AaronCapenBanner John Cromwell directed this marital comedy(with serious overtones) that stars Jimmy Stewart as John Mason, a successful young lawyer with a good law firm who meets, falls in love with, and marries a young woman named Jane(played by Carole Lombard) whom he brings home with him to the disapproval of his mother(played by Lucille Watson). Things become strained when he doesn't get an expected partnership at the firm, and later on, their baby gets sick, forcing John to scramble to get a valuable serum that is the only chance to save its life... Good performances by the leads compensates for uneven nature of the film, which is occasionally awkward , but ultimately appealing.

GManfred Except two of Hollywood's most charismatic stars busting their buns to make it work. In truth, there isn't a lot to work with in "Made For Each Other", a routine soaper where little, if anything, happens. Oh, there's money troubles, mother-in-law troubles, work troubles, baby sickness and marital problems, but nothing to distinguish this screenplay from a ton of others. Except for the exceptional cast.If not for Stewart and Lombard, this is a pass-over on your movie guide. But there is lots of chemistry between the two, who play a newly-married couple who encounter the usual problems newly-marrieds face. If you're looking for a comedy, there is very little humor to be found here as it is mainly straight drama. The key is to sit back and watch two pros do what they do best.Toward the end of the picture their is a little contrived suspense, but not enough to generate much enthusiasm or to raise my rating. It is no surprise there are comparatively few votes or reviews for this picture, raised up out of mediocrity by its two stars.

GAWeldon Your enjoyment of "Made For Each Other" is entirely dependent on your appreciation for Jimmy Stewart. If you're a big fan of his, you should find this movie mildly entertaining. If, however, you find Jimmy Stewart vastly overrated as an actor, like I do, then you're in for a painful slog.All of Stewart's quirks, gimmicks, affectations, and stammers are fully on view here. In this movie, he plays a wimpy lawyer who lets everyone and everything in his life overwhelm him. That would be fine if the movie gave us any kind of story to attach to the character he plays. It doesn't. There's a co-worker at the law firm where Stewart works who seems to be the film's villain early on. They're competing for a firm partnership, so it seems like we might get some heated office politics. We don't. Stewart had been dating the boss' daughter before meeting his wife, so it seems like we might get some interesting romantic rivalry sparks in the movie. We don't. Stewart's boss (Charles Coburn) pushes Stewart around, possibly because Stewart ditched his daughter, so we might get some "boss vs. employee" friction. We don't. Stewart's new wife and his mom rub each other the wrong way, so we might get some interesting family in-fighting. We don't. In fact, not much really happens in this movie at all.After about an hour of listlessness, Stewart and Lombard decide to get a divorce. At this point, I thought, "Well, maybe their baby will get sick and die and that'll end this dreary movie." Shazam! The next scene, that very thing started to happen! All of a sudden Stewart is sobbing on the phone, demanding help from his boss, praying for help, all in the most melodramatic way possible. Some random pilot decides to fly from Salt Lake City to New York during a raging blizzard (in an open air bi-plane!!!) in order to save the day. Why couldn't the movie be about THAT guy? Stewart's character is such a mama's boy that its hard to root for him at all. I could never see what Lombard's character saw in him in the first place. Charles Coburn's character started off as really irritating, with the old "hard-of-hearing" schtick that seems to be prevalent in so many old movies. He really takes control of the situation (and the movie) by becoming a man of action once the baby gets sick. His role became the most interesting part of the movie at that point.If you want to see Jimmy Stewart at his best (in 1939), stick with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

vincentlynch-moonoi What makes a film great? A great cast? Well, this picture has one -- James Stewart as the husband-lawyer, Carole Lombard as the wife, Charles Coburn as the grumpy head of the law firm where Stewart works, and Lucile Watson as the mother-in-law. Okay, so far, so good.And then we need a good plot that is perhaps just a little unique. Well, for much of the film, that's missing here. It's not a bad story, but pretty typical fare as a young couple struggle through acceptance by mother, not enough money, a sick baby...in other words -- life. In some ways, this film is reminiscent of "Penny Serendade" with Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, which was made 2 years later. But there are other films which are also similar. This one is watchable because of the good chemistry among the primary stars. But it's not an exceptional film...but it is good...and worth watching. However, considering I'd heard of the film and its reputation, I was a little let down.There are two high points in this film. The first is when Lombard convinces Stewart to demand a raise and a promotion. What's good about this segment is that the director didn't stoop to the expected scenario where the wife is nagging about it. Instead, Lombard is creating in her husband confidence. What's bad about this segment is that you know exactly how it's going to work out...or pretty much how it will work out. No, he doesn't get fired, but he does take a 25% pay cut. By the way, I'm not sure Stewart plays drunk very well, but I am sure he was a skinny darned thing! The second high point of the film is when the baby comes down with pneumonia, and the only medicine that will save the child is in Salt Lake City in a blizzard. The gruff old boss divvies up the cash to fly the serum east, but the plane crashes. Meanwhile, Lombard and her mother-in-law come to a heart-rending truce. And ultimately, everyone -- including the baby -- lives happily ever after. But this is a dramatic part of the film, and makes watching the early part of the movie...where little happens that is unique...worth your time.Stewart is very good in this role (except for the drunk scene), as is Lombard. Charles Coburn is the blustery old buzzard...again...who redeems himself at the film's conclusion...though this is far from being his most memorable role. Lucile Watson will be mostly unappreciated here...her character isn't very likable. There are a number of wonderful supporting actors here, and although their roles are critical and they do well in them, they have little screen time -- Eddie Quillan, Louise Beavers, Harry Davenport, and Ward Bond.So yes, definitely watch this film, but considering its fame, you may be slightly disappointed.