Motion Picture Review Digest (Jan-Dec 1936)

74 MOTION PICTURE REVIEW DIGEST LADIES IN LOVE— Continued season's records as a picture of importance, but perhaps not of the widest popular appeal. It is a little too fine for general consumption, too far from the beaten path." + Hollywood Spec pl3 O 10 '36 "Maybe we anticipated too much. But, to our way of thinking, this comedy's sophistication doesn't jell. . . Director Edward Griffith never once gets the mellow feel of the fifteenhundred-year-old city on the banks of the Danube. You really see three attractive Hollywood actresses in a modernistic Hollywood apartment meeting ingenious Hollywood emotional problems — but there is little reality about it." (2 stars) Beverly Hills Liberty p60 N 21 '36 "The new offering is less of a four-ring circus than one might have anticipated. None of the quartet gives a good enough performance to outshine the others and the show itself, based on one of those mildly giddy Hungarian comedies, offers few opportunities for pyrotechnics or solid characterization. It should prove extremely popular, I believe, especially with the ladies, but it is ordinary stuff that has been so star-studded. . . Without the deft direction of Edward H. Griffith, the piece would fall completely to pieces in a welter of ill-assorted moods and incidents. . . It is the able assistance of the men in the company that gives the show what slight dramatic validity it has. . . They and the expert Mr. Griffith can do little more, however, than steady the work. It is neither a field day for the glamour girls nor a noteworthy photoplay." Howard Barnes -) NY Herald Tribune p23 O 29 '36 "[It] forms a light, fairly amusing little comedy drama, not nearly important enough to warrant such an obviously expensive cast. With one exception, the cast does handsomely by its small opportunities, keeping the audience's attention, although never arousing any emotional response. . . It is somewhat difficult to know what Miss Simon was playing. The lines called for a simple, loyal schoolgirl. . . The new French star, however, played with such coy slyness, such feline impudence, such cocksureness that it seemed impossible to believe the story had not been intended to end with a right-about-face and an exposure of the character as a fake. . . 'Ladies in Love' so divides its attentions between three quite separate romances that none ever seems particularly vital to the audience." Eileen Creelman H NY Sun p29 O 29 '36 "A film on the order of 'Ladies in Love' is habitually dismissed as 'a woman's picture.' It is a condescending, patronizing and faintly derogatory phrase, and we have no doubt there's none more provoking to militant Lucy Stoners and combative equal-righters. . . Miss Gaynor has played her scenes with charm and humor, and, although I dread the thought of dropping an apple of discord into Hollywood's Olympus, she impressed me more favorably than the Misses Young, Bennett and Simon. Edward Griffith's direction has been smooth and the entire production has a satiny texture. It's still a woman's picture." F. S. Nugent H NY Times p31 O 29 '36 "[It] is a slow, shambling and feeble little anecdote, reporting with too much detail what happens to four young women when they go out in search of the men of their desires. . . 'Ladies in Love' isn't much either as drama or entertainment." William Boehnel — NY World-Telegram pl9 O 29 '36 " 'Ladies in Love' is a sorority meeting, in Budapest. . . Without hair-pulling, Miss Gaynor triumphs throughout. Paul Lukas is a male involved." John Mosher New Yorker p90 N 7 '36 "That 'Ladies in Love' turns out to be a suave, intelligent film and an indubitable boxoffice boon is primarily due to the direction of Edward H. Griffith. . . By appearing to better advantage than ever before in their respective careers — leaving Simone Simon sadly outclassed — Bennett, Gaynor, and Young make Zanuck's production a tour de force." + News-Wk p29 O 17 '36 "The scenario is diffuse; leisurely where it should be tense, superficial all the way and has a marked tendency to emulate the more genteel sex periodicals. Despite the highsalaried female contingent a mere man . . . but a damned good trooper (Alan Mowbray) walks into the ladies' den and remains to triumph. As the ham magician Mowbray is superb." Herb Sterne ^ Script plO O 24 '36 "This is a persuasively gallant little picture . . . told so unaffectedly that we sat, impressed at last without benefit of fireworks. . . A plot of this essential simplicity would falter badly without neat bits of characterization that must never overlap, never leave their tidy grooves. . . The producers, unfortunately, felt obliged to write in a role for the tempestuous French star, Mile. Simone Simon. The part is as superfluous as her pout. Everything else is in good taste and technique." -f Stage pl4 N '36 "[It is] a distinguished and rich picture, not gloomy in spite of its realism, not episodic in spite of its multiple narrative. Excellently adapted by Melville Baker from the play, it moves with the same swift alternations of gayety and sadness as the Hungarian waltzes with which it is scored. Janet Gaynor gets top acting honors in spite of a strong bid by dynamic little Simone Simon." + Time p65 O 19 '36 Trade Paper Reviews "This will have to depend on the pulling power of its four strong cast names. The ladies in love are lovely enough, but it is unfortunate that they were not furnished a vehicle in which they could better display their charms and their talents. The picture is short on entertainment and the story it essays has far too continental a flavor to appeal to an average bread-and-butter audience. . . The story just can't carry the load. Adults." f Box Office p63 O 17 '36 "This is a triple-threat picture aimed right at the box-office. . . If the [ladies] don't go for that treat then all the dope on what attracts 'em to the theater is wrong." + Film Daily pll O 29 '36 "A very continental attempt to build one play by combining three similar stories, none of which would make a play by itself. Such attempts have been made many times and are doomed to failure. This one reaches the screen as diffuse, dull, and trifling entertainment. An attempt has been made to strengthen it with a bevy of talented box office names but, despite some individually interesting performances, there is little either to draw or to satisfy theater patrons." — Hollywood Reporter p3 O 3 '36 + Motion Pict Daily pl2 O 5 '36 "Estimate: depends on name draw." Phila Exhibitor p37 O 15 '36 "Janet Gaynor, Loretta Young, Constance Bennett and Simone Simon are an attractive name array for the marquee, and that makes 'Ladies in Love' box office-proof. But it won't be a smash because the picture holds little for general appeal beyond the names, and that's a pity. . . The picture is a splendid example of casting, but little else. Producer also contributed everything that could be asked for in the way of mounting and treatment, yet the story seemingly had everybody handcuffed. . . That it is no literary knockout might have been overcome by the cast, but the fact that it offers little or nothing for the male customers is something that no group of names can conceal." \ Variety pl8 N 4 '36 + + Exceptionally Good; + Good; H Fair; 1 Mediocre; —Poor; Exceptionally Poor