jjnxn-1 Lets get this out of the way right off the top, Ginger Rogers is too old for her part in this film! True she looks very lovely and far younger than the 35 years she was when this was made, perhaps 25 or 26, but she is supposed to be an 18 year old escapee from a reform school and there is no amount of soft focus that could make that believable.As far as the rest of the film its a mediocre effort wasting the other two assets it has on hand, Adolph Menjou and Basil Rathbone, in small parts. The story itself is rather ridiculous held up by the talent involved but it's wasted effort. A forgettable enterprise, all the stars have made better films that should be sought out instead.

Jay Raskin This movie starts out great in the first half hour. Basil Rathbone, Ginger Rogers and Aldolph Menjou play some very funny scenes. Unfortunately, Jean Pierre Aumont shows up and the comedy disappears. We get a love story that doesn't really go anywhere. There's little chemistry between Rogers and Aumont. Plus, there's the problem of having a real Frenchman playing with an American actress who is supposed to be a French woman, but does not have a French accent.The movie also doesn't take place at any particular time. At first I thought we were in the 1890's in Paris, but then it sort of shifted to the 1920's and 30's. In the narrative, the movie takes place over a few weeks, so this is not a deliberate time jump, just a result of sloppy film-making.The movie should have stuck with Rathbone and Menjou, but they disappear for much of the second half of the film and we are left with the much duller character of Aumont. This forces Rogers to supply whatever comedy and passion the film is capable of showing. She looks like she's waiting for Fred Astaire to show up. Alas, he never does.

MartinHafer This is a very watchable movie, but it is also amazingly dumb in places and should have been a lot better. A lot of the problem should rest on the shoulders of Ginger Rogers, who for at least the second time in her career is ridiculously portraying a woman half her age! This 35 year-old actress plays an 18 year-old and is about as convincing at that as she would have been playing Hattie McDaniel's role in GONE WITH THE WIND! This same ridiculous idea was the plot for another Rogers film, THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR, where at 32, she played a school girl!!! While a very small number of actresses MIGHT have been able to carry this off, Ms. Rogers appeared at least her chronological age and in both films it just comes off as ridiculous. While not quite as bad as Mae West in MYRA BRECKINRIDGE (who was 77 and STILL making passes at young men), it was still along the same lines as far as actresses who won't admit that they are no longer the young starlets they had once been decades earlier.The second problem is that the film in many ways has two totally different tones. I loved the first portion of the film where we see Basil Rathbone operating a school for would-be thieves! This segment is very funny and incredibly original--I really wanted to see much more of this. The second portion was a very familiar love story with complications. Sure, it was fun to watch but not nearly as much as the other part--and it was very, very hard to believe that the budding romance could be real. Frankly, the film tries a bit too hard and comes off as forced.The bottom line is that this is merely a time-passer and nothing more. If you do watch it, though, try not to laugh when Ginger tells the camera how old she is supposed to be--it isn't supposed to be a comedy!

Snow Leopard Despite having some talent and material to work with, this feature produces just a few good moments, and it never really comes together the way it might have. The cast, headed by Ginger Rogers and including some fine supporting actors, certainly supplied plenty of talent. The story idea was only mildly imaginative, but it had the potential for some decent comedy and entertaining romantic mix-ups. But it seems to go in too many different directions at different times, and perhaps as a result, it has a few stretches of good material packed amidst some longer, less interesting parts.Rogers was easily one of the more attractive and talented actresses of her era, but the role of Arlette just doesn't seem to work for her. The character is not really as interesting as the situation, and Rogers often seems to be trying too hard. In any case, the character never quite rings true.The story starts with Arlette, a reluctant enrollee in a school for petty criminals, getting roped into a scheme by an unscrupulous aristocrat that plunges her into a series of romantic and personal complications, as she develops a tangled relationship with a diplomat played by Jean-Pierre Aumont. The story is pure fluff, deliberately implausible but with some good possibilities, and it would likely have worked better with a lighter, more farcical touch all around.Basil Rathbone is well cast as the 'professor' at the crime school, and there are some amusing details in his classes and teaching methods, but all of the sequences in the 'school' are essentially just elaborations on the basic gag idea. Adolphe Menjou was an ideal choice for the unprincipled nobleman, but he has to contend with some clunky dialogue in his part. For all of these and other reasons, "Heartbeat" - though probably worth seeing - never hits its stride, and it delivers less than it could have.