Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

I stuck with this movie because I have a head cold and didn't have the energy to do much of anything else. But if I had had the energy, I hope I would have given up on it early on, when Stewart's character becomes thoroughly disagreeable. This is the story, often told, of an artist who becomes a success and then is led astray by a woman who promises to bring out his "potential." But the script is not well-written. None of the changes are prepared in advance. We don't ever really see why/how Amanda can seduce Stewart away from Rosalind Russell. And then there are all sorts of gratuitous slams at the Black maid, played by Louise Beavers. In short, this movie did nothing for me. I can't imagine that S.N. Behrman's play, on which it was based, could have been this uninvolving.

Too bad about the awkward shift. That first part shows Stewart at his charming down-home best. He's an aspiring playwright from the Minnesota sticks intent on mounting his unlikely play on Broadway. His play is trying to ape New York sophistication, but because of his rural background, the play comes across as comedic satire which the audiences surprisingly love. So Gay's (Stewart) reputation is made which he follows up with several more successful comedies. Meanwhile, he marries sensible lead actress Linda (Russell), who's drawn to his innocent manner. Their prosperous future now seems assured until he suffers writer's block and the marriage cracks open.Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.

No Time For Comedy is one of those glittering baubles about the theatre of the 1930s. Originally staged in New York for Katherine Cornell and featuring a callow young Laurence Olivier as her earnest playwright husband who drinks too much because he's convinced he's wasting his talent writing comedy when the world is such a wretched place, it was reworked for Jimmy Stewart and Rosalind Russell, and for me the movie plays as well if not better than the play.I was familiar with S.N. Behrman's elegant script and as I saw the film I was a bit confused. A whole new act had been added at the beginning to define the playwright as an awkward kid from Minnesota, swimming with sharks for the first time as his play is produced in New York. Jimmy Stewart was at his best, transitioning from a stammering yahoo to a gentleman drunk, and rising to the occasion to hammer out what he hopes will be a masterpiece with the help of a conniving female (Genevieve Tobin). Rosalind Russell is up to the role of the glamorous actress, the foil for the insecure playwright on the way up (and down), and Charlie Ruggles is wise and sophisticated and totally believable as the husband of the conniver and later suitor to the actress. Tobin is quite adroit, playing the conniver as a Billie Burke-type, although not quite pretty enough to convince me Stewart would leave Russell for her.It's a very satisfying film if you like the genre, and it's always a pleasure to see Jimmy Stewart so at home in a "stagey" piece.

Russell and Stewart. Both actors with career highs the previous year, 1939 -- she with THE WOMEN, he with MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON which earned him his first Academy nod for Best Actor. Both with careers entering high gear at the dawn of the 40s with fine performances, she in HIS GIRL Friday, he with THE PHILADELPHIA STORY for which he finally did win the Oscar. Together they should have succeeded together as main players in a movie.So what failed? The fact that this was a truly awful story, ill-conceived for any medium, stage or film, and the fact that Stewart's role is not very sympathetic -- a rarity. He comes across too petty, irritatingly self-involved with his own success as a writer that one also wonders why Russell's character, a successful stage actress, would stay with him at all. In today's world, a divorce would have been in order faster than yesterday's news, and even then they were taking place within the rich and famous. Which makes me go to the second problem in the film --Russell plays a role that Greer Garson could practically sleepwalk through, and does so in a way that makes you feel sorry for her, but also makes you want to dive into the screen and smack her with something hard. Comedy was her specialty -- this was Russell trying to prove she could also do drama, and it does not work in her favor.And what on Earth is Genvieve Tobin doing in this film? She looks crazy from the start, so completely affected she makes "stage British" look genuine, and her presence brings the film to a dead halt. That she doesn't quite get her comeuppance for nearly destroying a marriage is beyond me.Louise Beavers fares even worse: she plays Russell's maid and what she does is repeat her "resigned, but jolly" role until it's dead on the floor. But, to give her credit, she does get screen time, and high billing in a time when black actors/actresses were barely seen.NO TIME FOR COMEDY drains the life out of the comedy and remains only a footnote mention in both Russell's and Stewart's careers.