User reviews

An utterly beautiful film. I watched this for at least the umpteenth time last night - maybe once a year every year since I taped it off TV in 1987. Did it let me down? It hasn't yet and I don't think it ever will: I was as captivated by it as I was the first time, and yet it portrays a world, its people and their actions I'll never know, and probably wouldn't want to know either. Some people I know can't watch any film or TV programme a second time and are puzzled when I can - but then could listen with pleasure to a piece of music for a thousandth time.

Lubitsch's peerless masterpiece about two crooks (Gaston and Lily) moving amongst high society, falling in love with each other, with high society and with high society in the attractive shape of rich businesswoman Madame Colet falling in love with Gaston is a witty, charming, sophisticated, erudite, relentless, sparkling etc comedy that by the finish has had the effect of defragmenting my mind and deleting the real world for a short while - no mean feat! Every second of every scene carries it's witticisms, not a moment is wasted from the dignified opening with the title song fading into the rubbish boat on the Grand Canal in Venice to the swift orgasmic climax in the taxi in Paris. At the beginning when the stricken Monsieur Philiba rises and falls to the floor of his hotel room again and the Neapolitan music lulls you across a cheesy model set to where the smoking Gaston is urbanely discussing cocktails with a waiter you should know you are in for something special. Ultra demure Kay Francis gets to says Divine twice in a row! Even looking at nothing but a clock for a minute carries a soundtrack bulging with wit and innuendo. Something as unimportant as Herbert Marshall apparently running up and down Kay Francis's stairs (on camera, in mirrors or in sound only) turns out to be an in-joke - he had only one leg. Other running gags make you smile after the film has long finished, such as Positively Tonsils and No Potatoes. And to think about this film even years later it's always with the lilting, insistent, mocking romantic background music! But I could go on and on, there's enough in this for 10 films of today to borrow if they could make them like this any more. "Frasier" on TV has been the closest in sophisticated comedy in recent times, but even so it couldn't match TIP's compact inventiveness. Out of the 97 million movies I've watched this is definitely in my top 5 favourites.

It's a pity that so many people can so easily be put off by black and white photography and bygone stars who they've never heard of; in this case what they're missing out on is near perfection, and again another film that will still be available when all of the undisciplined uncensored in-your-face films of today are forgotten.

Gaston Monescu likes to travel incognito, in the shadows likes to hide, unseen like a thief mosquito, if you have something you prize, he will snatch it from your eyes, with his partner by his side, a great combo.

Made in 1932 but just as accessible and as enjoyable all these years later, as a pair of classy villains seek to defraud a wealthy lady of the contents of her safe by gaining her confidence and guiding her in the directions of their deceit. Plans go a little awry as profits are palmed for passions and one of the antagonists loses focus of the bounty, and with Kay Francis as the distraction it's no wonder. Great performances all round from a director who would go on to make some rather impressive films in the future.

Ernst Lubitsch, once described by Jean Renoir as 'the inventor of modern Hollywood', made a seamless transition from silent films to sound and his first talking comedy is a masterpiece of wit, sophistication, sexual intrigue and moral ambiguity.

Samson Raphaelson's brilliant screenplay is inspired by the escapades of the Roumanian 'Prince of Thieves', George Manolesco, whilst the 'European' look is courtesy of one of the greatest Art Designers of all time, Hans Dreier.

The cast is pure gold. George had been played before by Ivan Mosjoukine but here the name is changed to Gaston and the immaculate Herbert Marshall takes on the role of the jewel thief who makes the mistake of falling for his intended victim, the deliciously decadent Mariette of Kay Francis, on loan from Warner Bros. His accomplice is the delightfully duplicitous Lily of Miriam Hopkins, in the second of her three films for Lubitsch.

The character of Gaston, seen from behind, nimbly taking the stairs, was of course a 'double' as Marshall had a prosthetic leg thanks to a sniper's bullet in WW1. Despite this hindrance, Marshall combined a long and successful career with an active love life, which is testament to his talent, charm and fortitude!

Marvellous support from Charles Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton as Mariette's hapless suitors and C. Aubrey Smith whose character is not quite as upstanding as he appears to be.

