Such a frustrating disappointment

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

During the Pre-Code era before mid-1934, pretty much anything went in films...though OFTEN it was strongly implied instead of said outright. This is because there was no rating system and kids could easily be watching any film...so Hollywood often IMPLIED things like abortion, promiscuity and the like. Some films went much further than implying...but most implied. With the new Production Code, films were to be pure and things weren't even supposed to be implied. However, somehow "Unfinished Business" got made in the Production Code era and still implied quite a few things...but frankly, I am NOT sure exactly what it was implying and the film could be interpreted different ways. The more salacious way would seem to make the film make more sense.The film begins in Ohio at a wedding. Nancy's younger sister is getting married and finally Nancy will be free to live her life. This is because Nancy ended up raising her sister and had no time for love. So now, she's eager to make up for lost time. On the train taking Nancy to the big city, she meets a very suave rich guy, Steve Duncan (Preston Foster). He seduces her and she is naive enough to believe his promises...though to him she's simply another conquest.Later, when she's working in the big city, she sees Steve...with his fiance! Obviously the louse had no honorable intentions and she is heartbroken. Steve's brother, Tommy (Robert Montgomery), sees Nancy is upset and takes her out for a night of drinking and merry-making.The next day, Tommy awakens to discover he's married to Nancy! They try to make a go of it but ghosts of Steve interfere and the marriage is on the rocks. What's next? See the film.Here are the two possible ways to interpret the film: One, Nancy made out with Steve but nothing more. Why she kept holding on to this memory and why she had so much trouble getting over him is a puzzler. She apparently is an idiot. Two, Nancy and Steve did the nasty. This makes it much easier to understand why she had trouble getting over him as well as the baby at the end of the film!! Either way, the movie is pretty good...but the second explanation (clearly NOT a Production Code plot) really makes much more sense and if they'd been clearer about this (which they couldn't because of the tough new code), then it all would have made a lot of sense and would have been a better film. As it is, it's just confusing though terribly well acted.

This was an odd little piece of filmmaking from Universal back in 1941. Irene Dunne plays a never married woman, Nancy Andrews, probably in her mid to late 20's, who has spent her life raising her younger sister who is now marrying. In 1941 in Ohio, where this movie starts, Nancy would be considered a spinster. Sis and her new husband have a surprise for her - she can come live with them! Nancy doesn't want to be treated to life in a rocking chair just yet and decides to leave and go off to the big city (New York) and "do things". However, she doesn't really have a plan, and it seems that is part of the attraction for her - for once in her life, having no plan.On the train to New York she meets rich playboy Steve Duncan (Preston Foster). He makes a bet with his companion on who can pick up the most attractive woman and bring her back to their compartment first. Nancy is not wise in the ways of the world and does not see this obvious fellow for what he is, and is charmed by him and believes his pick up lines as sincerity. Steve wins the bet but decides to go for the gold and seduces Nancy. Now this is where things get murky - probably deliberately. As the train whistles, Steve, with an expression that screams "date rape" in modern times, comes closer and closer to Nancy and they wind up kissing - it is mutual. The camera then moves to the outside of the train with that train still whistling. The insinuation is that they sleep together.They arrive in New York, and Steve says he will call her. He has no such intention. She is just the latest conquest among many and he is engaged - something he never told her - to someone he probably doesn't love any more than the rest of his conquests. However, his intended is old money like himself and that is what matters. Slowly Nancy comes to the realization that she's been used like yesterday's newspapers, and through luck and coincidence winds up a novelty "singing operator" at a nightspot run by the always fascinating to watch Walter Catlett. So who winds up at the nightspot one night but slimy Steve, his fiancée, and Steve's brother Tommy (Robert Montgomery), who shares Steve's worst characteristics PLUS he is a drunk. However, Tommy takes a genuine shine to Nancy and they begin dating. Primarily Tommy is "Steve by proxy" in Nancy's life - she still carries a torch. However Tommy is so drunk most of the time he can't see this. They marry on a lark - Tommy is drunk, Nancy is trying to put Steve behind her. The next day Tommy doesn't even remember that he got married and Nancy doesn't seem to care. How will this all work out? I'll let you watch and find out.I'll just say that a busy boarding house, a little accident, the United States Army, and the opera are all involved. Oh, and one of those girls from Tommy's past that meant no more to Tommy than Nancy did to brother Steve is pivotal in a small but important role.I liked this movie because it dealt with an issue that was seldom brought up in the production code era - that a woman can have a past involving some man that she loved and even made a fool of herself over, but didn't get and always carries a torch for, and not wind up the object lesson in some Victorian morality play. Life goes on. This one is very much worth your time exactly because it doesn't go where you think it is going and with a talented cast to boot.

Any picture which brings Irene Dunne and Robert Montgomery together, with direction by Gregory La Cava has something to recommend it. Right? There is some charm and humor here but it's as if the whole project can't make up its mind and the dramatic elements flirt with dare I say it – the unhappy ending. SPOILERS: It is nice to see lovely Miss Dunne (but as a spinster?) and the worldly Mr. Montgomery toss witty and pithy observations as if they didn't care only to marry on the day they meet? It is fun to have Eugene Palette mixing in as a blunt butler, speaking his mind now and then. And it is good to know that their happiness is assured in the end, if they'd just get out of their own proud ways. But this oddly "Unfinished Business," in which they are so desperately involved, is something to tax the believability of even the most open mind. For it makes the assumption that an innocent girl from the Ohio sticks could be so emotionally impressed by a Pullman-car romance with a sleek sportsman that her subsequent marriage with the same fellow's brother would be badly jeopardized thereby. Furthermore, it assumes that the brother would be such a dolt that a term of army service and a chance to clip his fraternal rival on the jaw would clear his mind of all doubts. In brief, like many another picture, it makes a romantic plot but not much sense. Under the circumstances, the actors do well. Miss Dunne, even though she must combine the naïveté of Cinderella with the devastating wit of a Dorothy Parker, is charming; Mr. Montgomery, as the slobbering playboy is nice. And Mr. Palette, Preston Foster, Walter Catlett and several others round out a good cast. Mr. La Cava has done a lot to disguise a foolish script with glib action, but the trick doesn't quite come off. The unfinished business here lies dead in someone's typewriter.

Every star has a list of movies they'd rather not have made, and I would guess this movie is one of Irene Dunne's. She did a good job in it, and the plot wasn't as inprobable as many movies on the market today. But the movie is dated in many ways: Small town girl goes to big city; falls for the first smooth-talker she meets; marries somebody else on the rebound; eventually falls deeply in love with him; everybody lives happily ever-after. If Irene Dunne weren't in it, this movie would have little to commend it. But she adds luster to practically everything she ever made. This is a film worth watching because it has its comic moments. And after all - it has Irene Dunne.