...but the main problem I had was that the setting of the film just seemed unrealistic to me. So un-adult.
A secondary problem for me was the actor who played the groom in the film -- Tony Cavalero. He looks homeless. Didn't work for me at all.
However, the two lead actors -- Aya Cash and William Jackson Harper -- were interesting, and worked as a couple...within the context of not working as a couple. Nevertheless, as at least one other reviewer indicated, why would the male lead be interested in the female lead. I was rooting for the unexpected ending.
What I felt was needed here was a different setting and a different supporting cast that didn't distract from the main story line.
In his younger phase, I never cared for Martin Short. The one exception was 1986's "Three Amigos". So I paid little attention to him. Then, in more recent years I found him to be the most interesting late night guest on television, and a true wit. In that setting, he's one of the few comedians who makes me laugh out loud. I've watched the video of his and Steve Martin's two-man show on Netflix four times...so far. So when I stumbled across this 1991 film, I thought I'd watch. Short here does the one thing in slapstick (which is what this film is) that you rarely see -- he underplays it, and it works perfectly. That's the good news.
On the other hand, I have never cared for Danny Glover, I don't think he's a very good actor, and I didn't like him here. And, to make matters worse, I didn't feel that Short and Glover had good screen chemistry.
Nevertheless, the film works because of its goofy premise and because of Short carrying the film.
It seems that for the most part, people either loved this film or hated it, and I think that's because some people can get into fantasy films, while other cannot.
It is a bit difficult -- as one poster wrote -- to see this as being a film for children. I just don't think it is. And yet, in some ways it's not quite right for adults. That's the difficult part.
Whether good guys or bad guys, I thought the acting here was quite good. Patrick Swayze was probably an underrated actor. The first time I remember seeing him was in the mini-series "North & South". I was impressed, as I am here. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, whom I don't recall seeing before (but may have) was very good as the mother. Joseph Mazzello was excellent as the son. And it was so interesting to see Seth Mumy -- the son of Billy Mumy ("Lost In Space") as the younger son.
The one real criticism I have is that it might have been better to make viewers aware sooner of what the dog and man were. But aside from that, there's not a lot to criticize here IF you look at fantasy in the right frame of mind. But again, I think this is more a film for adults than children, with the drama being...well, actually being with three of the main characters.
...is who is the expected audience? I don't think children would understand much of it. Teens wouldn't be interested. And most adults would opt for something totally different. It seems to me that this film had no audience. And the box office receipts would bear that out.
Of course, I'm odd. So I found one redeeming quality in the movie -- the acting. The child actors here were remarkable. Jordan Nash in particular. I could even tolerate Angelina Jolie here. And I continue to be impressed by David Oyelowo.
And then, suddenly, after an often slow pace, the ending of the movie rushes to completion leaving one feeling as if the story isn't finished.
The concept had possibilities...never fulfilled.
I will say one thing. Those who dislike race-neutral movies...that's just too bad. I support the concept for FICTIONAL movies.
One of the things that I have really come to like about being able to stream movies is being able to discover films I would not have gone to a theatre to see, but turn out to be real gems. Stories about people with real and realistic dreams, their tragedies, their failures, and their successes...instead of the all-too-often fantastical crapola usually put out by Hollywood. This 'little' film is a good example.
I was a little worried that it was going to turn out to be a religious movie, and I noticed one other reviewer kinda thought that, too. But it's not. It is, however, in a sense, a morality play. It's about valuing people and their goals, whether they be a parent, or a sibling, or a romantic partner...and in this case an interracial theme, too...although it doesn't club you over the head with it.
The acting here is solid. The young male lead is African-American actor Caleb Castille. I predict we'll see more of him (and I see he has done a fair amount of television work). The female lead is Rose Reid, who also turns in a fine performance. The supporting actors are, for the most part, pretty solid, too.
I have to say that those who see this film as being similar to a Hallmark movie...why? Because it has positive themes without sex and violence? Shame on you for being so jaded.
To start off with, I just have to say that I've never understood why Larenz Tate isn't at the top of his profession, or even at the top of his profession in terms of African American actors. And this film is another example of why I feel he is underrated.
This film is going to appeal mostly to African American audiences. It's too bad, because this old white guy enjoyed this movie. One of the biggest things this film has going for it is simply that it is different. Yes, it's a variation on the theme boy meets girl, boy loses girl...and ultimately they get their act together. Nothing so different about that. But the 'environment' they live in and interact in is rather unique, and, to be honest, quirky...quirky enough to add interest to the story. The dialog is great and a step above most films, and it's cleverly written.
