Man of the World (1931) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Creaky Early Talkie Delivers More Powell Than Lombard
oldblackandwhite13 May 2011
Man Of The World is an 80-year old curio found in an economically priced Universal album with five other Carol Lombard pictures likewise valued primarily as antiques. The gorgeous Miss Lombard bore not a little resemblance to Greta Garbo in the looks department, though even more beautiful. Unfortunately there was little resemblance in the acting department. She was best at comedy, but Man Of The World is a melodrama. Never mind, William Powell was on hand to take care of that department with solid support from the delightfully eccentric Guy Kibbee and perennial strumpet Wynne Gibson.

This picture is very much the creaking early talkie. You know it is from the moment you start the DVD by the 1.20:1 screen aspect ratio. The sound strip on the edge of the film cut the 35 mm film frame's original 1.33:1 (same as an old standard TV screen) down to a claustrophobic, square-looking screen. By 1933 all the studios would adopt the "Accademy Standard" 1.37:1 screen by the simple expedient of a camera aperture mask. Early street scenes in Man Of The World are obviously stock footage from silent movies. But there was little other stock footage available then! When the movies started talking, there were three kinds of actors available -- those who had acted only in silents, stage actors, and actors who had experience in both media. But they and their directors soon learned that the talking picture was a whole new game. The melodramatic gestures needed to convey emotion in silent movies looked ridiculous with actual spoken dialog. Yet the stage style of acting would seem wooden in talking pictures. With microphones actors did not need to shout to be heard, and the motion picture camera could record subtle facial expressions and body movements which would have been lost on the third row of a live theater audience.

Both Powell and Lombard had stage as well as silent movie experience, though much more of the latter in her case. Powell, who would eventually develop a talking picture style of top caliber, was still working on it in Man Of The World. He seems a little stiff at times, and so does Wynne Gibson, but both are nevertheless very effective. Contrary to what some other reviewers have felt, I found Gibson's performance and asset, even though there were times when she was projecting to the back row seats. Carole Lombard's sound acting style with her sexy voice and fluid movement seems more natural, but then her part in the picture is not a particularly demanding one. Guy Kibbee, surprisingly, is the player who had the most secure handle on the new sound movie style. Perhaps it was his early experience as an entertainer in the intimate confines of a Mississippi riverboat.

The oft-used plot has slick con man Powell trying to work a blackmail scheme on naive American lass Lombard and her rich but dimwitted uncle Kibbee. With jealous ex-moll and confederate Gibson egging on the reluctant Powell. Predictably Powell falls in love with the sweet and beautiful Carole. However, all is very well done, things do not necessarily go according to formula, and the ending is something of a surprise.

Though I was about to give up on the Carole Lombard movies after watching two from the set, The Princess Comes Through, and We're Not Dressing (see my review), I was pleasantly surprised by Man Of The World. But then it was really a William Powell movie. Carole didn't have to do much except look good, and she did that very well indeed.

Man Of The World is rough around the edges but rewarding if you stick with it. At an hour and fourteen minutes, a good filler movie.

--------- Post Script (Jan 2014): Since writing this creaky old review, viewings of several other Carol Lombard Lombard pictures, including Love Before Breakfast (1936) (see my review) and the wonderful Twentieth Century (1934) have considerably raised my regard for the beautiful lady's acting ability.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The stars shine, but the rest of the skyline is dull.
mark.waltz24 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In what seems to be a promising drama of rich and poor, noble and naughty Americans in Paris, William Powell and Carole Lombard rise above a dull screenplay and add class to a mediocre project. Powell is a society blackmailer, an American novelist down on his luck who sets his money hungry sights on the niece of one of his victims. That lovely lady is Lombard, probably the most likable young actress every in the movies. Her natural beauty and charm betray her 21 years, making her a delightful surprise among a list of barely legal thespians who seem artificial on screen. Lombard has much chemistry with the older Powell, and in this (their first of three films), the age difference is one that never distracts. Powell's seemingly not so noble rogue is hiding a big heart that only hardens when forced by his jealous ex-lover (Wynne Gibson), his partner in crime that can't believe that Powell would actually fall in love with Lombard.

