Lucky Partners (1940)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

A vintage Hollywood movie I must admit I'd never heard of before that I was pleased to catch on very early morning terrestrial TV, helmed by a celebrated director, Lewis Milestone and boasting two top stars in Ronald Colman and Ginger Rogers. Shame it was something of a let-down.It starts nicely enough with a fortuitous meeting between Colman and Rogers after the latter has started her mundane work day by receiving a gift of an expensive coat and benefits again from a lottery tip-off from Colman's David Grant character. I hoped it would continue the theme of fortuitous events happening throughout the film but unfortunately the film goes downhill from there with Colman's somewhat mysterious beachcomber character propositioning Rogers to accompany him on a trip to Niagara, coming between her and her boorish fiancé played by Jack Carson, in the process.So the mismatched couple, booked in as brother and sister, naturally end up in adjoining rooms in a posh hotel, before the fiancé turns up to make trouble for them which eventually sees them all end up on trial in a lengthy concluding courtroom scene for various minor misdemeanours, only for true love to conquer all, as Colman is revealed to be a reclusive famous artist in hiding after an apparently infamous trial about the morality of some of his earlier work.I know screwball comedies are meant to throw together unlikely individuals, be based on threadbare plots and large coincidence and be fast-paced and full of wisecracks but the most important of these, the last, just isn't delivered here. Poor Ginger, only recently on leave from years as old Fred's girl, has to canoodle with another much older man and good-looking and suave on the face of it as he is, you can't describe Colman's character as anything other than weird and one that a single woman most probably shouldn't let be her chaperone. That said her boyfriend Carson hardly seems like a catch either, being the brusque, money-grabbing, controlling type.There are some eccentrics dotted about in the background too like the two stereotypical Italian restaurateurs in whose eaterie they first meet, an odd selection of hotel employees, a strange elderly couple who Rogers christens Peter Possum and Jenny Wren who in truth can't be that much older than Colman even as they rhapsodise about the younger duo personifying love's young dream and finally a long-winded judge at the trial, but Preston Sturges this definitely isn't. All the explanations for Colman's odd-ball behaviour are held back until the last reel and then delivered in an unconvincing hurry at the same time as we're expected to believe in the even more unlikely romance of the two leads.What more to say, well, Rogers looks lovely, especially in her evening gown although unfortunately she stops short of actually dancing even a few steps, Colman is certainly smooth if lacking warmth and director Milestone has some nice touches like a scene showing both sides of the dividing doors as the couple argue and the courtroom scene where he shows successive witnesses sat in the same seat giving their testimony, but it has to be said, it's all rather dull, with no real laughs, curiously uninvolving characters and on the whole adds up to a lot less than the sum of its parts.

Lucky Partners, released in 1940, paired Ginger Rogers with Ronald Colman. The movie starts with Colman (Dave Grant) wishing a stranger "Good Luck!" as he passes her (Rogers playing Jean Newton) on the sidewalk, catching her off guard. After a brief exchange, they continue on their ways. Right away, the director is letting us know that this is a whimsical story, so criticisms about its implausibility should be few.It turns out that Jean, who is engaged to Freddy (played by Jack Carson), crosses paths with Dave again, sending the story of this romantic comedy on its way. I was pleased to find this film uses both broad humor and comedic subtlety, with elements of farce. Director Lewis Milestone uses a deft touch to keep us guessing at the next plot twist and to keep the chuckles coming. I'm afraid I was not cognizant of Milestone's accomplishments before seeing Lucky Partners. He won the Academy Award for All Quiet on the Western Front, and directed the excellent Front Page, and the quirky Hallelujah, I'm a Bum. Milestone was known for his innovative filming techniques and his quirky sense of humor. Ronald is his usual smooth self (does anyone else think Hugo Weaving was copying his voice in V for Vendetta?); Ginger, who I am partial to, plays her vivacious, funny-face persona. She would win the Academy Award for her role in Kitty Foyle, also released in 1940.There are some humorous supporting cast portrayals, particularly the hotel maid who is the victim of Ginger's curious behavior.Before it ends, the story morphs into a mystery that resolves in a courtroom setting.Watch how the director creates viewer interest by allowing action to occur off-screen; he is very good at that. When the two men go into the back alley to fight (off-screen), watch Ginger's face. And you can see the moment (crossing the bridge)when Ginger realizes how much she cares for Ronald, accomplished without words--evidence of Milestone's silent film experience.I really enjoyed this film.

I'm going to argue that this movie isn't supposed to make sense as some people have written. It's the type of film, for me personally as a teenager at least, one would love to watch and imagine that you are Ronald Colman. I mean here you have the beautiful Ginger Rogers (who by the way reminds me of Esther Williams in this movie) and a complete stranger who manages to enchant her out of the blue. It's every man's dream to find that beautiful girl, and for me, I spent the whole movie wishing Colman luck in getting Rogers. So for those of you who say the plot is improbable, it is, but thats the point. I think the movie is supposed to reflect every man's wishful fantasy, not reality.The chemistry between Ginger and Colman was all right, not the best I agree, but still it wasn't awful. If you are going to be watching this movie, I suggest you watch it with an open mind, don't consider the improbability or anything else, just follow the plot and don't think too hard. Do that at least the first time, cause thats the way it was supposed to be viewed in my opinion.The only thing I didn't like was the ending of the movie. The court room scene seemed a little bit rushed and not the kind of ending one would like. The beginning was OK, it set up the movie. The middle was very good, witty, romantic and comical. And you would expect it to finish comically, but I agree with the previous posts that the producers seem to have run out of ideas. Nevertheless, it is worth watching for the middle part alone. Enjoy.

Considering the film starred Ginger and Ronald, I really did expect to enjoy it a lot more than I did. That's because no matter how good the middle of the movie was (and it was SIGNIFICANTLY better), the main plot idea was so fatally flawed and dumb that the film was majorly handicapped at the onset. Then, to top it off, the film managed to have an even worse ending--making it a truly terrible film overall.As far as the plot goes, Ginger and Ronald don't know each other, but when they pass on the street, Ronald wishes her good luck. And, surprisingly, good luck seems to come her way immediately afterwords. So, using "movie logic", Ginger reasons that Ronald is so lucky that they should both buy a lottery ticket together. While this is far-fetched, this COULD have worked. However, then, when Ronald agrees BUT only on the stipulation that if they win, she should accompany him on a vacation, the script just makes no sense at all--especially since she is already engaged to Jack Carson. So, as you can see, from the onset the film is hindered by impossibly stupid and contrived events.Now as I said above, despite these problems, this COULD have still been a delightful film--especially since when they DO go on the trip together, the film is very romantic and likable. HOWEVER, the last 15 minutes or so are absolutely dreadful!!! It was obvious that the writers had no idea what to do with the story, so they contrived the arrest of Ronald Colman and a subsequent trial--even though there isn't any real evidence any crime has been committed. They could have just checked the registration to figure out the car was not stolen, but instead it becomes a HUGE trial and all normal court procedure, as we know it, is out the window!!! Ronald is his own lawyer and asks a lot of annoying questions. This is odd but COULD have happened in a real court case. However, when the judge later lets Ginger take over as the prosecutor and ask Ronald such questions as "do you love me?", the film hits an absolute low as far as common sense goes.Aside from films like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and TOMMY, this is one of the worst films I have seen in some time. Giving it a 3 was VERY charitable and only occurred because the middle of the film DID work well. Avoid this like the plague, as I doubt either Ginger or Ronald made anything worse--and this DOES include THE STORY OF MANKIND! YUCK!!!