I've already mentioned the fine performance by Larenz Tate, but there's an equally fine performance by Nia Long, a fine actress in most everything I've seen her in. Bill Bellamy -- a sort of protagonist -- is also very good here, although his character is more run-of-the-mill; essentially, his character is a pain in the butt and out-of-his-league. I'll tell you who is not impressive here -- Isaiah Washington. Despite his weirdness off-screen, I've always felt he was a good actor; I don't feel that way about him in this film.
I disagree with the general tone of the written reviews here. I stuck with this film because the reviews were fairly good. I'm sorry I did. I don't feel the film has any "redeeming quality". None. Nada. Zip.
To begin with, the way the film has flashbacks and flashforwards, it's impossible to determine time frames. It was 90 minutes before I realized the film was not all in a somewhat concise time frame. And for me, that ruined the movie.
Second, there are some things that just don't make sense. Young Santiago and young Mariana sleep in her father's bed? Why? A death wish? Foolish. And it's not the only such behavior that lacks any logic on the part of some of the characters. Additionally, how many miles did the girl ride her bike -- repeatedly -- out into the desert? Nope. Just nope.
Third, with the possible exception of Santiago, there's hardly a redeeming character in the film. Nobody I could identify with.
There's too much of this film that -- to me -- seems like individual stories that the writer thought could be woven together, and as a result these decent stories were shallow.
One of the worst films I've watched in years, and I'm surprised that as popular an actor as Charlize Theron would get involved in this project...that was a failure at the box office.
Usually when I see the plot of a movie (whether theatrical or t.v.) involves amnesia, I groan and instead pull out the DVD of one of my most favorite movies -- "Random Harvest" starring Ronald Colman and Greer Garson. "A Memory In My Heart" is no "Random Harvest", but it's far better than most amnesia-related stories.
That's thanks, in large part, to excellent performances by Jane Seymour and Bruce Davison. The one big criticism here -- although they do deal with the issue -- is that Seymour's husband in the film (A Martinez...who does well) leaves his wife to explore her past -- a possibly dangerous past -- on her own. Yes, they explain that away, but I just don't buy that. Other than that, however, the script holds together pretty well.
They only hint at the ex-husband's abuse (I actually would agree with him that a 1 page written book report on "Of Mice & Men" is unsatisfactory), but on the other hand, some films would have overdone the angle of abuse, and this film was for television, not for the big screen.
One of the things I'm enjoying in our covid-post covid era is the streaming of some dandy old t.v. Productions...and this was one.
There are some things to like about this movie, and some things to not like about it.
Let's start with what not to like about it. I suppose that you could take any one aspect of this girl's life (the main character) and say okay. But let's see -- she and her mother are homeless due to abuse, her mother is an alcoholic, her mother loses her job, her dog has a major tumor that may or may not be cancerous, and her mother gets killed in a car accident. Meanwhile, the girl is teaching an ESL class, volunteering in a nursing home, planning the school variety show, trying to get into Carnegie-Mellon...and works. It's like the old cliche of throwing in everything including the kitchen sink. Too much on the plate to make it seem remotely believable.
But if you can get past the excess, there is a good and ultimately uplifting story here. First, the girl's friends rallying around her. Second, an anonymous savior (in terms of finance...although rather unbelievable, too). And the inner strength some people have.
There's also some very good acting here. Aulii Cravalho plays Amber, the teen lead, and she is fantastic here. This young lady has a future! Rhenzy Feliz, who plays her best friend , shows promise. You'll remember Judy Reyes from "Scrubs". Justina Machado plays Amber's mother; I've seen her in a couple of things, and she is a good actress. It seemed like an odd choice of roles for Fred Armisen to take as a teacher here; he's okay. And the big surprise is Carol Burnett as the nursing home resident.
Let me put it this way. It firmly held my attention, despite its excesses.
The audience that is most going to like this film are the very christian religious folks. It hits all the values they love -- family values, sin, forgiveness, and second chances. So how come this atheist liked this film? Well, if you get past the soft-core preaching (and there is some), and focus on the story of individuals, then there's a good story line here. After all, pretty much anyone can get reckless during college and make some bad choices. The question is, of course, how do they come out of it.
