Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

classicsoncall Discovering IMDb about a decade ago has sent me off in various directions to derive my movie entertainment, and one of my goals is to sample work from as many of the principal actors and actresses through the ages as possible. This was my first look at Norma Shearer and though I came away satisfied with her performance here, I thought the story was rather incredible; translate that as not credible at all. I just can't get over the idea that the close of the story had her character walking out of the theater with a guy who was such a cad throughout the picture. Not that her morals were any better, but gee, what were the odds things were going to get any better once the lovebirds became a couple? My summary quote offered by Lisbeth's (Shearer) friend Geneva may have been offered in a different context, but the sentiment still holds true.I don't think I'll dwell on the story too much because other reviewers here have done so already, and I found some other interesting elements that caught my attention. Starting out, did anyone notice in the opening scene when Lisbeth and Alan got off the plane together - where was the pilot? There didn't seem to be much room in the compartment when they got out, and there wasn't anyone else visible in the plane! How does that work? And say, how about the crowd at the football stadium for 1931! It matched the view of the arena from last night's Super Bowl game as I write this (Denver 24, Carolina 10), and it just stunned me that so many people would be attending a ball game in the Thirties.And finally, when was the last time anyone has seen a fur coat with the animal's head still on it? I always thought that was rather disgusting from an aesthetic point of view. When Lisbeth shows up at a Paris night club she's wearing one that looked like it might have been a fox. An elderly aunt of mine had one once (decades ago) and it was fashioned so the mouth latched on to one of the legs to snap it in place and it just grossed me out.So just getting back to my original point, it was totally frustrating for this viewer to see how Alan kept giving Lisbeth the brush off and she kept rolling with the punches. Finding out about the wife in Paris would have found most mortal women going through the roof and she simply regarded it with general equanimity. For his part, the long put off and put upon Steve (Robert Montgomery) should have read the tea leaves long ago and moved on, but then I guess we wouldn't have had this troublesome dynamic. Interesting that Alan and Steve never came to blows over their respective relationships with Lisbeth, another plot element that doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the human nature department.

Bucs1960 I give this film a 6 only because it contains the ever elegant Norma Shearer swanning about in those great clothes of the 1930s. The plot borders on the ludicrous......well, maybe I should say the ending is ridiculous but the rest of the film is pretty well done.Basically, it tells the story of a "modern" woman who believes that marriage is for chumps and proceeds to make a fool of herself over Neil Hamilton(!??!), while her faithful and always tipsy pal Robert Mongomery waits patiently in the wings in hopes of winning her hand. Hamilton is extremely unlikeable and after a long affair with Shearer, he deigns to tell her that he already has a wife in Paris but the marriage doesn't mean a thing. Does she care?....nooooo. But she takes up a life of "loose morality" and globe trots through most of cafe society while never forgetting her love for Hamilton. Robert Montgomery, always close by, pulls her irons out of the fire and brings her back to the United States to start over. Then, in the last few minutes of the film, the story descends to sheer melodrama and unbelievablitly. Who shows up but Hamilton, now divorced, and he and Shearer are seen walking out of the theater on their way to a happy life together. Give me a break!!! The attitude of the main protagonists toward man/woman relationships is rather hard to take in this day and age.......but with that said, it is still worth seeing this pre-Code slice of history. Nobody ever looked better on the screen than Mrs. Thalberg.

Karen Green (klg19) This film is profoundly confused about what kind of morality it's embracing. Norma Shearer plays a modern young woman, having an affair with a dashing foreign correspondent (Neil Hamilton, in his first role with MGM). Her long-time friend Steve (the eternally effervescent Robert Montgomery), who has an inclination towards drink, has been in love with Shearer all their lives, but she won't give him a tumble (she actually uses that hoary old line, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you"). Shearer and Hamilton have no interest in marrying, but prefer their open relationship. Shearer's aunt extols the joy of marriage one evening, but when she sees her husband of 12 years kicking up his heels with a bimbo, she goes home and kills herself.Shearer and Hamilton head off for Mexico, where Hamilton reveals that he actually has a wife back in Paris (so apparently he DID once believe in marriage...). He leaves for Rio and refuses to take Shearer. She proceeds to sleep her way across Europe in order to drown her grief, which, of course, is one way of dealing with it. Montgomery finds her two years later in Spain where, despite her string of dalliances, he still tries to marry her. But Shearer gets a cable from Hamilton who has now divorced his French wife and is waiting in Paris, willing to marry. By the time Shearer responds, however, Hamilton has heard about her past two years of affairs, and is so repulsed that he never wants to see her again. He claims she should have WAITED for him, DESPITE her not knowing if she would EVER see him again. And...she AGREES. The level of double standard is staggering.Montgomery, however, STILL wants to marry her. Hamilton claims that a marriage to Shearer would leave him haunted by those "shadows on the wall," but Montgomery says, "What wall?" But Shearer says no. She says, in fact, that his wanting to marry her knowing of her promiscuous past proves that he doesn't actually love her.A year or so later, Montgomery and Shearer are at the theater, when they run into Hamilton. Time has mellowed him a bit, and he tells Shearer that they belong together. Montgomery watches her go, observing wryly that at least he'll always have a champagne bottle waiting for him.So, first, let's establish that I'm a huge fan and avid watcher of pre-Code film, and I'm not trying to judge this movie with a 21st-century sensibility. But let's figure out what the film is telling us:1) marriage isn't necessary if there is true love (Shearer and Hamilton, at the beginning)...2) marriage can only lead to heartbreak, because the man will inevitably cheat (Shearer's aunt and uncle)...3) men can abandon wives and go off with lovers and embrace free love and that's OK (Shearer and Hamilton in Mexico)...4) women can't (Shearer and Hamilton in Paris)...5) men who love women who've had promiscuous pasts don't really love them (Shearer and Montgomery)...6) women should wait forever for the man they love, through all the misunderstandings and rejections, and never ever get involved with anyone else, on the off chance that the man they love will decide they belong together (throughout)...7) a man who wants to marry a woman despite her promiscuous past can't actually love her, although a man who has punished and heaped contempt on said woman and then finally decides he wants to marry her despite it DOES actually love herWell. This film sends so many mixed signals, you need an air traffic controller.Interestingly, in the novel on which this film is based, the Shearer character eventually commits suicide after years of waiting in vain for the Hamilton character to return to her. So, the mixed signals may come from the Frankenstein-like effort of fusing a happy-ending head onto the original tragic body.Montgomery is, as always, charming and natural, which shows up in stark contrast with Shearer's silent-movie-born overacting. You may want to stab yourself in the eye after watching Shearer throw back her head and laugh gaily for the umpteenth time. Hamilton does a serviceable job in a thankless role, but it's always difficult to keep from visualizing Police Commissioner Gordon when he's on screen.I found this movie almost unbearably frustrating--but that's just me. Others, clearly, were more open to it. But I prefer a film that obeys its own internal logic, no matter how screwy it may be in relation to "reality." "Strangers May Kiss" doesn't carry that off.

mykidsmom32001 I loved this movie! Shearer is terrific, though I could pretty much see where it was going towards the end. I thought that some of the dialogue was quite ahead of it's time. It was great fun to watch! Norma Shearer fascinates me. I think she is a wonderful actress, and Robert Young was just charming! It was amusing how no character ever really utters any specifics as to Lisbeth's behavior, but I find that refreshing! You get the message. I also liked that Lisbeth valued her lovers criticism of her "bad" behavior, even though he was pretty much of a hypocrite. She still knew what was important in a marriage. I recommend this picture to all.