vert001 While something less than a barrel of laughs, LUCKY PARTNERS is charming enough for its first hour or so. With Ronald Colman and Ginger Rogers as its stars this is hardly a surprise. Though some disagree, it seems to me that the main conceit is completely plausible. Out of the blue a stranger (Colman) wishes a bookseller (Rogers) "Good luck" as he passes her on the street. As it happens, she immediately has a stroke of good fortune. Mild superstition being as realistic a trait as you're likely to find in any character, she decides to try her new luck with an Irish Sweepstakes ticket, going in on it with Colman for good measure. We see that he's an artist with some sort of personal secret who has been living in self-imposed isolation for some years. He seems about ready for some interpersonal contact again and Rogers is an undeniably pleasant subject for interpersonal contact. Thus his "experiment".These circumstances are then played out in the expected screwball fashion with a heavy accent on the romantic. The Rogers/Colman pairing isn't exactly lightning caught in a bottle but it's pleasant, the supporting characters (Spring Byington, Jack Carson, others) are more than competent. Playing Ginger's aunt, Byington even gets the best line in the movie. About the French novel she's been caught reading: "I know it's not exactly moral, but the French make everything seem so logical." So things are going along okay until, as someone said, they appear to run out of ideas and resort to a final courtroom scene. Not an uncommon way to end a movie in those days, this one is uniquely lifeless and uninspired. We mostly lose the thread of our stars' love story/hi jinks and replace these with...what? I'm not sure. I'm not even enamored of Henry Davenport's performance as the judge, too cute by half IMHO, which admittedly may make me unique. In any event, that ending might cause you to forget that what had preceded it hadn't been half bad: 5/10 stars.

vincentlynch-moonoi Ronald Colman fascinates me. Perhaps more than any actor ever to grace the Hollywood sound stages (and silent-era stages), he is a truly unique actor. And, as the epitome of suaveness, with that once-in-a-lifetime voice, like Jack Nicholson and Spencer Tracey, I can enjoy a Colman film if for no other reason than to revel in his screen persona. Having said that, this is far from Colman's best film, but it is pleasant enough. Due to the era -- 1940 -- one might expect this to be a screwball comedy. Rather, it is a sophisticated comedy, so don't expect to laugh out loud...it's just not that kind of film. Ginger Rogers is also very pleasant here, and Jack Carson plays his role of jilted fiancé perfectly (he really was quite a versatile actor). Some people believe that the obvious difference in the age of Colman and Rogers makes this film improbable, yet I can imagine Hepburn and Tracy in the star roles, and that age difference wouldn't have bothered us. Spring Byington is pleasant, but in terms of the character actors who fill out the playbill, it is -- as is often the case - Harry Davenport (as the judge) that really shines here.As a Colman fan, I enjoyed this film. It's pleasant, humorous, and heartwarming. It's perfect for a night in front of the fireplace and television.

wes-connors Passing her on a street in Greenwich Village prompts gentlemanly artist Ronald Colman (as David Grant) to wish beautiful black-haired Ginger Rogers (as Jean Newton) "good luck" for, as he says, "no particular reason." A few minutes later, Ms. Rogers is gifted with an pretty new dress. She thinks it's because Mr. Colman wished her luck, and proposes they buy a sweepstakes (lottery) ticket together. Despite an age difference, the "Lucky Partners" are attracted to each other, and Rogers agrees to take a honeymoon-style trip with Colman if their ticket wins. This doesn't sit well with Rogers' fiancé Jack Carson (as Freddie Harper). No kidding.**** Lucky Partners (8/2/40) Lewis Milestone ~ Ronald Colman, Ginger Rogers, Jack Carson, Spring Byington

Equinox23 I've come around to re-watching Lucky Partners and I have to confess that I've only watched it once before.What the movie most suffers from is that there is no chemistry between Ginger Rogers and Ronald Colman,one can hardly believe that he is in love with her!The supporting roles are very fine though,the two Nicks are rather splendid and Ethel and her mother,too, and even the aunt is great.What really won me a little bit for the movie is the final courtroom scene, because by condemning the adulterous behaviour finally the risqué possibilities of the plot can be discussed and enacted.Now Colman's charm that he had to suppress throughout is definitely there,oddly mostly in those scenes when he is alone in his stand and smiling at the accusations that are uttered against him. Though this whole courtroom business is rather a spoof especially because the whole affair is ridiculously overdone,still it is a clever device to get around the censorship of the Hays code and to maybe slightly rebel against the limitations it imposes by saying what was considered immoral yesterday might be considered art or culture tomorrow. Still it is really sad to see Colman only smiling seductively in court to himself and not to Rogers in the hotel, so what is is so much less than what could have been.I'd like to disagree with the previous reviewer in so far as there is a reason given-however stupid it might be-for blowing this case up.As can be seen in the scene preceding the courtroom scene,the reason why the case is handled in such a way is the attraction it brings about and the money it draws into the city.