- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
Where this whole thing breaks down is that the two of them never have a day off. They both are gone exactly 12 hours of each day and never leave mail or anything personal.
Cox and Box with a romantic twist
Rafter Romance relies on a somewhat implausible plot twist - two people, one who works days and the other who works nights - unwittingly sharing a single apartment. The first writer to use this plot device that I was aware of was Arthur Sullivan, during his pre-W.S. Gilbert career, in Cox and Box, a short comic opera produced in the late 1860s (apparently based on an even earlier farce, Box and Cox, written by John Maddison Morton). The protagonists in Box/Cox/Box were both males, however, so the male-female romantic twist in RR is the one new element added by the writers in 1933. Ginger Rogers, in a non-singing, non-dancing role, makes this worth watching. Remade in 1937, less memorably, as Living on Love, starring Gary Martin and Mary Wilson, whose names are deservedly less well known than Rogers'.
Rafter Romance (1933)
- Mr. Blandings
The premise of the story had potential but the movie didn't pay off. There were too many problems with the plot and characters. For one thing, I didn't expect Rogers to be living in the same building as Foster for months and months already. It seems unlikely that in all that time she never bumped into him on the stairs once in all their comings and goings from the building. And what was the point of the rich, alcoholic woman? How did she ever come to meet Foster in the first place? That character was the single-most annoying and unnecessary part of the film. Also, the wham-bam-we're-in-love-now relationship between Ginger and Foster was implausible--especially since there was no visible chemistry between the leads. Norman Foster always does a adequate job of acting in his films but there is something about him that is just--I don't know--weird. He never seems to really fit into the films in a realistic way. I found the movie more nasty and bad-humored than funny, and that's too bad--Ginger Rogers is a great comedienne and here talents are wasted here. I did like the film's setting and seeing people living and working (1933 telemarketers! Go figure!) in depression era New York City. I rate this film ** (barely) out of five.
Hitchcock used to say that information, and how and when it's told to the audience, is the key to suspense. In this comedy the same applies. The audience is shown that the leads share the same apartment...one sleeping at night, the other during the day...but the characters don't know it. This is the crux of the comedy....and it's well played and light, exactly like a romance comedy should be played. While this film is not the four-star category of "It Happened One Night", to me, this is an absolutely delightful three-star film. I quite disagree TCM's two-star rating.
Fun, lighthearted comedy
Having only seen Ginger Rogers in movies with Fred Astair, I didn't realise what a good actress she was on her own. I liked the plot of this movie, which showed a more innocent time. I was reminded of "The Goodbye Girl", too - which might have borrowed it's premise from this film.
Keep 'um coming
It is so refreshing and alot of fun this week to see all the out-of-the-vault features. There seems to be way too many "repeats" of the TCM standards. I enjoyed this light comedy and the crystal-clear image. TCM - keep them coming and I'll keep watching. (Right now, my TiVo is filled to capasity).
send it back to the vault!
This depression comedy was just, well, depressing. It does not age well. The situation is trite and I understand why Claudette Colbert divorced Norman Foster. Ginger would if there were a sequel to this dog.
- elnora rogers
What I found interesting about this movie was first of all I had never seen it before. It appears that no one has seen it since the 50's when it was shown briefly in NYC. Secondly, I feel it told us something of what people were like in the early 30's - the contrast of the rich lady and the very poor young couple. Also people were polite to each other - especially in the woman and man relationships. The movies of this period are great because the stories are like plays, the dialogue is snappy. Finally I really liked this movie because as I feel about all the TCM movies is that it tells me what it was like back then - music, cars, hair styles, clothes,shoes furniture. I smiled all the weay through this one.Nancy
What a great little film! I really enjoyed seeing Ginger in a leading role before she danced the Carioca with Astaire.
A character later copied...
Although this film was made in 1933, and the Wizard of Oz in 1939 to me it seems as if some of the 1939 roles actually mirrored performances of this little jewl. I think I can see where The Wizard's performance of Wizard of Oz actually mimimicked the character of Mr. Hubbel, (Miss Abercrombie's boss). &And the fast talking Ginger (Miss Abercrombie) was later replicated in the fast talking Lion when he finally found his braveness.
They don't make them like they used to. This was a captivating romantic comedy that had its own type of Internet Message Board in an attic! It was a very sweet and charming film, which I highly recommend. I hope many more films are preserved like this little jewl.The humor and wit in those days have not yet been outdated yet!Reveriii