VERY christian young man goes to college, meets a girl, she gets pregnant, and hence the consequences.
The acting here is very mixed. Diallo Thompson, who plays the young man, is really good; I was impressed. The actor who plays the young man's father (and minister) -- Benjamin Onyango -- no thanks; not impressed with the acting, and not impressed with who they chose to play the father...doesn't work. The young lady who gets pregnant is Natalia Dominguez, and she seems like a fairly decent actress. As was the woman who played her mother. Ed Gonzalez Moreno, who plays the hunky Latino brother shows some promise. As does a supporting actor -- Wynton Odd. Desalene Jones, who plays the boy's mother...not impressed. Gregory Williams, who plays a professor...difficult to tell; it's an unlikable character.
All through the move I was able to set aside the christian message and focus on what was happening to the main characters. As a result, I enjoyed the film. I could easily imagine real people experiencing and reacting as these characters did. And that brings up one thing I don't understand. At the end of the film they make it appear that this was a true story. I'm not sure that it was, or wasn't.
I'll state right up front that there was a time in my life that a loss not unlike the one portrayed in this film put me on Paxil for 2 years. But gee...I was never this depressed or this depressing! And mental illness seems to be the theme of this film.
We begin with Elizabeth Perkins as Rebecca Lott, the lead actress here. Depressed over her husbands death. She nailed it. Perfect depression and I would go so far as to say a depressing performance. I see that later in her career she played Wilma Flintstone. Enough said.
The we have Gwyneth Paltrow as her younger sister. It's a good thing that Paltrow's entire career didn't ride on just this film. The character is about an unlikeable as you'll find, and who likes a person who is more obnoxious than the person she is being obnoxious to? And by the way, I knew more about the birds and bees when I was twelve than Paltrow's college student character does.
Next we have Kathleen Turner as the stepmother. In most films you wouldn't really like this character, but among the four leads, she's the only one who maybe...just maybe...is somewhat normal (though unlikable).
Next up is Whoopi Goldberg. Whoopi is a decent actress, although I'm not sure this role was a good choice in terms of career. At least you don't hate her character. It's just that her character is too dumb to realize she is the problem in the relationship (mixed race) with her husband, and this theme is never really explored in this film.
The other character of interest here is a painter played by Jon Bon Jovi. His character isn't explored much, other than his hunkiness; he's merely a plot device. But I have to tell you that one of the dumbest scenes I've ever seen in any film is a house painter doing his job in the dark of night. If you've ever done any exterior painting, you know this is ridiculous.
This is one of those films (based on a play) where you wonder why someone didn't say to the writer/director, "Guys...there's something really wrong here". In fact, the very best thing about this film is the title. After that, it's all downhill.
Okay, I'm joking. But seriously, the lead actress here -- at least in this film -- appears to be a zombie. I read that she is a fairly respected actress, but based solely on this film, that's hard to believe. Here she definitely needs a transfusion.
In fact, the whole film...how do you go to a country like Egypt, including locales as exotic as Luxor, and make a film this incredibly boring. Perhaps the most boring film I've ever watched. In fact...why did I sit through this film for a whole 85 minutes? Well, that's simple actually. To see a movie filmed in places like Luxor. That's the one thing this film has going for it -- seeing some of the places I've only dreamed of going to.
I see under trivia that the film was shot in just 18 days. I can believe that. The plot seems minimal to me, the dialog is minimal, as well. Sometimes as I watched the film I wondered if they had an actual script or mostly just winged it.
To be frank, a documentary about Egypt would have more of a plot.
Having grown up in the 1950s when Westerns were all the rage, it's rare nowadays that I can stomach to watch one. Once in a while. If it's different. And that's what makes this Western watchable. It's different enough to hold your interest.
First of all -- Jack Lemmon as a cowboy? Well, yes, because here he plays a tenderfoot that isn't quite as tender as he first appears to be.
Second -- how often do you see Glenn Ford play, essentially, the bad guy? He's not a true villain here, but it's not easy to like his character in this film. I'm a little surprised he took the role.
One thing that doesn't quite work is Dick York as a cowboy. And Brian Donlevy has a realtively minor role here...quite a step down from his second-tier status earlier in his career.
I can't say, but I felt maybe this film gave a little better idea of what a cattle drive was really like in that era.
The one failure of the film, at least from my perspective, is the very ending. Not what I wanted to see, and not a very rewarding ending. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see the range of films that director Delmer Daves made is his career, from "Cowboy" in 1958 to "Parrish" in 1961.