Guy Kibbee is Lombard's wealthy fun-loving uncle who longs to see her with the more age suitable Lawrence Gray, while veteran sleazy portrayer George Chandler is Gibson's equally nefarious cohort. Viewers will find the film delightful as far as the performances, sets and costumes are concerned, but the dull dialog isn't as snappy as other similar pre-code films. A brief view of minor characters (wealthy older male and female American with obvious "working" members of the opposite sex) is amusing, particularly the stout woman's reaction when her gigolo suddenly runs off after a warning from Powell. At 71 minutes long, you'd think this would fly by, but for some reason, it seems longer and is therefore a dull disappointment. Powell and Lombard don't get much of an opportunity to utilize their tremendous comic talents, but on occasion, the magic does slip out (with some nasty dialog crispy sneered by the underrated Gibson) and for that, this is worth a viewing.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fair Powell
januszlvii12 July 2020
I just do not care for this movie. It is not because William Powell ( Michael) was bad, it is just he did nothing for me good or bad, and he played a character he could play in his sleep. Powell is at his best in two kinds of movies comedy and crime and there was no comedy and the crime was secondary. The only one I did like was Wynne Gibson ( Irene) his former partner in crime. She gives a very sophisticated and measured performance ( so much better then Kay Francis who I detest)., Carole Lombard is in the film as well and she just did nothing for me. I admit to not being a fan of hers ( especially when compared to Myrna Loy). Finally, If you want to see a great film from Powell's Paramount period I would highly recommend Shadow Of The Law, now there is a very different Powell performance. I will give it 5/10 stars all for Gibson.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Powell did a nice job but I assume the ending will put off many.
planktonrules25 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film stars William Powell and Carole Lombard--who were briefly married shortly after this film was made. Powell plays a very sophisticated and clever thief who blackmails Americans who visit Paris. Supposedly Americans run wild in France and give Powell and his partners a lot of material. The film begins with Powell "helping" a gullible, rich American (Guy Kibbee)--saying he knows of a man who publishes a scandal sheet who is going to blackmail Kibbee. Powell "generously" agrees to arrange to pay off the blackmailer--who is Powell himself. Then, after fleecing Kibbee, he sets his sights on his niece (Lombard). The problem is that over time, Powell finds he's fallen for the lady and cannot bring himself to hurt her. When he tells her the truth, his life is turned upside down.

While the plot is hard to believe, because Powell was such a wonderful actor it's easy to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. As for Lombard, she's just fine but isn't given as much of a part. While a good actress, the role could have been played by practically any young leading lady of the day.

As far as the ending goes, this will no doubt alienate many viewers. While you'd assume there'd be some wonderfully magical happy ending, this film dares to go with realism--and in the end, everyone loses. An odd choice but at least it avoids the clichéd conclusion. I liked it but realize it's still a rather minor film--one that is very watchable but not much more.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Learning to talk
ilprofessore-15 June 2019
This 1931 film with a screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz, co-writer of Citizen Kane, is credited in the books if not in the film to two directors, one of whom, Edward Goodman, must have been replaced somewhere during the production by Hollywood veteran Richard Wallace who receives sole screen credit. The sluggishness of the film is probably due to Goodman, one of the many successful Broadway theater directors lured to the west coast in the early days of sound pictures. He staged dialogue scenes in a conventional manner as he might have done a play. (Oddly enough, no film editor is listed in the credits, possibly because no one at Paramount wanted their name associated with what must have been perceived then as a talky failure.) Nevertheless, the fiIm is worth watching because it brings together two future stars, William Powell and Carole Lombard, soon to marry. She, a very popular ingenue of the early1930s, does her best as she always did with the thankless role of the rich American girl abroad. He has a few scenes in which he displays his suave charm. It would take a few more years before Hollywood learned how to use sound and how to pace sophisticated stories such as this, but even this failure has its moments. Guy Kibbee is particularly effective. Five years later, Powell and Lombard, three years divorced, would be reunited at Universal to make the comedy classic My Man Godfrey, directed by someone who really knew how to make movies move-the great Gregory LaCava. LaCava insisted on Powell who insisted on Lombard. Wise choice.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Powell and Lombard in early one.
ksf-212 August 2020
The pre-code where William Powell meets Carole Lombard. story by Herman Mankiewicz. Harry Taylor (Guy Kibbee) is in Paris, and doing things he doesn't want known back in the states. Powell is Trevor.. he pretends to help these americans get out of a jam, but is really blackmailing them. but he falls for Mary (Lombard). and his co-conspirator Irene sees it (Wynne Gibson), and the irony when she says "you've fallen in love with that kid." since Powell really did fall for Lombard. and they got hitched. Some speed bumps in Trevor and Mary's plan for a wedding. Irene throws wrenches into the works, so things aren't what they were just a short time ago. lessons learned. or are they?? It's good. and kind of exotic, since it takes place in a "foreign country." Directed by Dick Wallace. died quite young of a heart attack. was a founding member fo the Directors Guild. probably his best known works are the Girl, the Guy, and the Gob and Bombardier. and Carole Lombard was tragically killed quite young as well.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
They Were Better After The Divorce
bkoganbing8 March 2011
About the only thing that this pre-Code drama is significant for is that William Powell and Carole Lombard met on the set of Man Of The World and were married shortly thereafter. They did another film while both were at Paramount, Ladies Man and then were divorced with Powell leaving Paramount for Warner Brothers and a short stint there. Neither of these films is anything close to that third film they did, My Man Godfrey.

