Smoreni Zmaj It is considered one of the top 100 films of all time. Honestly, I do not see why. A smart, witty romantic comedy, a cute movie for one watching, but really nothing special.6,5/10

Dalbert Pringle Trouble In Paradise (from 1932) was a very early example of (horrible) Hollywood "Screwball Comedy" (which was an irksome genre that prevailed throughout the 1930s & 40s). I find that the more I see "Screwball Comedy", the more I dislike it in all of its smug pretentiousness.With this particular picture, there was really nothing about it at all that made it stand out in any way from any other film in that genre. If you ask me - Trouble In Paradise really tried way too hard to be both cute and clever at the same time. And, as a result, this caused me to lose my patience with its story's overwhelming absurdity, time and again.Filled, to over-flowing, with petty squabbles, jealous anger, and backstabbing betrayals, Trouble In Paradise was, to me, nothing more than pseudo-sophisticated crap, all around. Thank goodness that this vintage picture had a running time of only a mere 82 minutes

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This 1932 film, the first talking film by Lubitsch is a dear moment of pleasure. It is a comedy but the comedy is a lot more subtle than anyone may think.It is about a crook who meets a thief and they fall in love but then they plan schemes that are so big it is amazing how easy they seem to be. They plan an operation that would capture a fair amount of cash, and some jewels, from the heiress and boss of the first cosmetic (in those days it was mainly perfume) business in Paris and probably the world. It sounds like L'Oreal so much that the only difference between the young widow who is heading the business and Ms Bettencourt who has finally been court-ordered out of freely managing and using her money is their age.Yet that did not prevent the gay photographer who had been her late husband's lover to take her over and manipulate her like a piece a play dough. Never too old to be submitted to that game.The second difference is that the crooks are a couple and the danger for them is that the man may fall for the heiress, really fall I mean, and that solution is caressed for a short while but the dramatic suspense it creates is short lived in the end.The third interest is that the film clearly shows how the main board member of the business is using his position to enrich himself with discrete transfers from the business accounts to his own knowing that the heiress or boss or widow will never understand the procedure but the new secretary who is the crook and thief who infiltrated the business to get to the lady's safe knows about it at once and can reveal it. It takes a crook to know another.But then how funny it is to see the victim of all these rotten crooks refusing to call the police because of the scandal it would create. They did not know yet that a good and deep scandal is the best publicity for a business, as long as the scandal does show any support to the wrong side, and there Lubitsch is a very subtle man. The crooked board member who is stealing from the business on a regular basis has a secret first name he does not like. In 1932, guess twice what it could be? Adolf of course, and even if you write it the French way Adolphe it does not change and in the film it sounds just like Adolf, the other Adolf of 1932 who was starting to loom high over Europe.But a funny film after all far from such political considerations. Is it now so far from these political considerations? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

richard-1787 The line "they don't make movies like that anymore" is one of the most overused in talking about pictures, but in this case it is true. This is a remarkable example of the sort of sophisticated, innuendo-laced light comedy that Hollywood was making until the Hays Code put an end to them. There is not one crude line; we never see anything sexier than a kiss, and they are far from torrid. But this movie implies sex, and more interestingly sexual intrigue and passion, throughout. The duologue is uniformly wonderful, with lines that you will never forget. I can't say there is any real substance to this picture. There isn't. But it is gossamer of the finest quality. Herbert Marshall, who usually strikes me as a cypher, here shows what made him so popular for awhile: he has a wonderful voice, which he can shape and mold to imply whatever he wants. Miriam Hopkins' charms still generally elude me, though she is good in the opening scene. Kay Francis is much more enjoyable here delivering double-entendres than in the sort of heavy parts she got assigned to too often. In short, everything is wonderful.I couldn't believe how fast this movie flew by. There was not a dead moment. This is not a celluloid masterpiece, another Citizen Kane or Les Règles du jeu. But it is one remarkable, sophisticated comedy. You will definitely enjoy it.-------------------------------I watched it again tonight, and still found it enjoyable. The dialog is clever, the tempo just right and never lags. As I wrote before, it's a piece of fluff, but a perfectly-paced, perfectly-acted one that will never let you down, even for a moment. Not as good as the Lubitsch movies with Chevalier and MacDonald, but still a fun hour plus.