Lucky Partners (1940)

Lucky Partners has Ronald Colman as a reclusive artist with a dodgy past who wishes Ginger Rogers good luck while she passes him on the street.Rogers gets an expensive dress that is being discarded to a house she visits. She thinks Colman is good luck and they cook up a scheme where they would go halves in some kind of Irish sweepstake's.Rogers wants the money to go on honeymoon with her beau Jack Carson. Colman wants to take Rogers on some kind of platonic honeymoon and he manages to persuade dunderhead Jack that this is a good idea.Of course on their road trip Colman and Rogers find out that they love each other and Colman decides to scarper but ends up getting arrested and it all ends in a courtroom showdown when it is revealed that Colman is a rather famous and notorious painter.Director Lewis Milestone won an Oscar for directing All Quiet on the Western Front, so maybe not someone who you might think would show a deft touch with a romantic comedy and truth to be told he makes heavy going of it.Colman looks too old to be sweeping Rogers off her feet and there is little chemistry between them. The courtroom scenes at the end was just farcical giving the movie a left turn.

Archetypal screwball comedy, but lacking vitality. One expects a lot of enjoyment from a movie starring Ginger Rogers, Ronald Colman, and Jack Carson, with a fine supporting cast, and a plot involving the Irish Sweepstakes. However, one doesn't get it. Partly it's the age difference-- Colman was 48, a stretch for the part he was playing, Rogers was 29 and in her prime. The movie's theme is "opposites attract" but it didn't work--instead, there was just a total lack of chemistry. There was a lot of charm in the courtroom scenes, with the endearing Harry Davenport as judge. However, overall the film was unbearably slow-paced. Too bad, It could have been a comedy delight.

I'm going to argue that this movie isn't supposed to make sense as some people have written. It's the type of film, for me personally as a teenager at least, one would love to watch and imagine that you are Ronald Colman. I mean here you have the beautiful Ginger Rogers (who by the way reminds me of Esther Williams in this movie) and a complete stranger who manages to enchant her out of the blue. It's every man's dream to find that beautiful girl, and for me, I spent the whole movie wishing Colman luck in getting Rogers. So for those of you who say the plot is improbable, it is, but thats the point. I think the movie is supposed to reflect every man's wishful fantasy, not reality.The chemistry between Ginger and Colman was all right, not the best I agree, but still it wasn't awful. If you are going to be watching this movie, I suggest you watch it with an open mind, don't consider the improbability or anything else, just follow the plot and don't think too hard. Do that at least the first time, cause thats the way it was supposed to be viewed in my opinion.The only thing I didn't like was the ending of the movie. The court room scene seemed a little bit rushed and not the kind of ending one would like. The beginning was OK, it set up the movie. The middle was very good, witty, romantic and comical. And you would expect it to finish comically, but I agree with the previous posts that the producers seem to have run out of ideas. Nevertheless, it is worth watching for the middle part alone. Enjoy.

It was an article of faith among the more cynical critics during the "golden age" of Hollywood movies that most of what the industry turned out could be summed up as "boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl but gets her back before the final fade". Well, here Lewis Milestone has directed just such a formula tale. But he, more famous for such films as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, has handled the genre with such a light touch that the result is delightful. Mind you, I don't say the film is top 100 quality, but what's not to like about a Sacha Guitry romantic comedy featuring Ronald Colman and Ginger Rogers and ending with a courtroom scene, common to this type of film in the 1930's and 1940's, presided over by Henry Davenport as Judge?We start out with Colman as some sort of "mystery artist" accosted by Rogers with a hare-brained scheme to win the Irish sweepstakes, if only he will go halvers with her. He wished her "Good Luck" one morning, you see, and immediately she was given a lovely dress by a complete stranger. So naturally, she knew he was a sure token of good luck. She wants the money for her honeymoon, but Ronald has an idea of his own--he wants her to go with him on the honeymoon, strictly Platonic, of course. To make a long story a bit shorter, Ginger doesn't like the idea but Ronnie persuades her fiance, Jack Carson, that it's O.K. (Don't ask how!), so she finally agrees. They draw a horse on their ticket (if you don't know how the Irish Sweepstakes worked, there isn't room here to explain it all), but the horse doesn't win. However, Jack has sold one-half of the ticket for $6000 on the strength of the horse. He gives this to Ginger, who gives it to Ronnie, who arranges the trip and buys a car in Ginger's name. After considerable pussyfooting around it becomes clearer by the minute that Plato is going to lose this one. Ronnie gets cold feet and beats it in the car bought in Gingers's name. Naturally he is arrested for car theft, Ginger is arrested for possessing a stolen painting (I told you Ronnie as a "mystery artist"), Jack is arrested for breaking down Ginger's hotel room door (he got jealous after all), and they all end up in Henry Davenport's courtroom.Now, don't read another word if you don't already know the outcome, but if you are of the female persuasion and had the choice of Ronald Colman or Jack Carson, whom would you choose. This courtroom scene is not the best of this sort, which I mentioned was common to the period, but it does serve to sort things out. It may be corn, but it is lovely, sweet corn, and not from Iowa. Light sparkling comedy was Sacha Guitry's stock in trade.