Powell along with Wynne Gibson and George Chandler has a nice little racket going in Paris. A former reporter he prints a newspaper if you can call it that of gossip distributed among visiting Americans. But for a consideration he'll make sure the item never gets printed. We have a political blogger in my area who actually does the same thing, so this racket I know well.

But problems ensue when he actually falls for visiting American tourist Carole Lombard who is a niece of Guy Kibbee whom Powell has already put the bite on.

Bill Powell was at a crossroads in his career, during the silent era he mostly played villains, that clipped mustache of his was guarantor of those kind of parts. Here he is a rat, but a rat with a conscience. How that plays out you have to watch the film for.

Powell and Lombard are good, but Wynne Gibson as a woman who knows the score in life gets all the acting kudos in Man Of The World. She should have done a film called Women Of The World.

Man Of The World is not a classic like My Man Godfrey, but Powell and Lombard do have good chemistry. Of course they had better chemistry once they were divorced.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Early talkie Man of the World has some interesting elements but the pacing is a bit slow
tavm24 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Having ordered Disc 1 of The Carole Lombard Collection from Netflix, I just watched the first of two films on it-Man of the World. She plays the young niece of a rich uncle in Paris who's trying to avoid a scandal. William Powell is a former reporter who actually is the blackmailer but doesn't let anyone know about that. That changes when he meets Ms. Lombard and her fiancée. I'll stop there and just say that while some dialogue exchanges are interesting, the pacing was lethargic to the point of me recognizing when the backgrounds were film projections whenever things threaten to get dull. I guess the fact that this was an early talkie had something to do with that. Still, it was interesting enough so on that note, Man of the World is worth a look if you're interested in this sort of thing.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Look Elsewhere for Powell and Lombard at their Best
dglink16 August 2020
Not every vintage film from Hollywood's Golden Era is a classic, and "Man of the World" exemplifies this. Michael Trevor is the shady operator of a scandal sheet that blackmails Americans who are in Paris. Trevor meets a young woman, who is visiting the city with her fiancee, and who is also the niece of his latest target. Despite the complications, he quickly falls for her, experiences a change of heart, and wants to clean up his act. Unfortunately, the plot plods, and the cast coasts. Ordinarily, viewers would expect much from a film that stars William Powell and his then-wife, Carole Lombard, who plays the American tourist; however, the cast disappoints.

The script is credited to Herman J. Mankiewicz, whose name also raises expectations; however, the pedestrian story is strange and un-involving. While Powell is competent in his role, he seems uninterested, and his character never comes alive; although he and Lombard reportedly met on the set, his romantic interest in Lombard is tepid and lacks sparks. Lombard's Mary Kendall is bland as well, and the part could have been played by any number of young actresses of the period. Guy Kibbee as Lombard's uncle is always fun to watch, and Wynne Gibson and George Chandler as Powell's partners in crime are professional. Director Richard Wallace, whose credits are somewhat underwhelming, does not distinguish himself here, and the entire film seems tired. Within a few years, Powell would hit his stride with "The Thin Man" and Lombard would develop her comic style in "No Man of Her Own;" however, "Man of the World" does little for the reputation of anyone.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I found this one very disappointing...
AlsExGal30 October 2012
... and yet I give it a mediocre rating, not a poor one. That's because who would expect an early 30's film starring William Powell, Carole Lombard, and Guy Kibbee with strong support by Wynne Gibson to be anything less than excellent? I know I wouldn't. The film is tortuously slow after starting out with a couple of promising scenes. The film opens with drunken American Harry Taylor (Guy Kibbee) accosting Michael Trevor (William Powell) on the streets of Paris thinking he was somebody else - he is. It turns out Trevor is an alias for an expatriate who was a stand-up journalist in America but had to take it on the lam after he got left holding the bag for something that is never clearly explained. At any rate, in the film Michael later explains that after he paid wrongfully for someone else's misdeed he decided he would start making others pay. Thus he starts a blackmailing racket in Paris without anybody truly knowing who he is but his two partners - Fred and Irene (Wynne Gibson). He has one rule though - he never victimizes women.

