I saw this movie for the first time a few days ago. I've heard and read a lot about it, and know that it is considered one of the top screwball comedies of the '30s. Unfortunately, I can't figure out why.
I actually like Irene Dunne, and always thought that Melvyn Douglas was in the same league with William Powell when it came to glib, sophisticated comedy, so I was all set to enjoy this one. But about a quarter of the way through it, I found myself asking, "When is this thing going to get funny?" The subject matter--how the reactionary, repressive mentality of a clique of small-town religious zealots stifles any kind of individual creativity at all--is more suited to a drama than a comedy, and I think this film would have actually worked better as a drama with some comedy thrown in, which both Dunne and Douglas were more than capable of, than just as a comedy alone, which it really isn't. There are a few amusing moments in it, but not nearly enough to be classified as a "screwball" comedy. Thurston Hall is his usual amusing, blustery self, and Spring Byington is good as the town's two-faced gossip, but that's about it. Dunne and Douglas try hard, but they're just not given much to work with.
I know that a lot of people think this film is on a par with "Nothing Sacred", "My Man Godfrey" or "Twentieth Century," but I just can't see it.