MovieChat Forums > No Time for Comedy (1940) Discussion > awful waste of talent

awful waste of talent

posted 17 years ago by ginmoses
5 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this on AMC, and I was appalled at the waste of all the fantastic and favorite actors. The script was trying to be funny, serious, sophisticated, simple--and it all came out as a mishmash that left a bad taste in my mouth. Jimmy Stewart wasn't even remotely likeable after the first 20 minutes or so, and the ending was completely unrealistic. Why any woman would take that guy back is beyond me. Pathetic characters in situations that should have turned out differently. Even Charlie Ruggles couldn't cheer me up! Sorry to be so negative. I just couldn't believe what I was watching.

[–] rikuhourula 16 years ago

I agree 100% on all counts. Terrible script.

[–] David_Brown 14 years ago

I happen to be a James Stewart completist, and there are only three movies besides this one of his that I did not like ("Bandolero". "Rose-Marie" and "Pot O'Gold" (And I HATE MUSICALS with a passion, so I almost don't count them)). This may be the WORST film of his career, the only part of the movie that was good was the very beginning. A much better concept with a writter who was unhappy was "Sullivan's Travels" (Of course, Preston Sturges wrote the script). This is for Stewart and Russell completists only.

[–] gerrythree 10 years ago

Don't include "Bandolero" in that list. Stewart (and Dean Martin as well) may have been too old for his part, but the movie was a fine Western that only faded badly at the end, with a cop-out ending.

[–] karnevilelp 9 years ago

I just watched this on TCM, is it a great or even very good movie? Nah, of course not, but it's not awful either. The problem I had was that we're supposed to buy that Stewart's character Gaylord is a bumpkin from Minnesota who gets corrupted by the theater world in big, bad New York City but for me, Stewart isn't convincing as either a bumpkin OR a bitter, alcoholic playwright with writer's block. It also doesn't help that we're supposed to buy that Rosalind Russell's shallow Linda FINALLY sees the light about there being more to theater than comedies 2 minutes before the end.

On the plus side, there is some good dialogue and Louis Beaver's Clementine isn't a "Yessum, massa!" black character, even though she's still a stereotypical maid, she's actually taken seriously.

[–] srvfan454 10 years ago

I'm sorry because I love James Stewart, but this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.