Tonight Is Ours (1933) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Sweet little story about the Princess and the Nobody
constancepetersen9 September 2002
My mother recently (well, maybe not so recently) got majorly interested in the Life and Times and Films of Fredric March and found out about people who had taped his nolongeravailable movies from TV and we got this along with them and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this one because even though it is a bit unrealistic it is full of some of the most poetically romantic speeches I've ever heard. Maybe it's just me, but every time I watch a good Fredric March movie and listen to those melodramatic love scenes I distinctly hear harps playing in the air. It's interesting to me that very often in his movies he does all the poetic speeches and the women are just supposed to gaze and reply, "Yes, dahling." The costumes are interesting, particularly the ones they wear at the beginning. Claudette Colbert's head appears to float upon a great cloud of fluffy collar, and gaudy sparkles and spangles make it even more... well... interesting.

I won't say anything about the plot but it's quite a good story even if it is a bit improbable. It would be so nice if they'd restore it and re-release it along with so many of the other good Fredric movies from way back then.

I implore you with all my heart to try to see this on TV if you can find out when it will be on. It's not very deep but it's fun to watch.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Romance interesting for Mitchell Leisen's unofficial debut as director
allans-727 April 2008
This movie is credited as being directed by Stuart Walker, but apparently most of the credit can be given to Mitchell Leisen in what is effectively his debut as director (he is down as assistant director).

Given their respective careers this is not so hard to believe. Leisen had a much more notable career but for the most part is not so well known today with most of his 40+ movies unavailable commercially. A recent release of two of his most well known - Midnight and Easy Living on DVD is most welcome. I'm going to watch all of his movies as chronologically as possible and post a review on each one on this site.

I found the first part of the movie stunning and skillfully directed with some great out of this world fancy dress costumes. In the second part the movie slows down but with some great interior sets borrowed from some earlier Paramount Lubitsch movies. It is also unmistakeably pre-Code - certain scenes would not be possible not too long into the future.

A youngish Claudette Colbert looks ravishing, but unlike the previous commentators I have never quite seen the romantic appeal of Frederic March. Paul Cavanaugh has a role very much against the usual stereotype, and Alison Skipworth is most enjoyable as Grand Duchess Emilie.

Still worth watching, especially the first part.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sensual pre-code romance
gridoon20248 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Nothing amazing in terms of moviemaking, but amazing in its boldness: this must be the closest I can remember that a 1930s film has come to actually depicting lovemaking (of course it doesn't depict, it implies, but what lovemaking! It lasts about two hours, and the woman is supposed to be married to someone else in the next morning). Claudette Colbert and Fredric March are so convincing as lovers that you may wonder if they were really in love on the set! And the film scores more points for not making the "other man", the prince Colbert is set to marry, an one-dimensional "villain"; instead, he is kind, intelligent and compassionate. **1/2 out of 4.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A sweet romantic film to watch for fun
purplecrayon12 September 2002
I have recently discovered Fredric March (as my daughter Constance told you in her review) and he is a great actor. Tonight is Ours is one of his early films. It is not one of his best, as far as seeing some of his great acting, but it is very nice. Fredric is just a real romantic guy here. I love his voice, his being, all the poetic dialog he whispers to Claudette, I love his eyeliner...makes his eyes very dark and handsome. Really, this is just a fluff film with an unrealistic plot to watch Fredric in, and I liked it because it was interesting enough to where I could watch it several times over and not be bored with it. I just like how Fredric looks so young and handsome here. I can not recommend it to just anyone, unless you like old movies that are rather lightweight, which I do from time to time. But I can highly recommend it to fans of Fredric March who want to gaze upon his handsomeness and see him in a nice little romance.

I must say: Claudette's party outfit was really, really, weird! Fredric's was something to behold too! I liked the guy who was arranged to marry Claudette...he was very kind and understanding.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
good enough
mukava99119 June 2020
"Tonight Is Ours," Paramount's version of Noel Coward's one and only Ruritanian romance (written when he was a mere 22 years of age!) is good enough to hold the interest even in the form of the damaged old print available on Internet Archive. Some stretches are dull but salvaged to a degree by some good acting, fun costumes and elegant sets and furnishings (including a stunning Art Deco telephone). The whole thing is a gossamer light, slick and flippant story about a young couple who meet by chance at a masked ball. It turns out that she (Claudette Colbert) is a princess on the lam from the kingdom of Krayia who longs to escape the strictures of royal life and he (Fredric March) is... well, a wealthy person whose means of support is never addressed in the script.

