dougdoepke
The best part of this rather boring gabfest is getting to see ladies high-fashion outfits, circa 1930. Some of them are real doozies. Stanwyck gets more than her share of slinky finery as a rich guy's paramour. Actually, the movie's premise is a significant one—does marriage somehow kill love? Anne (Stanwyck) seems to think so and sometimes acts on the premise. The trouble is that the premise gets drowned out by all the talk from one scene to the next, without let-up. Then too, director Mayo adds nothing to what turns out to be a filmed stage play. To be charitable, his options may have been cramped by the newness of movie sound equipment.Pre-Code liberties are evident in the first few scenes where Anne, in a clinging negligee, and Dick (Rennie) discuss whether to marry or to continue living in sin. After that, the screenplay settles into more conventional marital mix-ups. But at least Stanwyck shines, showing why she was slated for bigger and better things. In fact, she's almost girlish, a really long way from the femme fatale of Double Indemnity (1944). Too bad she doesn't have more scenes with that other Warner's personality girl, Joan Blondell (Duckie). Anyway, I found the movie considerably less than I expected.
cbryce59
it is the man in a so-called "illicit" relationship who longs to get married and avoid a reputation, while Ann, played by Barbara Stanwyck holds out. She doesn't have much faith in marriage. But she is eventually convinced, in part by her lover's father. Will she be happy, or proved right, that is the question of the film.Barbara looks lovely in this film, with darker hair (even though tight satin gowns are very unforgiving). She plays a modern woman, and does so with charm, instead of stridency. As newlyweds, they are blissfully happy, with plenty of money, travels and a beautiful townhouse in Manhattan. But hubby (James Rennie, who was married to Dorothy Gish for a while) is still a bit of a stiff....he complains when Ann turns on the music after a dinner out. She wants to go dancing, he whines about the late hour. Besides he might be catching a cold. Boo hoo. Yet when his friends call up, suddenly he is raring to go. And Ann knows why-he is still carrying a torch for a former girlfriend.Joan Blondell is smart and chic in a small role.(One of the most unrealistic lines is when Ann tells her husband she is going to move back to her old place for a while, tonight, right away. Try that in NYC...)
calvinnme
The naming of this film must have been just to attract Depression era audiences, because there is nothing really illicit about it. However, it is a very modern look at romance and marriage considering it was made in 1931. Barbara Stanwyck plays Anne Vincent, a modern woman who is afraid that her relationship with boyfriend Richard Ives will be changed by marriage. She bases her beliefs on watching her own parents and her friends. In her parents' case she says that she knows they loved each other, but divorced anyways, and she is sure that separation from one another is what killed them. However, social pressures prevail and the two do get married.Anne's fears become realized as Richard seems to only be interested in going out when it involves other people, not just Anne. She sees him out with another woman one night when he is supposed to be working, and she decides what the two need is a trial separation from one another - to become individuals again. Throw Ricardo Cortez into the mix as someone who wants Anne's marriage to not work out, and you have the makings of an above average potboiler from the precode era.This film is mainly interesting because of Stanwyck. Without her abilities this would be a pretty forgettable film. And those fashions! With all of the ermine and feathers, this film has Barbara Stanwyck venturing into Kay Francis territory. Also lending good support is Charles Butterworth as the seldom sober friend to the young couple, and the always wonderful Joan Blondell as Anne's close friend.
Jim Tritten
Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie are ultra-modern 1930s lovers who shun conventional trappings such as marriage. She is afraid that marriage will kill the romance. Who has not had these fears? He is eternally patient, but his father maneuvers her into a commitment. Their marriage stumbles (whose hasn't) and the ex-girlfriend and ex-boyfriend enter the scene. Soon this thoroughly modern couple are acting like typical married folk and Barbara declares that the marriage has indeed killed the love. Stanwyck exhibits skills as an actress that will make her famous in better films later. Claude Gillingwater's portrayal of the father is excellent and serve as a good role model. Charles Butterworth (the faithful friend) was really quite a wit and succeeds in stealing a scene or two. I can overlook any technical flaws in the movie because I think that the central issues are still relevant today. Who has to compromise more in a marriage? The husband or the wife? Will each of the lovers do what is necessary to save the marriage when they know they have problems? All is not revealed until the final scene whose outcome is by no means certain. Good movie, not a great one, but good entertainment for a couple that talk to each other. I say watch it (if you can find it) and see if this pre-Code movie does not warrant your appreciation and was worth your time.
AD
