Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Uriah43 "Bruce Vail" (Colin Clive) is a shipping magnate who has one major flaw—an obsessive suspicion that his wife "Irene Vail" (Jean Arthur) is cheating on him. This insane jealousy gets so bad that one day she decides to file for a divorce while in Paris. However, because his obsession concerning her is so strong and twisted, he quickly comes up with an evil scheme to nullify the divorce--which only serves to send her into the arms of another man—a headwaiter named "Paul Dumond" (Charles Boyer). What nobody counts on is just how far Bruce will go to stop the divorce. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an enchanting romantic-comedy which still manages to remain fresh and entertaining almost 80 years later after it was produced. Admittedly, I thought the ending was a bit corny but even so the performance by Jean Arthur more than makes up for it. Again, it's an old film but those who enjoy movies of this type will certainly be pleased with this picture. I rate it as above average.

richard-1787 I liked parts of this movie a lot.But when the ship hits an iceberg near the end and suddenly we are redoing one of the many Titanic movies, I found myself saying: "Did someone change the channel on me without telling me?" I don't expect movies to fit into neat little genre boxes, and I don't want to know what's going to happen an hour before it happens, but when the genre is changed, radically, with no preparation, there is a problem, at least for me. I very much felt that I was being played with by a director who couldn't figure out what to do with what becomes an ever more cumbersome situation. The ship hitting the iceberg was NOT a seamless, convincing way to handle that, despite what some others on here have said.And Colin Clive seems to be in a different movie from the beginning. His acting style just does not integrate with that of the other actors. We keep going back and forth between a 1930s romantic comedy with Arthur and Boyer and a 1920s melodrama with Arthur and Clive.Yes, the scenes between Jean Arthur and Charles Boyer are very romantic in a general sense. There is a lot of good chemistry between the two of them.But the script is so weak, and could have been so much better. For example: early on in the movie, when Boyer, pretending to be a burglar, kidnaps Arthur to save her from a compromising situation set up by her husband, Arthur's character shows little or no surprise, much less fear, fear that would have been normal in such a situation. If she had expressed such fear, the subsequent scene in the cab, when Boyer explains he is not really a burglar but just wanted to save her from a compromising set up, could have been much more interesting. Arthur's character could have been a lot more interesting if the script writers had just given her something decent to work with.I really can't recommend this movie. There are nice scenes, but the framework just doesn't hold up.

Michael Brooks I saw this on a VHS release here in the 1980's and was one of those films years later I could not forget. How could one forget this memorable title with a equally interesting and unusual combination of love, comedy, drama and disaster that in many other circumstances would simply not work! Boyer and Arthur's romantic moments...pure magic as is Boyer and Leo Carillo's comedic turns. Produced to the tune of over a million dollars (a very generous budget for 1937) independently by Walter Wagner the look of this "A" production certainly reflects this. The deft hand of Borzage could only keep the goings on fluent with the seemingly challenging narrative in a film that easily keeps the viewers attention. To my mind one of the highlights of 30's cinema. I urge anyone interested in this era - see this film!! Available on DVD (mine is a South American copy and OK print quality).

dbdumonteil Frank Borzage couldn't decide what he wanted to make: a light comedy,a thriller,a romance,even an epic!It's an entertaining work ,but it is not in the same league as his masterpieces:"mortal storm" "three comrades" "strange cargo" "little man what now?" "moonrise" " a farewell to arms" "the river" "no greater glory" etc .Borzage's interest in Europa -which made him one of the first directors to feel the rise of Nazism- shows in the first part which takes place in France.One should notice that his France (French's honor!) is not devoid of the usual clichés: Boyer portrays a Latin lover type, part time waiter ,part time gentleman Cambrioleur ,in the Arsene Lupin tradition,and he treats Irene (Arthur) to a delicious gourmet meal (everyone is a gourmet in France) complete with vintage Champagne,Salade Chiffonnade (sic) and Lobster Cesare ....Boyer's ventriloquist act is quite successful,although that talent of his is of no use in the rest of the film.Bruce's character verges on madness ,his jealousy knows no bounds .When he appears the light comedy turns into thriller.But it's the last part of the film which perplexes the viewer.It's so unexpected it seems we are in another movie.When the luxury liner crashes into an iceberg (you read well) ,Borzage makes "History...." a "Titanic" in miniature complete with "women and children first!" "nearer to thee my God" and harrowing separations.And I will not mention the happy end which comes at the most awkward moment."History..." lacks unity,cohesion;by no means boring ,it cannot hold a candle to Frank Borzage 's great works which I mention above.