As far as I am aware, all the Roy Rogers movies ran around 70 minutes. This one is down to 53 minutes because the idiots cut sections of the film out to later fit into an hour long t.v. Time slot...with commercials. The idiots didn't keep clean copies of most of Roy's films. The cut here is rather apparent, and toward the end of the film where a change in the plot seems to drop out of nowhere, leading to the climax. As a result it's difficult to rate most of these films.
This is not the most brilliant plot to begin with. Billy The Kid -- a sort of hero to some -- is killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett. Okay. Then along comes Roy Roger, who just happens to look exactly like Billy The Kid. And Garrett hires Roy to pretend he's Billy to get the ranchers who are harassing the settlers. Dumb. But actually pleasantly done.
Roy was a handsome young man here. So innocent looking, and a number of his songs here are left intact. Smiley Burnette is a poor substitute for Gabby Hayes, but he's okay. No one else stands out here.
If you're expecting light fluff, you're going to be disappointed.
Much of this film is about realistic hardship -- losing a husband/father to war, near-poverty, having dinner at Wal-Mart, a teen child having a bad drug experience (as well as other adolescent problems), and a woman trying to pick up the pieces and keep her family together (in every sense of the word).
The standout here is Omari Hardwick. He should have been very proud of his performance here. However, the whole cast does well.
Naturally, there's a happy ending (after all, it's a Christmas movie!), but this is one film that does a pretty good job of portraying real life, and real life is not always pretty.
Bad news #1: The whole premise of this movie is downright ridiculous.
Bad news #2: The end is heartbreaking.
Good news: Absolutely superb acting.
Let's start with the premise of the movie. We start off at an orphanage in India. This ought to be interesting, I thought. But as soon as we see this American woman with the wonderful relationship with Indian children, and particularly with one Indian boy, she is whisked off to New York City to get millions of charity dollars for the orphanage. And as we go through the movie we learn that it's all been a setup to reunite an abandoned daughter because the step mother is dying of cancer, and the stepmother wants to reunite her soon to be windowed husband with an ex-love. Huh? I'm serious. Ridiculous.
I won't go into the ending, but I hated it.
The saving grace here is the acting. Every major role is perfectly played. I have never seen a movie or television program where I liked Julianne Moore...until now. Excellent here. Michelle Williams, with whom I was not familiar, is the main character here, and she was superb as the American torn between two cultures. I have never paid much attention to Billy Crudup in the past, but he was excellent as the ex-lover of Williams' character, and the current father to the abandoned daugher and two twin boys. Abby Quinn as the young adult daughter was wonderful. Vir Pachisia as Jai, the young boy at the orphanage in India that Williams' character was wonderfully attached to, is charming. Even the relatively minor role of the Indian woman who runs the orphanage (played by Anjula) is great.
Despite the requirement to suspend disbelief -- which is mighty extreme here -- I was glad to have watched this film...for the performances...not for the story itself.
I have a somewhat flexible rule that when I start to watch a film if it hasn't captured my interest in 12 or so minutes I move on. And I was getting ready to move on when this film caught me. The problem in the first 12-15 minutes is that -- at least to me -- it seemed a bit confusing. Then it settled down, and what you have here is a very intriguing love story...of infidelity...that seems justified. That's not to say that infidelity is a good thing, but when your spouse is a jerk...
Felicity Jones plays a young journalist who uncovers some old and mysterious love letters from 1965 that captivates her attention as she explores the archives of a present-day London newspaper. She finds quite a tale as she finds more and more of the letters, and eventually she discovers who wrote them.
The lovers are played by Callum Turner as the financial journalist who falls in love with a rising young politician's wife played by Shailene Woodley.
Meanwhile, as a side story, Felicity Jones' character has a fling with an archivist (played by Nabhaan Rizwan).
Will the 1965's lovers ever get together. Well, the ending is not exactly a surprise, but there are many twists along the way as the story slowly unfolds as each newly discovered letter gives more clues.
Toward the end of the film, the two lovers are played by Ben Cross and Diana Kent.
With the exception Ben Cross, I wasn't familiar with any of these British actors, but they all do very nice job.
The ending of the film is rather sweet, also I was a little dissatisfied with brief fantasy that the two old lovers have.
But still, this film was very worth watching, and I recommend it.
