Surprisingly incoherent and boring

i must have seen a different film!!

hyped garbage

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Most of the movies from this period are bad, stabs in the eye. But you have to watch your quota in order to register the form.These early ones are pretty fascinating because with the onset of sound, filmmakers veered away from story for a while and accommodated the stage show. This is an early musical following the pattern used on Broadway, set by opera centuries before and still somewhat followed. Its song stitched together in the slightest of ways.The songs here seemed dreadful to me, absolutely dreadful. Just changing tastes on which drek we tolerate, I suppose.The story is about a girl, and someone who loves her, and her confusion over him and another boy. Which is less boring is the question. She and all the supposed sexy girls here have that mannish, short hairdo that was popular for only a couple years, invented by film.There's a blustery father whose job it is to keep things moving. The origin of his role is belied in the middle of the movie when in the midst of his patter he says of a joke: "I just tell em, I don't explain em." Everything else about this is from the stage as well, a strange deviation for cinema as it tried to discover what it would be. Its precode, so while there is nothing overtly sexy is shown, its clear that there are sex acts all around the story.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This early sound preservation (sort of) of one of Rodgers & Hart's minor Broadway successes (104 performances at the Alvin Theatre at the end of the roaring 20's - March 11-June 8, 1929) was released July 20, 1930, just as the country started its slide into the Great Depression, but bears no actual responsibility therefore.In truth, the film isn't exciting structurally, despite retaining several R&H standards from the stage - the title song, "Yours Sincerely" and "With A Song In My heart". Hollywood at the time was shameless in gutting successful stage properties of the very things which had made them successful in the first place and, in pre-Crash 1929, 100+ performances put SPRING IS HERE in the "hit" column, but it remains a pleasant entertainment and solid reminder of good light 1920's entertainment.Possibly the most interesting aspect of the film however, is the one Broadway cast holdover - Inez Courtney as Mary Jane. Ms. Courtnay repeats a couple of her songs from Broadway and began a decade long career in Hollywood that would culminate as the unforgettable "Ilona' in Lubitsch's LITTLE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER which in turn helped inspire the later Broadway musical SHE LOVES ME.While not a great musical or movie, the remains of Rodgers and Hart's score is a fine one - so fine in fact, that three years later the Vitaphone Corp. would give it (and the show) another outing with a two reel "Broadway Brevities" short called YOURS SINCERELY. Still minor, but still very entertaining.Worth seeking out. Not a lost treasure perhaps, but very nice costume jewelery.

Early musical about fickle Betty of the Long Island "fashionable set", the kind who seem to mostly go around with tennis rackets and ukuleles gripped in their hands. She stays out 'til five in the morning "riding" with a new fellow (leaving her regular beau high and dry at the dance) - so her grump of a dad decides he needs to put a stop to that kind of stuff and "get her a good husband". Well, when the regular fellow, Terry, shows up next morning, dad practically proposes himself - but Betty won't marry Terry. Terry IS in love, so - given the push by Betty's little 16-year-old sister (who looked to me about 35), he decides to spark Betty's jealousy by flirting with other women. And boy does he - including giving a passionate kiss to Betty's mom!This film is pretty silly, though has moments - such as the dad spouts a number of pretty good one-liners and there is a little bit of pre-code naughtiness too. The whole film comes across as a little stiff and stage play like - it includes characters bursting into song here and there, most of which are fairly mediocre, though I thought a few of the numbers were kind of catchy. The lead actors in this are not very memorable (though, at least, they sing well) - the most interesting characters are actually the girl's parents, quite amusingly portrayed by Ford Sterling and Louise Fazenda - the mom is depicted as very dizzy (reminded me of Gracie Allen). Betty turns into a "yes dear" baby talker kind of gal in the end, oh well. Fun, light entertainment.

Caught this today on TCM. It's one of those run-of-the-mill early sound-era musicals that soured the public on singing films until the exciting 42ND STREET and the early Busby Berkeley extravaganzas pumped juice back into the musical genre.Fazenda and her co-stars sing well in the operetta style that was still popular at this time, but their acting tends to be as stiff, stagy and clichéd as the story, dialog, and camera-work.It's interesting to see the kind of brainless and virtually heartless musical comedy that was current when SHOW BOAT debuted on Broadway and then on film, pointing the way toward more heartfelt, substantial musicals in the future. Tastes in comedy change, but I doubt anyone found this one very funny even when it first appeared. The humor is really forced and lame.The story is an ancestor of the teen comedies that would be popular decades later: a young jazz baby can't decide between two suitors, while her cranky, "old-fashioned" father and clueless mother provide comic relief.Hit with a bunch of stagy, static movies like this one, no wonder the public at the time got sick of musicals. The genre had to be reconceived a couple years later, turned into a faster, fresher, more kinetic entertainment that was truly cinematic.SPRING IS HERE is a typical plodding commercial product of its era. It's competent without being in any way outstanding. It will interest specialists as an example of writing and performing styles of the 1920s, but it won't win any new converts to early sound-era musicals. It's pretty bad ...