He ends up blackmailing Harry Taylor for some fling with a blonde, but makes it look like he's doing him a favor by being a go-between for the unscrupulous scandal sheet operator that will print the news and Harry. This ends all of the clever scenes in the movie. Carole Lombard plays Harry's niece, Mary, who instantly falls for Michael, and the feeling is mutual. Michael wants to make a clean breast of his past to Mary, leave the crooked life behind him and marry the girl.

The monkey wrench in the works? Wynne Gibson as Irene - she's Michael's ex and she's none too happy about it. She spends the rest of the movie being a shameless clinging back-stabbing harpy to the point where you want to chase her off with a mallet and let the two lovers have a happy ending.

The acting and production values are the reason I give this one even five stars. William Powell's acting is the centerpiece of this film and he splendidly conveys - without that much dialogue - the persona of a man of the world with the weight of the world on his shoulders. However, the pace is awful, the conclusion will leave a bad taste in your mouth, and normally I would blame the director for such great performers putting my feet to sleep at times, but director Robert Wallace had and would direct some pretty good early talkies that didn't crawl along like this one at all, so I guess the cause of the mediocre result will always be a mystery.

Recommended only to see Powell and Lombard together in the film that started their relationship and ultimately brought about their marriage.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
William Powell meets Carole Lombard
robert-temple-118 December 2011
This was the film when William Powell and Carole Lombard, through working together, fell in love and married in the same year. At this stage in her career, Lombard was still somewhat embryonic, having not yet developed into her proper persona, though she was an attractive and winsome ingénue. Powell, on the other hand, who was already 39, had fully matured, whereas Lombard was only 23. The story and screenplay were both by Herman Mankiewicz (1897-1953), brother of the director Joe Mankiewicz, uncle of Tom (whom I knew), and related to numerous others in the film business. It is rather sad tale of a basically good man who has become such a 'man of the world' that he cannot be true to himself and thus cannot find the happiness he craves. The story is set in Paris, at the peak of the period of its American tourist and bohemian invasion. Although not filmed on location, there are some convincing cafes and a very funny scene where a genuine Frenchwoman and her large number of children, gabbling in impeccable patois, squeeze Powell and Lombard off a park bench. So the script had such excellent touches. The quality of the film was very good, considering how recently sound had come in, and no one seems too obviously to be speaking into a microphone concealed in a vase of flowers. William Powell really is superb in this film, and it is his showpiece, and it must have helped boost his career a lot. The marriage of Powell and Lombard would only last two years, but it seems to have done them both a world of good, and they remained friends. The film had two directors, Richard Wallace, who was two years younger than Powell and is best known for the John Garfield film THE FALLEN SPARROW (1943), and an uncredited Edward Goodman, who only directed two films, both in 1931. I presume it was Wallace who finished the Goodman picture, rather than the other way around, but that is just a guess. I have no idea what was behind it all and why Goodman disappeared from the business that year, as he did not die until 1962. One of the mysteries we will probably never solve! Guy Kibbee plays a rich American tourist, father to Lombard, and does so with his usual geniality and large girth. Wynne Gibson plays the hard-bitten Irene, who has been Powell's partner in fleecing rich Americans in Paris for some time and does not want to let him go. She says: 'I know it is all over between us,' but clearly in her mind it is not. She appeared in 50 titles before retiring in 1956. She specialised in played hard-boiled women. Will Powell, who has found true love, be able to reform? Can it work in the society of that day? The film is well worth watching and finding out for yourself.
23 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Old habits are hard to change – or, a missed second chance
SimonJack5 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is a story, set in Paris, about a con artist falling in love, resolving to reform, and then despairing about his chances and moving on. William Powell plays the con artist, and his love interest is Carole Lombard who plays Mary Kendall, daughter of a wealthy business owner from the U.S. But, Powell isn't just any con artist. He's a master who runs a sophisticated yet simple scheme. Wynne Gibson plays an accomplice of Powell's Michael Trevor. As Irene Hoffa, she carries a torch for him. She's jealous and is torn by love-hate feelings for the guy. Some other supporting cast do their parts well.

The story is just a version of many others one has read, heard or watched on film. Bad guy meets girl, falls in love and goes straight. I don't mean to make it sound like a trifle, but something isn't quite right about this film. It's supposed to be a romantic drama. There is no chemistry between the two leads. Powell shows no emotions at all. His character has no life. He just seems to mope from one scene to another – head down and eyes toward the floor. It seems like Powell hasn't yet shaken that acting method from the silent films he made. He is capable of much better as we see in his many later films.

The script isn't very good and the direction is lacking. It's a fair film for folks who enjoy Powell and Lombard movies. But it's nowhere near the considerable repertoire of very good films made by either star. I rate it six stars mostly for the good look it provides of some of the top supporting cast actors from the first decade of the talkies.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
So This Is Paris Hollywood
boblipton5 April 2006
Paramount had a specialty of sex comedies set in Paris, France from the mid-twenties until the Production Code closed them down in 1935. At that point, the Screwball Comedy arose.

As long as they were doing comedies in Paris, they did a couple of straight programmers set there too. In this one, William Powell plays an American in Paris who, while trying to write, makes a living by an interesting blackmail scam -- I've never heard of it before.

This movie, with a script by Herman J. Mankiewicz and a good cast has a chance of being very good. But except for William Powell, as always, charming, and Guy Kibbee's emphatic muddleheadedness, director Richard Wallace seems to be unable to raise a decent performance. Carole Lombard keeps threatening to disappear into the background, Lawrence Grey seems impossibly callow, and Wynne Gibson seems to be reading her speeches phonetically off a blackboard.

One wants to like this movie and there are a few moments when it appears on the brink of turning into something very interesting, like the scene over onion soup at 1 AM, but then it turns into another pointless costume change.

William Powell's career was stuck at this point: he was trying to make the change from screen villain to leading man, but couldn't quite get the right vehicles. He would leave Paramount for Warner's until he struck gold at Metro in 1934. But he always remained a character actor, capable of small or broad performances that would delight the audiences. It's a pity he's not strong enough to carry this movie by himself.
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lombard And Powell
atlasmb20 December 2021
William Powell is always worth seeing. Here he plays Michael Trevor, an American who has lived in Paris by unscrupulous means. When he meets a likable, naive American woman, he has difficulty dealing with his feelings. And he has tough choices to make. Or perhaps there is really only one choice?

Carole Lombard is Mary Kendall, the American who presents him with a dilemma. Though this is not a great romance---like others Powell starred in---it serves as an introduction to the Lombard/Powell pairing. Wynne Gibson portrays the compromised Irene Harper, who knows Trevor for what he is and depends on him; she is very convincing in her role, and strangely sympathetic. Guy Kibbee, in one of his straighter roles, is Mary's father.

This simple story lacks depth, so it warrants fewer stars.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
MAN OF THE WORLD (Richard Wallace, 1931) **
Bunuel19765 December 2007
The oldest and least entry in the Lombard Collection is this would-be sophisticated melodrama, about ex-journalist con-man William Powell who appears to look out for wealthy Americans vacationing in Paris being blackmailed after having been caught in compromising situations – when he’s really the one behind the whole scheme (with a couple of associates in tow).

Lombard (who subsequently married her co-star) plays the young niece of one such victim (Guy Kibbee); this is the earliest of her films that I’ve watched and, frankly, if it weren’t for her voice she’d be unrecognizable from her later zanier output. Here, she’s given a very plain look indistinguishable from many an early 1930s leading lady; in fact, it was only with her performance as a temperamental theatrical star to John Barrymore’s madcap impresario in Howard Hawks’ magnificent screwball comedy TWENTIETH CENTURY (1934) that she acquired her distinctive – and captivating – personality.

Anyway, the film makes for a mildly interesting artifact due to its unusual plot and setting (though obviously shot on the Paramount back-lot); Powell’s is actually a thoughtful characterization – but Lombard is merely decorous (needless to say, I’ve always preferred her in comedy roles as opposed to drama). Also in the cast is Wynne Gibson as The (vindictive and somewhat pathetic) Other Woman, a role that would practically be replicated wholesale in NIGHT AFTER NIGHT (1932) which, coincidentally, is included on Universal’s “Mae West Glamour Collection” set!

All in all, however, director Wallace fared much better in his more sympathetic depiction of another band of crooks years later in the winsome comedy THE YOUNG IN HEART (1938).
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Collapsed Soufflé
misswestergaard4 June 2015
Man of the World (1931) suffers from dreary pacing and uncertain tone.

If this were a B- picture starring unknowns, I'd say it had a lot to recommend it—A lovingly rendered fake Paris, a bittersweet romance, charismatic actors... but for a Powell-Lombard picture, it's a disappointing slog. The primary issue is pacing. Editing is sluggish —static medium shot after static medium shot—and the dialogue really drags. In a film about romance between con-artists, and socialites, you'd expect witty dialogue to come fast and furiously, but in Man ofThe World, actors deliver their lines at a solemn and stately pace, so what should be an exciting whirl of romance and scandal becomes weirdly glum.

Further, there's not nearly enough time spent on the courtship between Lombard and Powell. Sure, he seems suave and sophisticated, while she seems pleasant and attractive, but they don't share much screen time. And when they do, there's no electricity. They don't bandy or bicker,they just fall into a pleasant little romance because the script tells them to.

Weirdly, far more time is given over to the unhappy relationship between Powell and ex-lover Wynne Gibson (a stiff, unappealing performer). Despite the movie's premise—an adventurous socialite falls for a charming blackmailer—this isn't really a Lubitsch-style romantic comedy. It's not nearly fun enough. So I guess it's a failed drama? I did like the story itself, particularly the unexpected ending (which I won't reveal). This is one from the vaults that deserves remaking morethan reverence.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Powerful and Memorable "Man of the World"
glennstenb10 September 2019
As of summer 2019 there are a number of reviews of this film on IMDb, and a divide exists between those liking it a lot and those disapproving. I fall into the liking category, enjoying the acting so very much, including Wynne Gibson. I thought she did a marvelous job, allowing us to tune into her vulnerability and also allowing us to perceive how she calculated her responses to William Powell in conversation... her character knows she must tread carefully with him. Mr. Powell likewise deftly displays a suite of emotions. Unfortunately for our viewing pleasure Carole Lombard had a role that wasn't really all that demanding, but her presence was glamorously magnetic even so. The story is thoughtful and really compelling, while the dialog was skillfully crafted. The ending is among the more powerful I remember seeing in film. And thankfully, being from 1931, the film has no background music trying to help us react to the goings-on. This is a beautifully put-together film for 1931, only three years into the screenplay era (there are a number of fine films from 1930 and 1931, but more often memorable because of the action and settings, not because of thoughtful screenplay). The small cast of actors here approached their roles seriously and it was apparent they took time to evaluate and rehearse their lines. Very much appreciated is that the takes and editor's cuts are not intrusively obvious, allowing viewers to mentally "sink" into and stay inside the program. And lastly, although morality is existentially debated in this picture and courage as a trait is on display, gratefully the viewer is not necessarily being manipulated into a point of view... this would likely not happen in today's world of cinema where the film's point of view is paramount and inescapable. This "Man of the World" is a near-great one!
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Weak Script Allows a Top Notch Cast to Slip!
Sylviastel13 January 2012
The film isn't the greatest but not the worst film ever made. Okay, it's about Paris in the 1930s where American expatriates like William Powell's character go to make money, live cheaply, and escape the horrors of the Great Depression in the United States. William Powell is a great actor and perhaps one of the finest of his time. He does what he can with this weak script where he plays a publisher in Paris. He falls in love with the niece of a wealthy American played by the wonderful Carole Lombard. Wynne Gibson has a supporting role as the other woman in William Trevor (Powell's character) life who knows his secrets. I liked Wynne Gibson in another film and she was a great actress here as well. The actors do the best with the weak script but it was Paramount and other studios who produced and made films a lot more than they do today. Studio film actors and actresses had contracts to make a certain amount per year. Yes, not all of them were brilliant. Some of them like this film is one of mediocre types of it's time.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not much happens
HotToastyRag24 August 2020
Similar to the same year's Ladies' Man, William Powell plays a scoundrel and the object of Carole Lombard's (his wife at the time) affection. In this one, rather than a gigolo, he plays a professional blackmailer. Carole is the niece of Guy Kibbee, a wealthy but imbecilic man on vacation in Paris. She's engaged to a suitable, kind, ethical man, but when she's introduced to Bill, her head gets turned.

This is one of those old movies that make people criticize old movies for being boring. Not much happens in the plot. There's neither witty banter nor emotional monologues, and the love triangle doesn't prompt the audience to really prefer one side over the other. It isn't any of the cast member's finest hour, so feel free to skip this one and pretend you saw it if anyone asks.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Yet another misleading plot summary from this site
dierregi8 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The movie opens with William Powell and ends with him, since his character is the main character in the story. Lombard plays the love interest (and not a very interesting one...)

If you read the plot summary you get the idea of a sophisticated comedy starring Lombard as an American socialite who happens to meet her supporting love interest in Paris, in a sparkly development à la "My man Godfrey".

Instead, this is a drama about Michael, a failed journalist, turned blackmailer, who happens to fall for Mary, one of his victims, but their lukewarm love story is nipped in the bud by Michael's ex lover, Irene (a sexy Wynne Gibson).

Irene gets as much screen time as Mary and is a much more vivid character, also wearing some beautiful costumes, the most striking being a super sexy evening gown in her first scene.

Power does a nice turn as Michael the blackmailer; unfortunately the plot development is slow and clumsy and the ending rhetorical and dissatisfactory.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A very remarkable "small" film in not-so-Gay Paree
hudecha19 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It is strange that so many opinions are depreciating this "small" comedy/drama, which if only because of its very unconventionally sad "unhappy-end" is above the usual standard and very much worth-seeing.