Just two of the many marvellous moments are the lovers' silhouettes on the bedspread and Kay Francis utilising her own slight speech defect by pronouncing 'crimson' as 'cwimson'.

Lubitsch himself considered that in terms of style he had done nothing better or as good as 'Trouble in Paradise'.

Who are we to disagree?

Ernst Lubitsch had a tendency towards pushing the boundaries, whether it was the boundaries of the Production Code or the boundaries of one's stomach, as it's splitting from laughing at his films. "Trouble in Paradise" is one hundred percent, absolutely, no exception to this rule. This film has got to be the greatest film comedy of the 1930's (toss up between this and "Bringing Up Baby" ... perhaps??). The situations, the dialogue, the characterizations, the rich sexual undercoating ... FANTASTIC!!!

Although this film is greatly valued by critics, film historians and its many fans, it still does not receive the respect it is due. Turner Classic Movies broadcasts Casablanca, Now Voyager, Citizen Kane, Philadelphia Story, Adam's Rib, African Queen and Bringing Up Baby 10 times for every time this film is shown. It is an injustice that this film is shown so rarely. (I would recommend to TCM that they show their "classics" less frequently and a number of less well-known films such as this more often.)

Trouble in Paradise is a comedy counterpart to a melodrama; it is a romantic melo-comedy. It is unlike any other Lubitsch film with which I am familiar. In fact, it is difficult for me to think of any film with which to compare this masterpiece. The cast is outstanding, each delivering dialog in mock melodramatic style. The soundtrack, the editing, and especially the sublime writing all combine to produce a unique, satirical melodrama parody. Perhaps this film was the model for many later films that hoped to attain the same comic irony, but seem humorless to me. The key seems to be that the actors do not take themselves seriously, but they portray characters who do.

Everything about this film is fabulous. I cannot fathom how anybody could suggest this film is outdated in any manner because it captures the ambiance of an era so perfectly. The era is past, but not this film! Do period films made today seem outdated to them? I do not need to heap redundant praise on a film that other commentators have described so well. So that you know where I'm coming from - I admit to being a HUGE Lubitsch fan. The Shop Around the Corner and Ninotchka are also among my very favorite films.

So funny, sexy, subtle and sublime, this film only gets better with each viewing, BUT it's not available in ANY format! WHY?

Ernst Lubitsch used Laszlo Aladar's play The Honest Finder as a springboard for one of his most delightful early-1930s Paramount confections. Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins play Gaston and Lily, a pair of Parisian thieves, both disguised as nobility, who decide to rob lovely perfume company executive Mariette Colet (Kay Francis); Gaston gets a job as Mariette's confidential secretary, while Lily installs herself as the woman's typist. Love rears its head, forcing Gaston to choose between marriage to Mariette and a fast getaway with Lily. Filled with marvelous throwaway gags and sophisticated innuendo, Trouble in Paradise was described by one critic as "as close to perfection as anything I have ever seen in the movies."

