masercot I love Ginger Rogers. I don't much care for her dance movies, but I like her comedies. I like this movie.The plot of this movie is simple and incongruous: A wealthy business-owner has big problems and a family that doesn't love or respect him. His solution to fix everything is to pretend to have a mistress. Somehow, this DOES fix everything.The acting is competent. The lead male is a funny guy, with kind of a cartoon voice. I don't know if it started as a play, but it definitely had that feel to it.I recommend this one...

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre '5th Avenue Girl' doesn't work, but it's a fascinating failure. I was especially impressed by Robert de Grasse's superb camera work. On two different occasions in this movie, Ginger Rogers has a conversation with someone while walking down a steep flight of stairs: in both cases, the camera seamlessly precedes Rogers down the stairs, which means that de Grasse and his crew must have made the steep descent facing backward. Elsewhere, rear-projection footage of Fifth Avenue and the Central Park Zoo is blended with live actors (in a multi-level set for the zoo) in a manner that looks much more convincing than usual.The single worst drawback of this movie is the presence of Walter Connolly in a lead role as a Capraesque self-made millionaire who likes poor people. He meets a down-and-out young cynic (Rogers) at the zoo, and -- somewhat improbably -- he invites her to move in with him and work for him. Somewhat improbably, she accepts. Connolly has never impressed me in any of his roles. His high-pitched voice and indecisive manner are annoying. He's so weak and subdued here, we instantly recognise that there's nothing sexual about his proposition to Rogers. Which is part of the problem. This film would have been much better if Connolly's role had been played by Edward Arnold, bringing his usual hint of danger to this character.Franklin Pangborn, an actor who consistently *does* impress me, surpasses himself here in a deft performance as Connolly's sentimental butler. It's a delight to see Pangborn dispense with the 'nelly' mannerisms that he employed in most of his performances. Less impressive here is James Ellison as a chauffeur who spouts Marxist dialectic. Verree Teasdale, whom I've never liked, gives a performance here resembling a female impersonator.One of the consistent pleasures of Hollywood films from the 1930s is the frequent appearance of obscure character actors in delightful vignettes. We get one of those here, from Robert Emmett Keane as a man obsessed with sea lions. Charles Lane is cast against type: doing his usual sourpuss routine, but this time on behalf of the 'little' people.Connolly's character lives in a *huge* mansion overlooking Central Park, and the set by Van Nest Polglase is so sumptuous that it actually works against this film's credibility. There are some nice bits and bobs throughout this movie (including a showy turn by Jack Carson, strumming a ukelele), but we could have done without the lectures on the plight of the proletariat. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.

Arthur Hausner Ginger Rogers seemed to mumble listlessly through a part she didn't like. Tim Holt seemed too immature for the romantic lead and has no chemistry with Ginger. These items detracted from the good screenplay, which has Ginger hired by millionaire Walter Connolly to stay at his house and sort of straighten out his family. It was almost like "My Man Godfrey" (also directed by Gregory La Cava) with the sex roles interchanged, but it was not nearly as good, and certainly did not come close to the pairing of William Powell and Carole Lombard.Preview comments played a big part in studio decisions in those days. The ending in the film was changed to the one you see after preview audiences panned the original, less happy ending.

elansix The first time I watched this movie, I thought it was just okay. The second time it was pretty good, and after the third time it was very good. The story has so many setup concepts that it is easy to miss them the first few times one watches it. Gregory La Cava is one of the all time great directors. La Cava is probably one of the few directors to shoot movies in the sequence of the story rather than in planned location setups. It cost the studio more money, but it enabled the cast to give better performances, as it seemed to them they were doing a play instead of a movie. The comments in the movie about communism, capitalism, sexual mores, factory workers and almost any other facet of society are timeless. We all have the same problems and feelings now and probably will in the next century. And along with all the "thinking" the movie is very funny and has a lot of low key but erotic sexual tension. P.S. The movies of "A Star is Born," were based somewhat on La Cava's life. The very first version of "A Star is Born," was called "What Price Hollywood."