RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

MartinHafer Robert Montgomery plays a rich guy without much character. Most of the time, he'd prefer to be chasing skirts. So, when his girlfriend (Joan Crawford) is bored, they decide to get married--even though Robert's track record with serious relationships is horrendous. A short time after the marriage, Robert decides to start chasing other women--leaving poor Joan to cry and bemoan her fate. Considering he never pretended to be anything else other than a shallow ladies man, it seemed odd that she was so saddened by his predictable behavior.So far in the film, I was not impressed. The characters either seemed selfish and unlikable (Montgomery) or hopelessly stupid (Crawford). For comic relief, Charlie Ruggles did a bad drunk characterization that was supposed to be cute but frankly just annoyed me. So considering that I kept watching the film is a bit of a surprise.Fortunately, the film did get much better. Instead of whining at length, Joan came up with a clever plan to try to win back her husband's love and attention. While this was much more watchable, I kept thinking to myself "why would she want him back?!", but despite this it at least kept my interest.The bottom line is that I had a hard time caring about the character (especially since rich folks who make themselves miserable are hard to relate to or worry about). Because of this, the film definitely falls into the "time passer" category and not much more. Fans of the actors may want to tune it, but others probably can just skip this one. There are just better films out there from this time period--ones that will engage you.

roof12 One of many such comedies of the 1930s, No More Ladies focuses on the dilemma of a rich single woman (Joan Crawford) attracted to an energetic magnetic playboy (Robert Montgomery) who seems to exist without a shred of morality or self-control. What makes this film different from the typical mistaken lover comedy is the directness with which the Crawford character approaches her problems. The best part of the film, however, is Frannie, Crawford's grandmother who combines the best of Eve Arden with the best of Thelma Ritter. Also notable is Charlie Ruggles as a drunken friend of the playboy. The film's style is also worthy of attention. Reminiscent of surrealism and art nouveau the luxury sets of these characters' existence provide visual pleasure in themselves, if only in their extravagant elegance. Robert Montgomery fans will see him in his best boyish self-gratification mode, while fans of Crawford may find her a bit flat.

Neil Doyle MGM gloss is evident in every Joan Crawford close-up. As a matter of fact, it's evident in the loving way Robert Montgomery and Franchot Tone have also been given handsome close-ups. But the big scene-stealer here is the lady who gets the best lines and the least flattering close-ups: Edna May Oliver.As a silver-haired dowager who enjoys putting stuffy society swells in their place with a tart remark, she's a welcome presence in a film with a plot so ordinary that it was hardly worth bothering about. You can sit through the whole film admiring the costumes Joan Crawford wears with her special flair for looking like a well-dressed mannequin, her marble face with those high cheekbones and huge eyes assuring us that she is the STAR of this tiresome nonsense, but your eyes will stray to Edna May whenever she takes hold of a scene. Thankfully, that's pretty often.When a baby-talking house guest calls someone "Peggy Weggy" she turns to Oliver who is supposed to introduce herself as Crawford's aunt. Missing hardly a beat, Oliver quips: "Just call me Fanny Aunty".Is this the same playwright who later wrote THE PHILADELPHIA STORY for Hepburn? The plot is simply boy loves girl, boy loses girl, boy loves girl in a nutshell. There are a few pleasant moments with Charlie Ruggles and Gail Patrick--and if you don't blink--Joan Fontaine makes a fleeting appearance with a pained expression on her face. Hardly an inspiring debut.Typical of the kind of fluff that began harming careers back in the 1930s. You can afford to miss it, believe me.

borsch You've seen it all before, folks--another tiresome romantic comedy, unredeemed by an accomplished cast and the trademark MGM gloss. Joan Crawford is especially wasted in the airy proceedings; her dramatic intensity has no outlet here, and she is forced to rely on her lesser skills as a sophisticated comedienne. This is Carole/Claudette/Irene territory, and, although Joan can give these ladies cards in spades when it comes to glamour, she lacks their lighter touch. I suspect two forces were at work here: the Production Code of 1933, which forced out earthy drama and bawdy comedy and pushed stars like Harlow and Crawford into fluff, and the "Norma" syndrome at MGM, which forced Crawford to take Norma's castoff parts. (No wonder Joan ended up "box-office poison" shortly after pictures like this alienated her fan base!) If you'd like to see Joan in comedies more suited to her persona, check out her splendidly bitchy Crystal in "The Women", or as the clueless Susan in "Susan and God".