really is quite good. Frederick March was, of course, a very respected actor, and he does very nicely here. I wasn't familiar with Virginia Bruce, but she does very nicely here as the heiress...but hardly a spoiled one, which is perhaps what makes this film work so well. I also was not familiar with Patsy Kelly, but she does nicely as the wacky new-best-friend. Eugene Palette (you'll know his rotund figure and barrel-chested voice) is great, as always, as a character actor here. And it was nice seeing Claude Gillingwater (who was Mr. Manette in "A Tale Of Two Cities") as the grandfather. If there are any weaknesses to mention, first there's a rather weak ending, and secondly, there's Arthur Lake (of Dagwood fame), and as always I failed to see the talent. But there are some nice moments, including a rather wacky skating segment, which doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the plot, but is nonetheless entertaining. All in all it's a pleasant movie, and better than I expected. Good to view at least once, if you're at all a fan of 1930s movies.

Richard Green Sometimes getting up way too early pays a few dividends. I want to say that watching this Frederic March vehicle was one of those dividends, but that would be somewhat inaccurate. I wanted to be paid for watching this film, but no luck there !! March as a performing actor has always been something of a mystery to me as a film aficionado. His abilities have always reminded me some of one of my other favorites from this era, Dick Powell. With March, in a role in a film, there's always the sense that there is something important happening inside his skull, behind his eyes, behind his manners and demeanor. The best parts of this film are those flashes where March does seem to be thinking about something big and yet talking about something small.This is a film about trying to resolve "class envy" in the 1930s, and in that regard it has a political subtext. Yet that subtext is obscured in the way the film was put together. It's definitely not in the same league with Gable and Colbert in "It Happened One Night." The reason that it isn't, is fairly obvious: after seeing this movie I had to ask myself -- what was their rush to get through this story ? The general plot device of "It Happened ..." was a winner, and it seems evident that with skilled players like March and Eugene Palette, this film could have been a winner, too, as both a comic romp and a socially aware satire. Yet it is evident that these great players were simply not given enough time or the right material to evoke such a satire.Because there are great flashes of brilliance held in this otherwise dreadful rehash of other plots, I registered a vote of five, for the film. It's not a waste of time at all, for the true film buff, or for the fans of Frederic March and Virginia Bruce and so on ....Then again, where this film promises a banquet, it only delivers a sandwich, and that's served without the sweet pickles.

MartinHafer I think I liked this movie despite the rather formulaic and ridiculous plot because both Viginia Bruce and Frederic March did such a wonderful job with this romantic comedy from Hal Roach Productions.Virginia is the grand-daughter of a very wealthy but extremely overprotective man. He won't let her go anywhere without him and sees danger around every corner. As a result, she is smothered and bored--aching to live a real life. She escapes and establishes a new identity as a regular working girl. However, reporter Frederic March finds out about the ruse and wants to exploit the woman for a buck. However, once they meet, sparks begin to fly and he is torn between riches and his new love.You know about where the movie will end--after all, it's a formulaic romantic comedy from an era when the movies never dared stray from the expected course. However, how delicately and believably the stars follow this formula is what makes this film so worth watching. A cute and satisfying little film.By the way, at the very end there is a cute little cameo by the silent screen star Harry Langdon as the preacher. While his best years in movies were long behind him, he did continue to do small roles in a variety of films over the years.

purplecrayon After all the negative things I have heard said about this film, I was expecting something very...I don't know...boring, silly, empty. But I must say I was more than pleasantly surprised with it and I did enjoy it. I watched it because I just discovered Fredric March, and have watched over 30 of his films now. I must say that this film in no way provided him to display his marvelous acting skill, but still it was nice to see him do this bit of light comedy. I think the story is nice when you want to watch something that is not heavy, but lighthearted and fun with the usual 1930's "happily ever after" ending. It is something my children would enjoy. Don't have much else to say, except if you like Fredric as much as I do, you will like this film. Too bad he only gave one kiss in this one!!