Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

mark.waltz Actually, they are married, but due to her job as a doctor, being called in at all hours of the day or night, she decides it is best to have different quarters to sleep in, much to his dismay. He's an actor, so while he does have a night job, he gets to sleep in during the day, that is until it's time to prepare for the curtain. They are Margaret Sullavan and Charles Boyer, the dashing long-suffering lovers of the second version of "Back Street", and they are in a situation that almost seems likely to immediately doom a marriage from being a happy one. This is mostly light romantic comedy (very little screwball involved) that starts off with him pretty much stalking her and her desire to scoot him away, but when it's Charles Boyer who is after you, how are you going to turn HIM down?Of course on their honeymoon, he immediately lies to her when an old flame (Rita Johnson) contacts him and demands to see him, and he leaves Sullavan, pretending that he's going to help somebody at the local train station deal with a fire. It's just one of the preposterous moments of this film that makes Sullavan decide to move to the 22nd floor of the building rather than share his 17th floor penthouse, leading to some amusing moments involving elevator man Gus Schilling who declares time and time again that he does not interfere in the lives of the people who reside there, even though he listens in to every conversation that they have.Character players like Eugene Pallette and Reginald Denny pop in and out but have very little to do, and the script struggles to maintain interest in addition to the fact that this is basically a re-tread of the same year's "You Belong to Me" where doctor Barbara Stanwyck and playboy Henry Fonda struggled to make their marriage work because of her schedule and his demands on the desire to be with his wife. Once again, it seems like the woman will be forced to put her career on hold so she can look after her hubby, and that won't hold up in 2018. In fact, considering that both films came out just as World War II was about to break out and women had to have the bulk of domestic careers, I'm sure in a year, this was dated as well, although Hollywood's male chauvinist moguls seemed determined to want to keep the woman as house keeper and the husband as house holder.

bkoganbing In Appointment For Love it certainly got playwright Charles Boyer's ego out of joint when he spies a sleeping Margaret Sullavan in the audience showing the ultimate indifference to his dialog. She can't help it though, she'd been working a long shift at a hospital and just didn't want to give up theater tickets. Out of such a disastrous first encounter, a romance does bloom. But their separate careers, his in the theater and her's in medicine have not let them get the marriage consummated. They live like ships in the night in two separate apartments in the same building with a very confused elevator operator in Gus Schilling running a nuptial shuttle service.Sullavan is a doctor with liberated views, even to the point of wanting to keep her own apartment. That's where Boyer draws the line. In fact their sudden courtship and marriage have former boyfriend and girlfriend, Reginald Denny and Rita Johnson all kinds of upset, but they both move in for the rebound. Johnson is especially very good as a drama queen who Boyer knows all her tricks since he taught them to her.There was a lot of potential in Appointment For Love and if someone like Ernst Lubitsch or Mitchell Leisen had directed it the film would be far better known and received. As it is the stars and the rest of the cast have nothing to be ashamed of.

rc_brazil I was not planning on making a comment for this unimpressive effort, but I felt obliged to after noticing that only one other person had bothered to write something. First of all, I must say that although I never really cared for Charles Boyer "debonair" style of acting, Margaret Sullavan has always been one of my favorite actresses. Whenever I see her in a drama I am sure of the ending (one of the main characters, usually hers, will find a way to die in the end) but in comedy she tends to be more light and fun to watch. In a plot that strives to make sense in some sort of Lubitsch-like battle of the sexes, we have a writer and a woman- doctor who find love and marriage rather quickly. In a unique way, we soon learn that Sullavan's doctor has a rather open view of her relationship with Boyer's womanizing writer, one that allows separate apartments and separate lives as well. The direction by Seiter is uninteresting; unlike Lubitsch he doesn't permit his audience to imagine what is happening. Not that he receives much help from the script department, since that seems to be dwelling in the creation of its main characters and not too sure of which direction it should take its story. With all that in mind, I felt a bit sorry that one of Sullavan's few attempts on comedy failed, having seen her shine on the wonderful Shop Around the Corner. Perhaps if Lubitsch had helmed this one as well we could have had a classic. Either way I just feel that I have to clarify the fact that, even though this will hardly ever be in anyone's top ten, it's not disgraceful and can be quite fun to watch once one accepts its defects. If you like 1940's style of comedy, I see no real reason that would keep you from enjoying this one, even if you can easily come up with a better movie to watch. A guilty pleasure as they say, specially if you are a bit of a fan of either one of the two main actors.