For over seven decades this film has been unmatched in the realm of sophisticated farce. Films from THE AWFUL TRUTH to THE LADY EVE to SOME LIKE IT HOT are sublime on their more modest social scale and in their basic Americanness. By contrast, TROUBLE IN PARADISE has all the class and Continental elegance one associates with the Paramout of the 1930s. Made before the Production Code clampdown of 1934, this Lubitsch masterpiece shows his talent for sly sexual innuendo at its most witty and polished. The result is pure caviar, only tastier. The story tells of two jewel thieves, Gaston (Marshall) and Lily (Hopkins), who together work at bilking a merry widow, Mariette Colet (Francis), out of a small fortune. They secure jobs as her secretary and maid, but trouble begins in paradise when Gaston starts falling for his lovely prey and when one of her many suitors (Horton), a former victim of Gaston's, begins to recognize Mme. Colet's new secretary. The many laughs in this consistently delightful souffle come not only from Raphaelson's marvelous screenplay but also from Lubitsch's supple visual wit. On one hand there's delightful repartee about a former secretary who enjoyed an antique bed a bit too much, and on the other we have the sexy silhouette of Gaston and Mariette cast over a chaise lounge. From the opening shot of an operatic gondolier who turns out to be a garbageman to a police report about theft and tonsils translated for Italian officials, this film is full of unforgettable moments of merriment. The cast, too, is peerless. In one of his earliest Hollywood efforts, Herbert Marshall does the greatest work of his career. Too often maligned for playing stodgy consorts to dynamic star actresses such as Garbo, Davis, and Shearer, Marshall here gets to display his impeccable timing and supple grace. Frequently hilarious, his quiet approach and crushed velvet voice still let him remain suave throughout. Even Cary Grant would be hard pressed to match this portrayal. (He'd be too frantic.) Kay Francis, too, that popular sufferer of countless "women's films" with her "twoublesome" r's, gives of her very best. With her sleek, glamorous style and elegantly wry line readings, she is light, sexy, and totally captivating. Her doorway caresses and her finger-snapping seduction of Gaston are priceless. Miriam Hopkins was luckier in that she had many more chances to display her comic flair in film. Today one of the most underrated and unfairly maligned stars of the 1930s, the brittle, feisty Hopkins can rattle off witty banter at a breakneck pace or she can be deliciously languorous and coy. Her enjoyment of her own sexuality is heady even today and the thieving competition between Gaston and Lily, in which escalating crimes turn into escalating passion, remains one of the greatest scenes of foreplay ever caught on film. Ruggles and Horton prove yet again that they are two of the greatest farceurs in Hollywood, and the rest of the cast is equally choice. (One standout is Leonid Kinskey, whose bit as a leftist radical only foregrounds the satiric anarchy of the entire film.) Beautifully handled from start to finish, gleamingly shot and full of Dreier's incredible Art Deco designs, TROUBLE IN PARADISE is Lubitsch's greatest film and one of the indisputable highlights of comic cinema Directed by Ernst Lubitsch, the master of sophisticated comedy, Trouble in Paradise (1932) is the most accomplished example of the "Lubitsch Touch" for stylish innuendo and sly wit. With a script by Samson Raphaelson and Grover Jones, Lubitsch derives sparkling humor from the lusty (Pre-Code) love triangle among two jewel thieves, Lily and Gaston, and their intended victim, Mme. Colet. From the opening image of a garbage gondola's gliding through the picturesque Venice canals, Lubitsch makes light of the notion that amorality lies beneath the glossy exteriors of the rich. Elegantly sending up idealized movie romance, Gaston and Lily fall in love as they attempt to rob each other blind over an intimate dinner, sealing a bond between two scoundrels. Such Lubitsch details as a hand's hanging a "Do Not Disturb" sign on a doorknob and the shadow of a couple cast on a bed neatly communicate the nature of Gaston's relationships with Lily and Mme. Colet, complementing the clever dialogue, spiked with nimble come-ons and ripostes, and delivered with aplomb by Herbert Marshall, Miriam Hopkins, and Kay Francis. Praised for its smoothly imaginative technique and comic invention, Trouble in Paradise burnished Lubitsch's reputation as Paramount's premier purveyor of 1930s Continental class, and it is still considered one of the best adult comedies ever made.

Beautiful, spellbinding romantic comedy with a suave jewel thief (Herbert Marshall) falling in love with his intended victim (luminous Kay Francis) much to the displeasure of his girlfriend (Miriam Hopkins). Beautifully shot (the scenes seem to glow), incredible sets and costumes, a very witty script, wonderful performances by everybody, superb direction by Ernst Lubitsch and some fairly racy Pre-Code material. What more can I say? It's perfection. A must-see!

Please read the other reviews for the full measure of this treasure - I will just string together my observations:

Amazingly deft display of international sophistication for such an early film - who knew? Pre-code comedy of adult realities, without a hint of exploitive sensationalism.

Herbert Marshall as a romantic lead, every bit as good as, say, Cary Grant or Ronald Coleman - at absolute top of form, like everyone in the cast. Again, who knew? Miriam Hopkins, just stunning. Pure chemistry with Marshall.

Kay Francis, new to me, but gorgeous and utterly believable.

And all the supporting players - C. Aubrey Smith, Edward Everett Horton, Charlie Ruggles, even Robert Grieg, the butler (as also in The Lady Eve, a film of similar polish) - each familiar from many other films, but scarcely if ever seen in better form.

I truly do not understand why this film is not better known to me and everyone. I had to see it in a film class, and was frankly expecting much worse considering it was made scarcely three or four years into the "talkie" era. This is a polished many faceted gem, criminally under-circulated. It makes you wonder what Hollywood might have accomplished without an over-restrictive Production Code.

I see DVD became available only in 2003? This is a MUST SEE!

First of all, let me say that this film is as close to perfection as one can get---look at the "throw away gags", the play with words, the wardrobe (Miriam Hopkins stole the show; especially in the Opera scene when she comes out of the "Parlour des femmes" & asks her "Sugar Daddy" for some "francs" to give to the ladies room attendant---that black dress was haute couture at its best!), the gait of the actors, the snappy dialogue. They all look so-o sophisticated & worldly.

SHEER PERFECTION!

It took me 5 years to get this film & it was worth every minute! This is MY FAVORITE film!

This is one of those pictures which film buffs tell you you've got to see. "It's one of the classics of early Hollywood, a work of genius, one of the funniest sophisticated comedies of all time" they say. Well, it certainly is a very good film inasmuch that it's very engaging and watchable but I don't feel that it quite lives up to its reputation.

Had I been around in the early thirties I'd have been one of those people down at the Warner Brothers theatres every night watching their gritty dramas, cheesy musicals or coarse comedies. If I'd avoided the Paramount cinemas, thinking that they weren't for the likes of me I'd kick myself when all my friends would have told me that I'd missed out on seeing this lovely, charming picture.

If an early thirties movie to you means gangsters, prostitutes, struggling musicians or heiresses who've lost all their money down on their luck trying to survive against the travails of The Depression, this will not be what you'll expect. This lusciously produced Paramount picture is in a world where The Depression doesn't exist, or at least doesn't matter. This wasn't empathy with the huddled masses, this was escapism, escapism to a glamorous sophisticated fantasy world of diamonds and cocktails. But in this version of that fantasy world, it's also a place that's accessible to anyone since these characters living the life are not quite what they seem - they could be like you.

If an early thirties movie to you means corny awfully spoken dialogue, an unnatural and theatrical style of acting, stagey and static scenes where people stand around a single set waiting in turn to read their lines, this will not be what you'll expect. The writing and the direction is superb - as good and authentic as anything you'd find today. The Raphaelson-Lubitsch team were acknowledged as being one of the premier film making partnerships of the 30s and 40s and this is an example of cinematic perfection. 1930s "posh people" aren't the easiest types to emote with straight away but after ten minutes, you start to feel you know them. Every character is beautifully constructed with a complexity and unspoken backstory that gives them real personalities which allows them to be both predictable and also to surprise you - this level of character development is quite rare in early thirties movies and I can understand why so many critics rave about this film. The script makes you appreciate what a wonderful language English is, it's beautifully put together and laced with subtle and sometimes not very subtle sexual inuendo giving this a very grown up feel.

The underlying theme of this picture is sex and the power of sexual attraction. Although slightly forgotten these days, the queen of sophisticated sexual attraction in the 1930s was Kay Francis. In this she is the ultimate seductress - everything she says, every gesture she makes, every step she takes is expressing her flaming sensuality but with such sophistication that it seems almost holy. With this film, she had perfected that role, that aloof, refined epitome of urbaneness yet aware of her own hidden sensuality that that would define her for the next decade. In reality however her sensuality and indeed voracious sex life was far from hidden but that's a long and not particularly happy story. She was never the greatest actress but here Mr Lubitsch turns her into something special.

Raphaelson-Lubitsch of course did THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER eight years later - now that is something I could watch over and over again but as good as this is I have to admit it didn't blow me away. It's just not my cup of tea (then again, I prefer cheap own-brand tea bags to Earl Grey!)

Imagine being whisked away to a magical land of sophisticated glitz. When a movie transports you back to a much better place in time, it has done its job. Fast forward more than 80 years and the setting still beats out what we have today.

Taking place in 1932, the Great Depression was still fresh. A movie with all this jewellery and happiness was good for audiences to take their minds off of their real-life struggles. Even now, this movie makes me smile from start to finish. It is an enchanting film that is oh-so enjoyable and loveable.

'Trouble In Paradise' opens up with us meeting charming thieves in Venice: Gaston Monescu (Marshall) and Lily Vautier (Hopkins). They are two peas in a pod and fall in love. Meanwhile, perfume owner, Mariette Colet (Francis) must deal with the possibility of two suitors she does not like: a major (Ruggles) and Filiba (Horton). These men both got conned and robbed by Gaston. A year later in Paris, Gaston steals a priceless purse belonging to Colet. He returns the purse hoping to get the loot and charms his way into being her secretary, giving her the surname "Lavalle". He falls in love with Colet too and Colet may well be falling for him. This causes Gaston to become more honest of a man, much to Lily's disapproval. Who will Gaston choose as his woman?

Director Ernst Lubitsch loved to use love triangles in his films. And no other film of his is more well-known or described as containing the "Lubitsch Touch". This "Touch" is is own way of making magic that is not explicit. An example of this is despite the movie being about stealing left, right, and centre, we never actually see any of it happening on screen. And it is worth seeing how much of what Lubitsch does is too little or just right. Obviously what he does is just right or else this would not be his most acclaimed picture. But it should be studied what lots of what happened in this film is not explicit. How much better or worse would that have made things?

'Trouble In Paradise' is a film simple in story but complex in character. Two of the leads are crooks and it is shown in the first few minutes how easy it is for them to steal a hefty amount of expensive accessories. The man dons an alias and appears to have a change of heart. Marshall, Hopkins, and Francis are pitch perfect and the way the characters weave together are also great.

What really gets me every time I see this is the general look. Expensive set pieces, jewelry cladding everything, tuxedoes, charms, oh! So much glitz and glam makes the general look of the picture perfect too. So excellent that a colourization would likely ruin it all. Here is a case where black and white would have been the best choice regardless of if colour had existed.

Sit back, relax, and feel the teleportation to the jazz age. Just make sure you have your wallets and purses!

4/4

I saw this film at a revival theater in Cambridge. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I must say that is a bit overrated (the audience may have been slightly at fault-there's nothing I hate more than the sound of false laughter from people who have come to a film expecting it to be witty and sophisticated and afraid they will appear laughing if the "don't get" the jokes). I have read several reviews that hail it as "the greatest sound comedy". While it is very entertaining, the first half is somewhat slow, and the plot is very generic. The writing can be very witty, but I would say it is somewhat spotty. Overall, however, this is a very enjoyable film. The ending is about as perfect as an ending can be.

Trouble In Paradise (from 1932) was a very early example of (horrible) Hollywood "Screwball Comedy" (which was an irksome genre that prevailed throughout the 1930s & 40s).

I find that the more I see "Screwball Comedy", the more I dislike it in all of its smug pretentiousness.

With this particular picture, there was really nothing about it at all that made it stand out in any way from any other film in that genre.

If you ask me - Trouble In Paradise really tried way too hard to be both cute and clever at the same time. And, as a result, this caused me to lose my patience with its story's overwhelming absurdity, time and again.

Filled, to over-flowing, with petty squabbles, jealous anger, and backstabbing betrayals, Trouble In Paradise was, to me, nothing more than pseudo-sophisticated crap, all around.

Thank goodness that this vintage picture had a running time of only a mere 82 minutes

In the first minutes, two nobles dressed to the teeth--the Second Earl of Bastrop and Lady Higgenbottom, let's say--exchange brittle, achingly witty repartee. It's all rather droll until Lady H. picks up the telephone to inform her staff at home that she'll be late for dinner. The director, Ernst Lubitsch, cuts to the other side of the conversation--and we see a fat landlady in a hovel crawling with cats looking baffled at the receiver and saying, "Whaddaya sayin'?" At that moment, you know that Lubitsch and his ideal-mate screenwriter, Samson Raphaelson, are playing a pretty sophisticated game--and in the nearly seventy years since this movie, comedy directors from Billy Wilder to George Cukor to Woody Allen have been playing catch-up.

TROUBLE IN PARADISE remains the most perfect of all sound comedies--it makes you feel as if you had consumed some celestial compound of champagne and helium. The surprise of the movie today is not the pleasure of its Lubitschian elegance, but the fact that the movie is screamingly funny at every turn--Lubitsch's smart bombs never miss their mark. And for all the applications of his "touch" we're grateful for, Lubitsch never again made anything so flawless--in these less-than-ninety minutes, he and Raphaelson turned dialogue comedy into Mozartean music.

As wonderful films The Merry Widow, Heaven Can Wait and The Shop Around the Corner are, Trouble in Paradise in my view even better than them and quite possibly Ernst Lubitsch's- a director who rarely made a dud- best film. It is a truly beautiful-looking film with very stylish photography and some of the most exquisite costumes and sets of any 1930s film. Lubitsch again proves what a talented director he was, his direction here being full of class and subtlety in a way that only he could do, Trouble in Paradise has Lubitsch's trademark and distinctive style all over it. Trouble in Paradise is also brilliantly scripted, one of the best of any film of the 1930s to me. The comedy parts really sparkle in humour, the best parts being hysterical, and the romantic parts are really sweet and heart-warming without being too sentimental, both components beautifully balanced in a typically(for a Lubitsch film) sophisticated way. Few scripts from 1930s films were this sophisticated even. The story draws you right in from the start and doesn't stop, the warm humour, subtle touches, sophistication, classy charm and emotion were just captivating that few other romantic comedies managed this well. And the acting is close to faultless, Herbert Marshall makes for a charming leading man in a performance that is among his best, Kay Francis is glamour personified and Miriam Hopkins has fun in her role. Character actors Charles Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton are very funny, though Horton was ever so slightly under-utilised, and C. Aubrey Smith is effectively fierce. In conclusion, romantic comedy at its best in a film as close to perfection you can get. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this movie in the early 1980s, taped it on VHS sometime in the late 1990s, and breathlessly waited for it to be released on DVD. When I upgraded my old TV/VCR a few months ago, I purchased this and Auntie Mame (1958, Rosiland Russell version ONLY , please!!). And I watched this film first!!

Trouble in Paradise is a wonderful, funny, touching, beautiful film. Pay attention to the small details and you will be amply rewarded well beyond the actual plot (hint: doors, clocks, stairs). The timing of every single scene is pure joy, the characters are all delightful, and the sets are out of this world! Clothing, household furnishings, hair/make-up/accessories are all simply astonishing. You don't even realize how important they are as part of the "set piece" until the 3rd or 4th viewing, so captivating is the actual plot and the desire to follow the characters' paths throughout the film.

It is a screwball comedy, to be sure, but it is also a statement of the times it depicts and when it was made. In 1932, the US was still struggling with the national economic depression, and people probably ached for a little getaway. This film, set in Paris (and other equally exotic—especially in 1932—places), must have provided the perfect balm for people looking for both validation of "desperate times call for desperate measures" (Lily and Gaston are, after all, thieves!) and a whimsical escape into another, more glamorous world than the one most people experienced in 1932.

Please watch this more than once! The first time, you will enjoy it and laugh gently (it's not a "guffaw/belly-laugh" film), the second time you will begin to notice the sets and how much they contribute to the overall quality of the film, the 3rd time you will see the timing/camera work/social policy at work, and you will only then begin to fully appreciate the film. And the 4th time—this I promise!!—you will put it all together and marvel at the wonder of the whole package. To think that such a fabulous film was made 65+ years ago will, or certainly should, give you a new perspective and appreciation for rue creativity, and recognition that it is indeed timeless. OK, I have to go watch it again....

I don't remember how I came to know about this movie but it was probably the name Lubitsch that drew me to the shelf in the DVD library. After seeing it once, I was hooked. The dialogue sparkles, the performances are wonderful and the dynamics between each character are beautifully handled, probably as much to do with the actors thoroughly enjoying their experience as to do with the "Lubitsch touch" and Samuel Raphaelson script.

And apart from sophistication and humour, the film has an unbelievable sexual tension without the aid of one actor removing his/her clothes or jumping into bed with another.

I hope that more film channels and mainstream TV stations play a positive role in ensuring that "treasures" such as "Trouble In Paradise" continue to thrill and entertain people as I have been.

At the height of the depression, while one half of Hollywood was making movies devastatingly close to home, the other half were breezily European in their settings and sensibilities. This was the case at Paramount in particular, who imported many of their directors from the continent and deliberately cultivated that sophisticated European flavour. German maestro Ernst Lubitsch was the most treasured of their acquisitions, and during the early 1930s fulfilled the studio's expectations for urbane comedies set among the idle and relatively carefree rich of far-off Europe.

Lubitsch is – and was – best known for his so-called "touch", a subtle, tasteful and very intelligent manner of hinting at the various sexual shenanigans that his characters continually get up to. But it is doing the man rather a disservice to focus so much on this, as there was a lot more to his style and to his career. Besides, a lot of the credit for the "touch" should go to writer Samson Raphaelson, as it was in the Raphelson-penned works when this clever innuendo was at its sharpest. The humour in Trouble in Paradise is all of a by-the-way fashion, with bizarrely comical phrases slipped neatly into the dialogue. What Lubitsch really does is match up with Raphaelson's sauciness on the visual side of things, dissolving from Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins canoodling on a couch, to the same couch now empty, to a "Do not disturb" sign being hung on a door. But it's not all about sex. What's nice about Trouble in Paradise is that despite the protagonists being a pair of thieves, we never see anything stolen. The thefts are just implied with a nonchalant revelation after the event.

Consistently, Lubitsch's visual style is throughout one of taste and elegance. Lubitsch's sound films up to now had mostly been musicals, and although Trouble in Paradise is not a musical it is almost operatic in its stylised pace, often alternating between slow and fast scenes like the movements of a work of classical music. Lubitsch doesn't use many elaborate techniques, but simply manages the pace through careful coaching of the actors' motion and vocal delivery. The camera rarely moves, but when he does it is generally a discreet flourish to maintain the necessary rhythm. An example is when we cut from Kay Francis nattering on the phone straight into Marshall and Hopkins arguing. The shot begins with the camera dollying in on the pair, keeping the snappy pace going across the two scenes. The opening scene is smooth as a gondola on the water, the camera languidly tracking from the rubbish of the city, to the aftermath of a robbery, over to an gorgeous shot of Herbert Marshall , gazing out from a balcony with a look of exquisite melancholy in his eyes.

Which leads me onto the players themselves. It is always a joy to watch Herbert Marshall, one of the best lead men of the 30s who has become something of an obscurity today. He is utterly suited to the style and pace of Trouble in Paradise, his movements elegant as a violinist playing largo, and his voice quiet yet commanding of our attention. He is superbly matched, in an opposites-attract scenario, by a vivacious Miriam Hopkins. These days Hopkins is often dismissed as an amateurish ham, but as Trouble in Paradise demonstrates she did everything with a pinch of deliberate irony. I love the way she fires off angry tirades, her face almost rigid except for the occasional fiery flash of an eyebrow. Kay Francis, the third corner in the love triangle, is stunningly beautiful but otherwise rather bland and forgettable, although perhaps this is the point. As to the supporting players, Edward Everett Horton is always nice to see, although he is a bit underused here, and clearly hadn't quite worked out his brilliant comic persona yet. C. Aubrey Smith on the other hand, as familiar a face in thirties Hollywood as Ned Sparks, is at his very best. Being a pompous villain seems to suit him far better than the venerable patriarchs he usually portrayed.

Movies like Trouble in Paradise were popular of course because they offered escapism at a time of domestic strife. Today it remains a smart, witty, and very beautifully made confection. It is of course not nearly as touching as the raw emotion and sincerity of Warner Brothers' and Columbia's depression-era offerings, but it is nevertheless utterly enjoyable, undemanding, and treats us to the same delicate atmosphere of continental wit that it did to audiences of the time.

It is considered one of the top 100 films of all time. Honestly, I do not see why. A smart, witty romantic comedy, a cute movie for one watching, but really nothing special.

6,5/10

That rare thing: the perfect film comedy.

"Trouble in Paradise," Ernst Lubitsch's sparkling 1932 comedy, stars Herbert Marshall and an adorable Miriam Hopkins as con artists in love, while Kay Francis plays the woman who comes between them. The film is fast, sexy, effortless and absolutely charming.

People always refer to "the Lubitsch touch" when talking about the famous director's films, and I understand completely what they mean. There's something about his films that's common to all of them but is very hard to describe. It has something to do with tone -- all of his films feel like they're perfectly balanced between humor, sentimentality, pathos and melancholy. They're funny, but none of them feel like insignificant fluff; there's an underlying strain of melancholy running through all of them, yet none of them make the mistake of taking the world too seriously. I don't know what it was that made his films so delightful, but I love it.

Grade: A+

Notorious second story man, jewel thief Gaston Monescu (Herbert Marshall) crosses paths with fellow thief, pickpocket, Lily (Miriam Hopkins), in Venice. Mutually impressed by their illicit skills they form a partnership in crime and romance. They eye a huge payday bilking a perfume heiress, Mariette Colette (Kay Francis) but Gaston makes a professional miscue and falls for Colet, much to the chagrin of Lily who stands to lose on both ends.

Paradise is classic Ernst Lubitsch with much inferred not only to get around censors but heighten the comic value as well with the three leads in a state of incertitude on what their next move will be. Lubitsch for his part puts the audience to work with suggestive notions by way of clocks and his go to closed doors while balancing the mild suspense of who Gaston will be with at the film's close.

Marshall is benignly suave as he charms Lily and Colet. Seizing the moment he earnestly charms both with equal dubiousness leaving you to wonder if is a superb con artist or incurable romantic himself. Hopkins is a feisty, resourceful partner in crime who is not about to give up Monescu without a fight. Francis, strikingly cosmopolitan, spends most of her time on cloud 9 whether dealing in romance or business. Edward Evrett Horton and Charlie Ruggles as Colet suitors offer up additional laughs with a very civil disdain for each other.

Some moments do seem self-satisfied and slow but overall this light comedy with ribald undertones makes for a whimsical sex tale.

Ernst Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise is a frothy confection, a cinematic souffle that rises triumphantly above the flat, grey look of its early-30s origins. The story of ritzy jewel thieves Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins scheming to bilk French cosmetics heiress Kay Francis out of the bulk of her negotiable possessions, it proceeds with aristocratic aplomb.

Both Marshall and Hopkins could prove tediously brittle and a bit stale in later movies that relaxed into a more casual American style. Here, their mannered elocution and studied stage-business come off elegantly (this is, after all, a comedy of manners). Charlie Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton, a couple of fussbudgets wooing Francis, ably hold up the periphery of the action.

Trouble in Paradise -- a de luxe, Art Deco paradise -- stands as the touchstone of the fabled "Lubitsch touch," that glancing, faintly suggestive command of nuance, such as a pair of shadows falling across a bedspread (no more need be said, or shown). In this comic operetta, even the blithe background music sings out in leitmotifs. Other emigres from middle Europe brought a foreboding Teutonic look and tone to Hollywood, especially to film noir. Lubitsch brough a frolicsome continental note more akin to Mozart and Schubert than to Wagner or Mahler. This is an irrepressible smile of a movie.

Ernst Lubitsch's Art Deco sets are amazing and the movie is worth watching for this reason alone. The staircases, doors, mirrors, light fixtures are amazingly timeless. Kay Francis is stunningly delicious. The plot is merely adequate, although common for the era. On the down side, Miriam Hopkins comes across as crude, and talks like a peasant -- there is no chance she could have passed for a countess (or any other polished or pretending) socialite. She detracts from the overall experience. Will have to look her up in other movies to see if that was just an act, although I fear it is her baseline way of speaking.

Thank you, "Dailyshampoo48," whoever you are! I feel like I used to feel when my parents insisted on moving every year or two the whole time I was growing up (I went to 5 high schools in 5 different cities in 4 years). Every time we moved I was totally displaced, plopped down into a new, strange, often hostile environment, baffled, confused, lost. That's how I feel when I read all the rave reviews of this absolute and total piece of pretentious B.S. The dialog was stilted and often incomprehensible. The acting was a joke (a bad joke). I don't care how esteemed or glorified or respected this bizarre filmmaker is or was, this movie (and I use the term loosely) is awful. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to be about (other than what I've read). I give it a big fat zero.