When this film was made Colbert was in the midst of her meteoric rise to top-drawer Hollywood stardom (she was playing female leads in 5-6 films a year during this period). Early on she is shot from bad angles wearing an unflattering clown costume. In these scenes March comes off as the pretty one. Like Robert Montgomery, Clark Gable and Fred Astaire, he looked dandy in dress suits. And Colbert could look magnificent in Travis Banton's slinky gowns, which she finally gets to wear after the first reel or so.

Too often the script requires Colbert to weep and wail about her dilemma, torn between loyalty to her kingdom and love for March, and while she was highly skilled at bursting into onscreen tears, everything has its limits. Noel Coward's famous wit is only sparsely on display. One line stands out: As March prepares cocktails he says, "You don't need champagne; champagne needs you." But it's hard to tell if it's Coward's line or one by the adaptor, Edwin Justus Mayer.

In a night club scene we hear a fragment of hot jazz music which is identical that which is played on a gramophone in Paramount's "Shanghai Express" when Louise Closser Hale drops in on Marlene Dietrich and Anna Mae Wong in their train compartment.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I've seen so many variations of this plot, but it's a joy when it is done right.
mark.waltz26 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A now forgotten Noel Coward play is the source for this bittersweet tale of a doomed love. It fooled me too because at the beginning of the film, I was sure that it was Fredric March who was the member of a royal family or the aristocracy, not Claudette Colbert. Boy was I surprised when it's she who gets the telegram that she is now queen because of the sudden death of her father and must rush back. It's a reverse of "The Student Prince" but very close to all of those Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier operettas, and several other similar films, a recurring theme that Paramount returned to over and over again in the 1930's.

Through royal destiny, she's engaged to foreign prince Paul Cavanaugh, but there's rumors of rebellion under way and there's a shot fired at Colbert which March prevents from hitting her. Their reunion is blissful even just for a moment, and it's obvious that for that brief moment she comes back to life and wouldn't mind being assassinated to get out of her nightmare of a life.

The scenes leading up to the attack on the palace are fraught with tension as lady in waiting Ethel Griffies panics in fear of the violence erupting, especially when they attack the local power station and storm the palace. Twists abound in this crowd pleasing romantic drama that left me with a big smile, especially with the small supporting role of Alison Skipworth as a humorous grand duchess with her own romantic stories of love between people of different classes and the hatred she had for the wealthy men she was forced to marry.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Unjustly forgotten Colbert/March/Liesen film
perfectpawn29 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Filmed two months after they paired in DeMille's "Sign of the Cross," Claudette Colbert and Fredric March are reunited in Tonight Is Ours -- here she's Nadya, self-exiled princess of a mythical European kingdom, and March is Sabien, a French national (I assume) who does...well, something. The movie's never very clear on who Sabien is and what he does for a living.

This was the directorial debut for Mitchell Liesen. He's credited with an "associate director" tag, but word is he did most of the chores. There's a visual resemblance between this film and "Sign of the Cross" -- no surprise, as Liesen personally directed sequences of that film as well (although he didn't receive credit for his work). This is a movie that revels in glamour.

The story begins with a "meet cute" between Sabien and Nadya: they run into each other at a costume ball, both of them masked, and quickly repair to the garden where they kiss. Only then do they take off their masks, only to discover that they each believed they were kissing someone else. But no matter, bells are ringing, and swept up with dawning love they spend a starcrossed night together, going from place to place -- a dance party, a bar, a jazz club -- all while still in costume. The costumes are a sight to behold: Colbert wears a sort of art deco clown getup, complete with a puffy collar and sequins which threaten to overwhelm the camera. She wears a domino mask to complete the ensemble. March wears a harlequin outfit, tight-fitting and emblazoned with a giant heart. He wears a black cowl which covers most of his face, leaving only his mouth and chin free, sort of like Batman. These costumes (and others glimpsed in the opening costume party scene) are the highlights of the film, but really a lot of work went into the garments throughout the movie.

The months pass and the two become inseparable, only -- and this is something the movie makes clear -- they don't "sully" their love by having sex. This ends up making the movie a giant tease; just as Sabien and Nadya yearn to consummate their love (Sabien especially!), so too do we viewers yearn to see them do so. But then destiny interferes: an official from Nadya's kingdom arrives to announce the death of her husband, killed by dissidents. Nadya is now queen. She must return home. But the couple is destined to meet again.

