dougdoepke Too bad about the awkward shift. That first part shows Stewart at his charming down-home best. He's an aspiring playwright from the Minnesota sticks intent on mounting his unlikely play on Broadway. His play is trying to ape New York sophistication, but because of his rural background, the play comes across as comedic satire which the audiences surprisingly love. So Gay's (Stewart) reputation is made which he follows up with several more successful comedies. Meanwhile, he marries sensible lead actress Linda (Russell), who's drawn to his innocent manner. Their prosperous future now seems assured until he suffers writer's block and the marriage cracks open.Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.

MartinHafer The first portion of "No Time for Comedy" is excellent--and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, somewhere around the middle, it was like the characters had head injuries (particularly James Stewart) and began acting weird...along with some new and annoying friends. As a result, the film really lost its momentum and its way.The film begins with a playwright (Stewart) being called to Broadway to do some re-writes for the play. They are in rehearsals and the play just doesn't quite flow the way they'd hoped. Stewart is not at all like they expected. After all, the play is a smart drawing room comedy featuring the upper crust--and Stewart is some Midwestern yokel who has never even been to the big city or been with the smart set. After some teething problems, however, the play is a success. This part of the film is very charming and seeing him and Rosalind Russell together was a treat.The next portion of the film really stopped making sense. Now that Stewart and Russell are married, suddenly the sweet guy has turned into a major butt-head--a very selfish one at that. Now he drinks heavily and begins hanging out with the world's most superficial and annoying married woman anyone could imagine (Genevieve Tobin). While I hated the change in Stewart's character (since it seemed so out of character), everything about Tobin was wrong...100% wrong. Her character made no sense at all and was played so broadly you'd wonder how any semi-sane person could fall for this super-annoying....'lady'. Also incongruous is her husband (Charlie Ruggles)--he simply made no sense at all as the annoyed but unbelievably passive rich husband. At this point, the only person who comes off halfway convincing is Russell...but even she occasionally behaves oddly. It was really as if the film had two different writers who didn't even read each other's scripts before combining them.The overall film really looks like two separate films. The first half I'd score an 8 and the second I'd score a 3. It really would have been improved with a revision...a re-write like Stewart's character was called in to do when the movie began. Not a good film, though it looks nice and has some lovely scenes. The bad just outweighs the good.By the way, after Stewart behaved abominably through much of the film, why would Russell's character STILL want him?! What sort of screwy message is this projecting at women?!

krdement This is a peculiar film. I think that this film suffers for being a little schizophrenic. It starts out as a light romantic comedy, but it morphs into a much darker film. Similarly, Jimmy Stewart starts out much like his Mr. Smith character come to the big city, but he morphs into Smith's boozing, egotistical, dark alter-ego. During this phase of Stewart's career, this is a rather interesting departure from his normal aw-shucks, ingenuous protagonists. It both hearkens back to his role in After the Thin Man and anticipates his roles in the Anthony Mann Westerns. It is interesting, and Jimmy pulls it off well.The film also suffers because of the script. Some of the dialog is very artificial and wooden - more like prose in an essay than dialog.For me the strength of this film is Rosalind Russell. She handles a difficult character very admirably. Her character, Linda (Paige) Esterbrook, is so full of wise toleration, restraint and understanding that it is close to unbelievable. At times her dialog is unnatural in the extreme - check out the scene where she goes to the Swift residence and confronts Amanda. I think most actresses would have become wooden delivering such stilted lines. And Genevieve Tobin does very well with her lines, too, although they don't seem to be quite as artificial as Russell's; plus her character is more artificial than Russell's. While Russell's character is making comments full of double meaning that kind of fly over Amanda Swift's head, Swift's remarks are pretty straight forward. Russell's dialog seems similarly difficult in most of her scenes. Yet imbuing them with her own down-to-earth persona, Russell pulls them off about as well as I could imagine.The scene between Linda Esterbrook (Russell) and Amanda Swift (Tobin) makes it clear that this film had pretty lofty pretensions that are not altogether realized. I think it is supposed to be a film along the lines of All About Eve, but doesn't capture the same satirical tone. This is an interesting film, even if not fully realized or altogether enjoyable.

ksf-2 "No Time for Comedy" starts out as cute "country bumpkin moves to the big city" story. The plot moves to its fun, middle section with clever lines and happy days. then the inevitable, serious life situations. some good laughs in the middle, mostly at the expense of Clementine, the maid, played by Louise Beavers. Ros Russell does a great job as the starlet Linda Paige, who marries the author (Jimmy Stewart) of the play she saves. Charlie Ruggles does a fine job as the understanding husband of "the other woman". Also a very patient, understanding take on when one's spouse starts to look at others, especially for this period of time in film-making. Whenever Genevieve Tobin spoke, she sounded just like Billie Burke. Tobin ALSO married her director Keighley, and seems to have left the biz after this film. Note it did not win, or even get nominated for any awards, in spite of the big names in it. not sure if that's because its too many different things, or maybe the subject matter couldn't be rewarded in those times. It must have done OK in the theater, since it was re-released again later with a new title.