MovieChat Forums > No Time for Comedy (1940) Discussion > No attention and what it gets is bad

No attention and what it gets is bad

posted 14 years ago by jmbwithcats
9 replies | jump to latest

Not sure why the very few people who seem to have even seen this movie don't like it, it's actually quite a good movie with a moving and deep plot.

The movie was exactly about the same thing that attribute to people not liking it, simply, they don't get it.

James Stewart plays a playwright who is passionate, writing beyond the simple boxes that society has pidgeon-holed him into... in the final act he writes about immortality, and why not?

Finally Rosalin realizes it is far better to be a dreamer who fails, then a mediocre man who is successful, content and callous.

I loved the movie and found it quite moving, how it ends the same way it begins... simple and honest, free of the convoluted and complicated machinations of man's wicked webs.

8/10

-----
www.kittysafe.net
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

[–] David_Brown 14 years ago

There are a lot of reasons why I DISLIKED it. One prime reason was the lack of chemistry between the two leads. Two years earlier, Stewart made another film, where he married someone totally different from him. It was called "Vivacious Lady" (With Ginger Rogers). Those two had chemistry. He did another film called "Its A Wonderful World" (With Claudette Colbert), where he actually wore a moustache, and played a hard boiled detective, and it worked. "Come Live With Me" (With Hedy Lamarr) was another opposites attract film. ALL of them get 3 stars or above from me ("Vivacious Lady" merits four stars). This movie gets only one (I am being generous, because I liked the beginning). Another was the casting. Borrowing Stewart (And to a lesser extent Russell) from MGM, was a major mistake by Jack Warner (It would have been better if they stayed in-house, and put Bette Davis in the Stewart role, and James Cagney in the Russell role). (It is interesting I can think of only one other movie he ever did at Warner Bros ("The FBI Story" I wonder if it had something to do with this film?). Finally, I have seen a number of movies where Stewart is unlikable or was the villian: "Another Thin Man", "Naked Spur", "Carbine Williams" (A convicted felon)& "Two Rode Together" to name a few, and all of them were excellent films, unlike this turkey.

[–] jmbwithcats 14 years ago

lol That was pretty wordy for just saying you thought the two leads had no chemistry. And honestly that's kind of a small reason to have such a strong negative opinion, so what else didn't you like about it?

-----
www.kittysafe.net
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

[–] David_Brown 14 years ago

I did not care for Stewart's character at all. He was a very weak individual, which I have only seen TWICE before ("Dave" in "After The Thin Man" and "Flower" in "Rose Marie"). Stuff like letting Russell propose to him is disgusting, even the nickname "GAY" does not fit a James Stewart character (Just like "FLOWER", that name for a man is pathetic). Its sort of like seeing Charles Bronson in a screwball comedy or Cary Grant on a horse. For the Stewart/Russell lack of chemistry, you have to go to films such as "Maid In Manhattan" or "The Medallon" (Jackie Chan and Jennifer Love Hewitt) to see it displayed worse. Certain stars could have carried this movie off (Irene Dunne could have done either role perfectly (If you saw "Theodora Goes Wild" or "Joy Of Living" you would see why). John Barrymore in the Russell role would have been perfect (Ronald Colman also would have been great) and a Cagney/Davis movie with lots of back and forth chatter, would have been fun. In NONE of these cases, should the name of the male character be named "GAY".
As a Stewart fan and a completist (I have seen over 70 of his movies), this film is one of a select few ("Bandolero", "Pot O' Gold", and "Rose-Marie" are the others I did not like. Of that bunch. "Rose-Marie" is the only film that I would rate lower (I despise musicals to begin with, so I suffered through that one just to add it to the I saw this Stewart film list, just like I did with "No Time For Comedy")). 1 star is a GENEROUS rating from me.

[–] Cocktailsfor2 9 years ago

"Gay" is the diminutive for "Gaylord."

Get over your homophobic connotation (one which wasn't associated with the word in 1940).

______________________________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

[–] jmbwithcats 13 years ago

I agree, and we all need someone like that in our corner, don't we?

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2533227/ratings
www.kittysafe.net

[–] stareyes24 10 years ago

I'm watching the movie right now and I really don't care for Stewart's character too much either. And really, he would leave Rosalin Russell for Genevive Tobin? Honestly, it seems as though Genevive Tobin wasn't the right actress for this part at all. She seemed too old for this part. I enjoyed her character in "The Petrified Forest".I believe someone like Ann Sheridan, Priscilla Lane, or even if the part was played more seductively and womanly by someone like Mary Astor, it would have been better. Philo Swift, I would have cast John Barrymore. I do agree with that James Cagney and Bette Davis, with a better written script would have been the better cast. Even Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper would have been a great pair. I loved those two in "Ball of Fire".

The Rosalind Russell and James Stewart pairing should have been a comedy force to be reckoned with, but I believe this film was made to capitalize off of their successes.

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 9 years ago

I agree with you completely! I watched this movie recently, and it is now one of my favorites of 1940! I gave it 10 stars out of 10 stars :-)

The main thing I liked about it was the cast. Everybody was so likable – including Rosalind Russell and Louise Beavers principally, but even James Stewart, who wasn't very charming in his character, was likable to behold. Because he's just a likable guy anyway.

I think the movie had a great pace, and that's another reason I liked it. It didn't lag. Also, it was very touching. And not in a stuffy, stagy way. It seemed real, and genuine.

At the end, I actually teared up when Rosalind Russell shouts out "author! Author! Author!" And starts clapping for Jimmy Stewart's character! It was a beautiful scene – just beautiful!

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] jmbwithcats 9 years ago

I love this type of notification from an old post, thank you.

~*~

http://www.jmberman.com

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]