The movie's based on a play by Noel Coward, and much has been changed. Coward hated the film but I think it's fantastic. It only has two problems, as far as I'm concerned -- the subplot of the dissidents threatens to overpower the main plot, and their demands are too easily solved at the end of the film. Also, I had a hard time understanding their aims -- the dissidents Nadya meets with at the end are a wellspoken, peaceful lot, yet at the same time there are other dissidents sneaking around with guns -- guns they intend to kill Nadya with. And my other problem is that the second half of the film slows down somewhat -- the first half of this movie is 100% screwball, a year before the genre existed, with rapid-fire dialog, the main characters going from party to party, and nothing but glamour. The second half of the film becomes more of a palace politics sort of thing, with Nadya having long conversations with her administrator, her husband to be, and her mother-in-law to be.

But on the whole this is a great movie. March is good in this -- sometimes he comes off as too stiff (ie "Sign of the Cross"), other times he's incredibly dynamic ("Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"). Here he bridges the gap -- the guy could spin out lovey-dovey dialog better than any other actor in Hollywood, and he pours it on thick for Colbert. And as for Colbert herself -- my god, she is gorgeous in this film. Colbert was beautiful throughout her life, but I've always had a preference for "Early '30s Colbert," with her big eyes, apple cheeks, and bobbed chin-length hair. She is more beautiful in this film than in any other I've seen her in, save for "Sign of the Cross." In fact I might just prefer her here -- though her costumes aren't as revealing as those in "Cross" (and there are no milk baths in sight), she isn't relegated to wearing the stylized wigs she wore in that film.

Pre-Code naughtiness: Lots of dialog about sex -- when stating why she shouldn't be queen, Nadya basically admits to having slept around with several men. When Nadya relates to Sabien why she left her husband the king, we see it happen via flashback -- basically, the king insisted Nadya pretend to be a slave, so he could chase her around, whip her, and then take her. Early in the film Nadya wears a satin gown -- much like the one Clara Bow wore toward the end of "Call Her Savage," during her destruction of the hotel room -- and it's cut so low that Colbert's cleavage basically hangs out. And the Sabien/Nadya consummation scene is lensed as if Ernst Lubitsch was behind the camera -- Sabien turns off the light, and we see the door to the bedroom close behind them.

It's a shame this movie is so little known. A Claudette Colbert DVD boxset will be released in November 2009, and unfortunately this movie isn't included on it -- one can only hope that it's being saved for a forthcoming "Pre-Code Hollywood" DVD collection.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Tiresome, predictable and forgettable
1930s_Time_Machine22 January 2024
So forgettable that after 24 hours I have already forgotten what this was about and how on earth I managed to sit through this utter tedium. You might think you've seen this but you've probably not, it's because it's identical to so much other polished hot air made about the same time.

Straight from the horrendous SIGN OF THE CROSS, Fredric March, still wearing DeMille's lipstick and Claudette Colbert found themselves making the same mindless pseudo-intellectual trash which Paramount just couldn't seem to stop making. Possibly there was a legal requirement that this story and variations of it had to comprise at least 50% of all Hollywood production? To stand out from the crowd these films had to have something different about them or be a bit special but this is so incredibly samey and predictable it's a real test of endurance making it to the end.

ROMAN HOLIDAY made a few decades later was ok but switching the story around, THE KING AND THE CHORUS GIRL (1937) was probably the funniest of this tired and trite tale. This however, despite the obvious big budget, Mr March being his usual likeable self and Claudette Colbert being as wonderful as always, is just the blandest of the bland. There's nothing bad about this, you can't even dislike it because it engenders so little engagement with you that you're physically unable to actually feel any emotions towards it whatsoever.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Simple romantic drama
HotToastyRag20 July 2018
I'm convinced the only reason Claudette Colbert won an Oscar for It Happened One Night is because Hollywood was so used to seeing her as a serious dramatic actress, they were shocked that she could also perform in a silly comedy. And, since the Academy so often rewards against-type performances, she won the statue. Tonight is Ours is another of her classic dramas, even though the premise is quite simple: a princess falls for a commoner.

Claudette Colbert and Fredric March meet at a masked ball, each expecting another person in a similar costume. They start their acquaintance with an unintentional kiss, and before long, they've fallen in love. When Claudette's royal duties potentially interfere with her love life, will she follow her heart or her family?

This movie isn't really spectacular, and there are far better romances out there, but if you want to see Claudette in her younger, dramatic days, you can rent it. Then again, she made tons of dramas before her Oscar, so you can rent a different one, like Imitation of Life, Manslaughter, or Cleopatra.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed