How sad is this?

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

When divorce is mutually agreed upon by one couple who announce it happily at a party, it causes others to think about their own marriages. One of their guests, Helen (Mary Duncan), is already cheating on her mild-mannered husband with Tony (Adolphe Menjou, who reminds me of Edward Norton), but the two confess to one another that they've gotten bored with one another. The end of their affair is as amicable as the end of the marriage they've just witnessed. Everyone seems blithe and reasonable about these things, which would ordinarily trigger a lot of passion. Meanwhile, Jack (Norman Foster) has been rumored to cheat on his wife Connie (Leila Hyams), who loves a good flirtation herself, but the two are committed to one another until she catches him in bed with Helen. She then considers taking Tony up on his advances to her. Jack tries to enforce the double standard, telling her "This is a man's game, and you can't play it", but she responds by telling him "You play around as much as you like, and so will I." The movie should get a little credit for its openness about divorce, adultery, and a women's right to sexual freedom. The performances are pretty average, though, and the movie cops out a bit at the end.

That was all I could think about as I sat through the superficial dialogue in this picture full of superficial wealthy characters. Who in 1931, when the Depression was at its worst and those who still had jobs worried about holding on to them, would have wanted to see the idle and superficial rich banter in a not clever way about their love lives? None of the characters here is interesting. Most of them are pretty disagreeable.There were few wealthy people in the USA in 1931, certainly not enough to provide a return on even a small budget picture like this one. Who else went to see it? Who did MGM think would buy tickets?

A lot of folks assume that back in the old days, films were super- puritanical and chaste. Well, that might be said about many of the films released after mid-1934, but before that things were a lot different--particularly in the early 30s. The studios had a production code which supposedly mandated 'nice behavior' up until 1934, but the studios routinely ignored it and made films with plots involving adultery, fornication, abortion, prostitution and the like. They also featured cursing and nudity in a few cases...and some of it is pretty shocking when seen today. But the public outcry and loss of revenue eventually resulted in a long list of dos and don'ts and the film soon were highly sanitized. "Men Call It Love" is one of these Hollywood films that came out before the tough Production Code of 1934. It's pretty obvious, as the theme in this one is adultery--and practically all the folks in this film are either married and cheating on their spouses or single and DEFINITELY playing the field! Subtle, it ain't!The film features Leila Hyams as Connie...the only married person not cheating in this film. However, when she eventually realizes that her husband is a weak, no-good cheater, she decides to make up for lost time and chases playboy, Tony (Adolph Menjou), like a dog chasing after a pork chop! What's going to become of Connie-- especially because it seems like, down deep, this sort of life isn't for her. Will she be happy with her new lascivious lifestyle-- especially after she proposes to her husband that they adopt an open marriage? In some ways this is a pretty good film, in other ways it isn't. The plot is certainly unusual and the acting is pretty good. But the film also is incredibly talky and rather slow--and perhaps too subtle. If it had been MORE sensationalistic and sleazy like some of its competition, it probably would have been a lot more entertaining. It also has an oddly confusing message that manages to be both pro-marriage AND pro-adultery (provided you don't get caught).

Edgar Selwyn, one of the people who actually founded the studio that would become MGM ("Goldwyn" was originally an amalgamation of his and his brother's name with co-owner Samuel Goldfish, who liked it so well he renamed himself after the studio), directed this rather stagy version of a story about fidelity and infidelity among the well-to-do. Norman Foster, who would go on to become a good B director, is fairly weak and most of the players are rather mannered in their performances. As usual, Adolph Menjou gives a fine performance as Tony Minot, a philanderer who only falls in love with married women.Harold Rossen as the DP does his usual fine job, moving the camera around lightly to maintain composition. The palette, though, is that stark black-and-white that makes everything look as if the film had been overdeveloped. MGM would abandon it in a couple of years