In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Here's an interesting old movie, one of the earliest examples of a formula that would later define a whole genre, more a whole industry. Man meets girl and immediately falls in love. There is an event followed by a misunderstanding that send them apart. They rejoin at the end. Later this ending would require a public avowal, something missing here.This is also an example of somethings that did not stick. Deep in the depression, many movies featured the ultra rich - people who just seemed to have money for no reason. Because this was before comical prudery changed films starting with the Code, we have the situation that guy knocks up the girl.But I found it interesting for yet another reason. Movies from this era were far more willing to question gender roles than now is the case. Oh, today we worry about professions and opportunity. I'm talking about what it means to be a woman or man. In this film, we have our girl, with appealing innocence. She is the child of Manhattan, with clear immigrant, lower class heritage. Both she and the rich guy are noble people, but she far more. The film is about her decisions.Sturges has taken the time to introduce four older women. They are shoehorned in and have nothing at all to do with the story; they are there only to show strong women, sometimes frustrated strength. There is the older woman at the dance hall where our girl works, who is much loved as she takes care of her girls. We have the aunt of our rich guy who is shown as a forceful nut job.Then we have the girl's mother. We learn a lot about her past and values. She turns her daughter out on the street when she gets pregnant by her then boyfriend. This woman slaps her adult kids, hard. We spend the final third of the movie with the girl's aunt, something of a world traveller, a poor person's playgirl. She drinks too much but always seems to be on top of things.Four strong women form the situation-of-womanhood in which we interpret our girl's life. Nothing like that today in mainstream films.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Don't let the wedlock baby fool you. This is a version of the fairy-tale Cinderella story popular with Depression era audiences of the time. It comforts folks with the idea that rags- to-riches lightning may strike them if they just get noticed by a benevolent rich person, in this case John Boles with the rather double-edge name of "Vanderkill". What's suggested is that rescue from desperate economic conditions lies with joining established wealth instead of joining with other desperate folks to improve the common economic condition. I don't know how the screenplay compares with Sturges' stage play, but what's there on the screen looks processed in typical Hollywood fashion.I realize this kind of perspective is unwelcome to most viewers who simply want to be entertained in engaging fashion. Certainly Nancy Caroll does that with a winning performance as the down-trodden girl. Her sheer spunk in the early scenes carries the movie, at the same time I couldn't help thinking how much her big eyes, high cheek bones and flattened hair-do resemble the popular Betty Boop character of the time. Too bad the rest of the cast doesn't come up to her level, especially Buck Jones' Panama Kelly whose unbelievably gallant nature helps produce the fairy tale outcome. Note also, how actual Depression era conditions are not allowed to intrude on the enclosed world of the lovers. To be fair, that may simply have resulted from a tight budget. But if so, the constraints help produce what appears to be the desired overall effect.Whatever the movie's internal qualities, the relevance of the underlying message to that historical period needs to be pointed out. Because no matter how much we may wish otherwise, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

I saw this movie this morning by accident. I love 30s movies for the clothes, the beauty of which hit me during the "first" mini era. I was a teenager and I had never seen such gorgeous clothes.The movie is predictable, but Nancy Carroll is adorable and I can see what her appeal was. With that pretty face and hair, she would have absolutely no chance of getting any job as an actress today, in this world of gaunt, giraffe-like women-men. Too bad we don't have any visual differences among the "leading actresses of today", all those interchangeable bland flat-haired blondes.Those clothes are wonderful. Too bad we'll never see their like again -- after all, how can anyone be attractive wearing anything other a mini or jeans?Hey, wasn't Buck Jones handsome! I won't contrast him with our "leading men" today. I leave that up to you.

This is an old fashioned Pre-Code film--the sort of movie that managed both to offend many in its day due to the sometimes racy subject matter yet also followed a very old and predictable formula. While all this makes it sound as if I didn't like the film, this certainly is not the case. It's just that many modern viewers may both be surprised at the candor of the film when it comes to topics like illegitimate births as well as how predictable and melodramatic it all became. This is true to the style of the day and for its time, this was a pretty good movie.A rich guy (John Boles) visits a dance hall at the request of his stuffy aunt. The family owns the property and wants the tenants thrown out because the place is evil. She thinks this might be a "den of iniquity" and Boles good naturedly agrees to check it out--though it's obvious he's just humoring her. Once there, he sees it's just a normal dance hall--no "hoochie koochie" girls or strippers. However, he is also surprised to find that he's very smitten with one of the ladies who works there. They begin dating and it's obvious they care about each other. However, in a scene that is mostly alluded to, he and the girl (Nancy Carroll) apparently have sex and she becomes pregnant (either that, or it's another virgin birth--it is a tad sketchy). They marry but she can't help but think that Boles only married her out of obligation. When the baby dies shortly after birth, Carroll imagines that it's for the best and runs off to Mexico to divorce Boles. She thinks she's not good enough for him and he'd be much happier in the long run with a rich society dame--especially since no one seems to know about their marriage.Where the film goes from there isn't all that surprising, but I'd rather not spoil it. Despite some predictability, I still liked the film and this style film was common in the day it was made--so it shouldn't be penalized for this. A good script, good acting and deft direction make this a very nice time-passer and is worth a look.