Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

MartinHafer Grace Moore was a very odd leading lady in Hollywood. She was only moderately pretty and her biggest asset was her operatic songs...and Columbia Studios tried for several years, unsuccessfully, to make her a star. However, her career in Hollywood only lasted nine films until they gave up. Don't feel sorry for her, however, as Moore was a very accomplished singer and was world famous for her performances...not bad for a girl from Tennessee!This is one of Moore's last films and it's pretty much the same sort of formula they'd use in the next movie, "I'll Take Romance"...though this later film is a bit better. In this case, she and Cary Grant have an on again off again relationship until ultimately she realizes what a fine catch he is and they live happily ever after. The story is predictable but could have worked if she didn't keep breaking into song. These are NOT the normal plebeian sort of songs most folks enjoy but operatic...and they do NOT age well. In fact, they make the film a real chore to finish. The only reason I did is that I would like to one day say I've seen all of Cary Grant's films...even the bad ones. And, sadly, this one is pretty bad.

richard-1787 Robert Riskin, who wrote the script for this movie, also wrote the scripts for Platinum Blonde (1931), It Happened One Night (1934), Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), Lost Horizon (1937), You Can't Take It with You (1938), Meet John Doe (1941), and many other of the great movie classics of the 1930s. If I start by listing those masterpieces, it is to wonder how he could have written something as poor as this script. Because it is the script, and Riskin's sole turn at being a movie director, that sink this movie. The first part is very poor, the middle not as bad, but then the end, with the god-awful music festival done in neo-Grecian art deco, destroys any chance of actually respecting this movie. HOW could anyone have thought that the last number, a piece that talks about a "simple song" but is staged with a cast of hundreds in elaborate 18th century ball gowns and what not, would not look ridiculous? It's a shame that the script and direction are so often so poor, because there are good things in this movie.Moore's singing of Sibonay early in the movie is magical. It's a great number, brought off wonderfully by Moore at her very best. The staging isn't great, but it doesn't sink what is really a great five minutes.There is also a very effective 5 minutes dramatically when Cary Grant and Moore sit before a fire in his cabin. The scene comes off as very natural, and very convincing - one of the few such natural moments in the movie, unfortunately.Several of the other musical numbers, done very simply, are very moving. The song Moore sings to the children about the wooden doll, her song out in nature (which then gets travestied as the finale at the music festival), her singing of a folk-song while lying on her back in the cabin. And while she was no Cab Calloway, she does a nice job with Minnie the Moocher.But Riskin's direction kills a good performance of Shubert's Serenade, done, for no apparent reason, in neo-Grecian art-deco. And Moore's performance of Vissi d'arte from Tosca under the opening credits is never explained and leads nowhere.The dramatic crux of the movie happens only because Moore's character fails to explain to Cary Grant's why she has to sing at the music festival. It makes no sense that she would not have explained this.So, in summary: there are some golden nuggets in this movie, mostly the musical numbers - but not all of them. Most of the rest of it is poor.Very definitely inferior to Moore's other movie from 1937, I'll Take Romance, which suggests that Moore could have made some good movies if she had had better directors and material.

MrFabulocity I really enjoyed this movie because I just sat back and listened. Dissection is no fun in film. This is a breezy romp rather than ART! I laughed and had a good time. I enjoyed Cary Grants early performance and adored Grace Moore's singing. Ailene McMahon was a regular Eve Arden pre the spunky Eve herself. The odd part is that Grace plays an Australian opera singer with her American accent while Cary Grant plays an American with his English accent. Miss Moore needs to find a way into the country since she doesn't have permission to enter the states. The border guards must have been much tougher in the 1930's! If you can get your hands on this film just sit back, relax and enjoy.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre "When You're in Love" is notable for two trivial reasons, neither of which brings any merit to the movie.The first trivium is that silent-film star Louise Brooks appears in this film as a chorus girl. In 1929 Brooks had poisoned her Hollywood career, refusing to participate in the re-shooting of one of her silent films as a talkie. Eight years later, trying to recover her brief stardom, Brooks was desperate enough to strike a one-sided bargain with low-budget studio Columbia: former Denishawn dancer Brooks would accept a chorus-girl role in "When You're in Love", at a chorus girl's wage and indistinguishable from any of the other chorus girls. Columbia would circulate photos of Brooks in the chorus line, hoping to drum up publicity for this film with the angle of the ex-star beginning all over in the chorus. The back end of this deal was that Columbia promised to give Brooks a starring role afterwards. The chorus-girl angle did nothing to save the box-office of "When You're in Love", and the starring vehicle never came.(I find Louise Brooks very sexy, but most of her fans seem very creepy. The Louise Brooks cult is determined to delude itself that Louise Brooks herself was identical to the character she played on screen. Most Marilyn Monroe fans are creepy too, for the same reason.)The second trivium is that "When You're in Love" is the only film ever directed by screenwriter Robert Riskin. Riskin was the principal scripter on most of Frank Capra's best films: most of the distinctive touches that define Capra's movies are actually Riskin's creations. When Riskin resented that Capra got all the credit for their collaborations, Capra suggested that Riskin should try to direct a film himself. This movie was it... and a very bad directorial debut. In his autobiography, Capra was openly gleeful about the flop of Riskin's one directorial effort."When You're in Love" stars opera singer Grace Moore, which is part of the problem. Opera singers tend to be failures as movie stars. The success of Jeanette MacDonald was due much more to her sex appeal rather than to her singing voice. Ironically, one of the few opera singers to succeed in movies was Geraldine Farrar: a box-office hit in *silent* films. Grace Moore lacked Jeanette MacDonald's sex appeal and acting skills. Hedging their bets, the producers of "When You're in Love' have larded this film's score with music that's highbrow, lowbrow, middlebrow and everywhere else on the brow spectrum: some genuine opera, some operetta, some Jerome Kern. The most ludicrous moment occurs when Moore dresses up as Cab Calloway and sings 'Minnie the Moocher' with bowdlerised lyrics. It's not pretty, folks.The plot, you ask? Nobody sees a movie like this for its plot. Well, if you insist. Grace Moore plays a successful opera singer, who - as an implausible publicity stunt - gets married in name only. Her husband is a charming ne'er-do-well, played by Cary Grant. Guess what happens in the last reel. Go ahead, have a guess. It really irritates me to see movies about a woman who falls in love with a completely irresponsible jerk because he's handsome and charming. This happens in real life too, but I don't need to see it in the movies."When You're in Love" is froth, utterly without substance. That's no crime, but the bubbles in this champagne have gone very flat indeed. I found this film tedious. Many of the musical numbers were extremely dull, and all of them were badly staged. Some character actors whom I've liked elsewhere (Henry Stephenson, Luis Alberni) give listless performances here. Robert Riskin was a brilliant screenwriter but this is one of his poorest efforts. Based on this one film, he shows absolutely no talent for directing, although perhaps he might have acquired the proper skills if he'd continued. (One of the greatest scriptwriters of all time, George S Kaufman, also directed only one film ... but Kaufman was a brilliant stage director.) I'll rate 'When You're in Love' precisely 2 points out of 10.