I notice some of our reviewers were not impressed with this film and complained that it was not a horror film. I guess their definition of "horror" is the cheap slashing films that are so hum hum in recent years. Or perhaps they miss the point of a psychological-suspense film.
Or perhaps they really didn't like an all-Indian cast. I enjoyed it, in part, for that very reason. There was a nice blend of Indian culture versus American culture here, and unlike some recent Indian films I have tried to watch, the enunciation of the actors was great.
Sarita Choudhury plays the mother very nicely, and Sunita Mani plays the daughter very well. You might have to get over Omar Maskati's slicked down haircut, but he's very good. And Bernard White (that name, really) was very good as the daughter's step father.
Is it the greatest psychological-suspense film I've ever watched? No. But it's good. Quite good. Take a chance.
...this is not about young men trying to cope with their gayness. It is not about should they come out or not. It is not about their families accepting them or rejecting them. I think most of us have grown tired of those themes in "gay films".
Instead, this is about 2 gay college students who face an unusual crisis in their relationship. They both have supportive parent(s).
The one problem with the film is that it takes a lot of "suspending disbelief" to get started here. When the young men were boys, there was a tragic accident where one boy's mother ran over and killed the brother of the other boy. Now, unknowingly, the two boys have grown into young men and have -- by sheer coincidence -- fallen in love. It's a pretty big coincidence to contemplate, but if you can get beyond that, it's a film with an interesting story, good acting, and good dialog.
The two young men are played well by Matthew Frias and Edmund Donovan. Quite polished performances from relative newcomers. The two mothers are equally well acted by Andréa Burns and Isabel Machado.
Think about the premise of this film -- that a teenager has a love-crush on a middle aged man. Wow. That could be a formula for trouble. As a retired educator, the thought of the girl interviewing Grant's character alone in an office and then showing up at his apartment to model for him...trouble in the making. I mention this because the screenwriters must have very carefully finessed the plot and dialog to not cross the line. If I had been Cary Grant, I'd have passed this role by.
Having said that, it's a funny film, and a very good example of what I call the "Grant schtick". Grant had a way with facial expressions, and he certainly played that up here. It's often his reactions/facial expressions that will make me laugh out loud almost more than the dialog.
Myrna Loy was perfect for the role of the judge and older sister. Shirley Temple played her role very well (and in fact, one of the few of her older films where I thought she did well). And Rudy Vallee was very good here (I never cared at all for his singing, but there are several films he was quite good in). I also loved Ray Collins in this (an underrated character actor).
Harry Davenport is always a welcome addition to any cast, and Johnny Sands as Temple's teenage boyfriend did nicely.
To be honest, there's not a lot to criticize here, even though in today's world the concept may make us feel just a tinge of discomfort.
Margaret O'Brien is a welcome addition to many films...where she has a role as a child...usually in a supporting role. She was so sweet. Too sweet, in my view to be the star of a film. A little Margaret O'Brien goes a very long ways, and diabetics could go into a coma from all the sweetness in this film. Some of our posters said this is a great "feel good" film. Much of it made me nauseous.
That's not to say they aren't some things to like here. Jimmy Durante has a good supporting role here. I like to sometimes watch old variety shows on You Tube, and there was just something about Jimmy Durante. Don't ask me what, because it would seem that he had everything going against him in terms of being popular. And yet, American had a love affair with Jimmy Durante, and his odd charm is very visible here.
And then there's June Allyson. This film was, for her, a supporting role, and was filmed not long before her rise to real stardom. It's difficult not to like June Allyson.
The film is also notable because of the presence of conductor Jose Iturbi. And there's some great music here, including "Clair de Lune". It also nice to see Hugh Herbert in one of his odd roles. And Marie Wilson is here...who some may remember from her two films that brought Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis to the big screen -- "My Friend Irma" and "My Friend Irma Goes West".
However, the biggest problem here is really a rather dumb plot. Nevertheless, this film was a big money-maker for MGM. For me, however, I'd never want to watch it a second time.
What looks like a good cast was wasted here. Sarah Jessica Parker as one of the college deans is simply not suited to the part. Miranda Richardson is just awful here. Beau Bridges, a fine character actor, is almost totally wasted, with perhaps one good scene. Mykelti Williamson is just "okay". Victor Rasuk is a good younger actor whose part here borders on being rediculous ( character has a point, but really, too many hysterics). The best actor in the bunch is Paul James, around whom the film revolves, but he only had one good scene.
