2 November 2010 | MartinHafer
Just read the review by David (Handlinghandel)--I don't think I could have summed it up much better.
Occasionally, I read a review of a film and think to myself "I think that sums up the film every bit as good as I could...probably better". So, because of that, you might want to read the review of David (Handlinghandel), as he hits the mark.
The film begins with Constance Bennett and Herbert Marshall becoming engaged. However, when Constance tells her friends, she is shocked to hear how dead-set against it his father (Henry Stephenson) is. Apparently, she is poor and has quite the past--though what exactly this is, we don't know.
Four years pass--Constance is about to marry another when Marshall returns for her. Considering he's a limp weenie who left her when his father objected, I can't see how this makes a lot of sense. And, it didn't, so they pledge eternal friendship. Jolly good, eh what?! What happens next, you'll need to see for yourself....if you care.
Through so much of the film, the characters are so well-mannered and stilted that the entire thing is pretty dull. It's odd that during the Depression so many Hollywood films featured pretty rich folks with rather mundane problems. After all, who cares about the romance of Sir Reginald Muckity-muck or the ennui that comes with vacationing on the French Riviera or difficulty getting good servants when so many out there (about 25%) were unemployed and whose families subsisted on rat sandwiches?! And here, to make it worse, are some of the dull rich folks and low-energy performances! As a result, shortly into the film I just wanted it all to end...or for there to be some ill-mannered buffoonery (such as one of the characters using a cocktail fork to eat their pheasant....oh, the horror!).
Too many pained looks from Marshall, a dull script and unlikable characters sink this one. Just because it was made by MGM doesn't mean it's worth seeing.