But the problem isn't the actors. The problem is with an amaeturish script. Some of the dialogue is just so weak, and almost laughable. Plus, it's one of those films where you (at least I did) figure out the climax of the film just 5 minutes into the film (I won't reveal it here).
The premise here is that at a mostly white private college in New England there is a hate crime (actually crimes) against one particular Black student. First of all, he wasn't the only Black student at the college, so why was it targeted toward him? That was the first clue as to the climax. The college consistenly fumbles in trying to work through the hate crime episode, because they want to talk down to the students and never listen to them.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that the film should have focused on the charater played by Paul James. Instead it focused on Sarah Jessica Parker. Big mistake.
This was one of those films which could have great but turned out to be slop. It's one of those films where you seriously ask yourself why didn't someone notice how far off the rails this was going.
We certainly have weird movies nowadays. But in 1946, weird movies weren't really very common. But what do we have here? Kathryn Grayson and Jimmy Durante. A seemingly talentless June Allyson. Peter Lawford as a milquetoast. And one of the great opera singers of the 20th century (Lauritz Melchior). Yet, somehow it all works. ALTHOUGH, it takes a little time for it to settle into the right rhythm for one to be able to fully enjoy it.
I had never heard of Lauritz Melchior before; but, I'm not an opera fan. But I was impressed. Truly impressed.
The scenes in the Bowery beer hall are fun, despite Grayson playing against type.
This was a great film role for Jimmy Durante, with or without toupee! He put the fun into the picture.
If anyone was cheated here it was June Allyson. However, to be fair, she was just catching on at this point in her career; she was on the way up.
The film is about as illogical as you could get back in 1946, but somehow it does work. One of the criticisms of a few of our reviewers was that Grayson didn't get to sing enough. Well, despite the billing, I would describe this much more as an ensemble cast where none of the performers is a solitary lead.
This will not be a film that I will want to come back and watch again. But it was fun to watch...once.
Sloppily done...but comfortable with likable leads
First off...the sloppily done comment. The photos they showed of a "blizzard"...that was no blizzard, particularly for a ski resort! And then, when the blizzard was supposed to be over, one shot was showing heavy snow. Which was it? And how is a road perfectly clear one minute and snow-packed with snow a couple of minutes later. That's what I mean by sloppily done. And, by the way, who the heck picked out Henderson Wade's shirt. Must have been the exclusive line from K-Mart.
That behind us, there are some things to like about this film. First off, I enjoyed Zarrin Darnell-Martin. I'd enjoy seeing her in more things. And Henderson Wade is very pleasant on-screen. The kinda guy you'd like to know. Feels comfortable. I'd enjoy seeing him in more things. And those two are what saved this (as a couple of our reviewers said) "thin" story. They were good together, and you wanted that happy ending you knew was coming.
There's not really much more to say here. Decent supporting actors, though no one stands out...except for Josephine Buettner...whom I don't want to see again.
If there's a reason to watch this film, it is to watch William Powell. I've yet to see a Powell film where I didn't enjoy his acting. There was just something special about him.
But despite an impressive cast, this film just doesn't work -- particularly when you compare the first half and second half of the film. It improves in the second half, only to be scarred with downright corny religious silliness. And while this may be a minor point, not a lot of care was taken in the making of this film. Much of it takes place -- supposedly in Baltimore...where palm trees are so common...right???
But the biggest problem seems to be that film can't quite decide what it wants to be. A comedy? Well, no? A drama? Not exactly. A religious story? Mmmmm...occasionally. It just seems all over the place.
There are some interesting things regarding the supporting characters here. Co-star Esther Williams was fine...even without a swimsuit. Angela Lansbury was "good here" as the third member of the triangle. I wondered who sang for her; very nice. James Gleason was good...as always...although his sudden conversion to religion seemed a little sappy. Lewis Stone had a rather boring part as a priest; good to see him, but this was nothing special. Rags Ragland was much better at comedy than sorta-drama. Frank McHugh's fortunes had certainly fallen by the time this film was made; his part was so minimal it was noticeable. I always enjoy seeing Henry O'Neill. I was interested in seeing supporting actor Slim Summerville. I remembered him from a couple of Shirley Temple movies, looked him up, and noted that he died of a stroke shortly after this film was made.
As much as I like William Powell, I can't recommend this film...unless you really enjoy William Powell. There's little else of real interest here.