Up to its ending, the film has been a fairly skilful, though simply plotted, romantic comedy. A bittersweet mixture of witty cynicism and real emotions, it is actually not wholly unworthy of the great Lubitsch, who might have enjoyed handling such a story - it has common points with Trouble in Paradise which the master of wits filmed the following year. Which is not to say this film can compare to a Lubitsch one - it doesn't, but extremely few can. Just that it is quite enjoyable and more interesting than it could appear at first. Trevor, a charmingly brilliant crook and blackmailer, lives an easy and more or less settled life in Paris. However it soon appears it is not a really happy one, as in the past he has been forced to abandon his country and friends, his youth ideals, and his hopes for a life more worthy of his own self-esteem. All this, which he had made his best to bury as deep inside himself as feasible, is suddenly brought to the light of a romance with a young rich heiress, Mary - which starts as a natural infatuation with youth, charm and beauty, but evolves into something much more deeply involving for both. It so happens that Mary is really more than a conventional "beautiful lady", which is confirmed when he resigns himself to expose to her what kind of a man he actually is. Far from being appalled and repulsed, she immediately decides that his present and past are irrelevant, as they both know that deep inside he is a very different person and that together they will leave all that behind. Is this just the naivety of a pampered and optimistic gilded youth who has never experienced that life is slightly more complicated? One may be tempted to discard it as credulous - but in this case there are actually good reasons to believe that she is right on all accounts. He, at his core, is a good person, without any deep flaws likely to reappear in a new life. She feels it, knows it. But interestingly, she resorts to a very different if not opposite argument - and thus shows that her good looks might have deceived Trevor and viewers alike into underestimating her : she says that she is glad Trevor has a flawed past, and that she would love him less if he had been like her fiancee a good, uninteresting person with no experience of the hardships and complexities of life. Certainly not the way of thinking of your usual hare-brained heiress in many such films. This is part of what makes the ending so bitter and poignant. Trevor lets himself be convinced - in truth, too easily - by his pathetic former lover Irene that this is all an illusion, that he will not be able to get rid of his past just like that and it will some day catch up with them and wreck their happiness and love. If Trevor has real flaws in this story, they are really a certain lack of courage and trust, in Mary and above all in himself, as well as a possibly misguided sense of honour. After a sleepless night of "tempest in a skull", Trevor finds the only morally noble solution - making himself appear as a complete heel to Mary, so as to break neatly their bond. Which succeeds, though we hope that she will see through his plot - she does not, and who could blame her? Therefore, the expected happy ending, the two lovers honeymooning on a cruiser, is cruelly sacrificed for an extremely downbeat alternative - which involves two diverging boats, united by unhappiness... On one bound back to America Mary, heartbroken and her illusions shattered, is going back to the conventionally dull and most probably not very happy life she had found some hope of escaping;. On another one bound to South Africa, Trevor is in the company of Irene, which he has accepted only by compassion and indifference henceforth to his own future. He is as heartbroken as Mary, and his hopes of redeeming his own life are even more shattered - it seems unlikely he will try again. The swamp is for him, forever. A very melodramatic ending? Possibly, but in a subdued - and very sad - way. It would have been much easier to reward the viewers' expectations of a happy ending. Much more banal as well, less interesting and memorable. And probably less true to real life. In this sense this early talkie is quite modern in its way. Credits remind us that it has been written by Herman Mankiewicz, older brother of Joseph and screenwriter of Citizen Kane. By the way this truly heroic sacrifice, making oneself appear as an unworthy, soulless and loveless egoist, as the only means to force your loved one to leave you for his own good, be it at the cost of your smitten heart and the sacrifice of your whole future happiness as well as redemption, strongly reminded me of another story which I could not put my finger on right away. With a little memory-searching I found out what it was : this is the basic argument at the end of George Cukor's film Camille with Garbo and Taylor, itself adapted from the play La dame aux camélias which also gave us the opera Traviata. What will be sublime tear-jerking melodrama in Camille is here handled rather subtly, without pathos, very low-key - in the following scene Trevor who is forced to leave Paris puts moodily his beloved books away into cases. I find it quite plausible that this melodramatic storyline element has also been used in a number of other plots of films and novels, actually. A few words about the setting and actors. The story takes place in Gay Paree and seems to present it in the usual vein, as a den - or haven/heaven - of debauchery. However by pre-code standards - or Lubitsch's... - it is pretty innocuous, no more hell than heaven. Debauchery does not go much beyond too many colourful cocktails and long nights of revelry and a few mild allusions such as one to postcards (this one originating from two couples of old Americans who seem so boringly respectable that they are unlikely candidates for extreme dissipation). Nightlife places of pleasure are limited to an admittedly dull tourist-oriented high-end restaurant, and the harmless typical bistro of Papa Jules. This is more the sweet idealized Paris of post-code comedies than the wild one of silent and pre-code movies. Overall this one, despite its scandal-oriented characters, is extremely short on risqué situations and dialogues - if it had been shot a few years later, the Hays Code people would probably have found little to object to in it. William Powell is very good in his role, as fluidly refined as ever, but able to convey his deep feelings behind the apparent flippancy of the "man of the world", as the title describes him with a nice double-entendre. Contrary to other opinions on his acting here, I feel that he is not still an actor in development - all his future persona (mannerisms included) is already there - his adaptation to the universe of talking pictures has been remarkably fast, in particular thanks to his rapid elocution. One can say mostly the same of the other actors, especially Guy Kibbee - about Carole Lombard later on. Wynne Gibson is the only one with a whiff of silent movie acting but she conveys rather well and movingly her unlikable and maudlin character. The film as a whole suffers fairly little of the drawbacks of early talkies, static acting and annoying sound-recording - one remnant is the sound of wood boards when Trevor and Mary are romantically walking on a Paris bridge at night. As to Carole Lombard, she is still only a star-in-waiting in a Powell vehicle. As other comments have noted, her hairdo and make-up make it difficult to recognize the radiant face with which she will soon illuminate other more noteworthy films in her career. During two-thirds of the film, Mary's character is not really fleshed out in any substantial way - this is one of the major weaknesses of the script, which makes it harder to understand why Trevor falls deeply for her. However, the well-written scene where Trevor reveals his true self to her completely belies the judgement of many, that Mary is a lightweight and fairly uninteresting role. In the latter part of this dialogue, Mary really takes over Trevor as the strongest character of the two : after his classical confession to her, she reacts in a quite unexpected manner. Not only does she sweep away his unfounded worries with a healthy dose of "let the past be the past", which shows her as much more mature than she appears and he believes. But she also actually welcomes his checkered past and possibly flawed personality, which contrary to her bland money-man fiancee make him a real person, the only kind of person she could really envisage to make her life with, actually. That is a strong statement - and the way Carole Lombard makes it credible announces the qualities of natural acting which will distinguish in her further career, and her later under-estimated capabilities to act serious roles beyond her talent for light-hearted comedy. Hail Carole, one of the greats in this no-sacred-monster register, with Margaret Sullavan and Barbara Stanwyck.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I Didn't Respect the Characters
view_and_review9 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
William Powell plays a swindler who fell in love in "Man of the World." His role was virtually the same as the one in "Ladies' Man." In both he plays a suave, high society, ladies' man who leeches off of other people.

In "Man of the World" he played Michael Trevor, a disgraced newspaperman from America who relocated to Paris in order to start anew. In Paris he earned his living conning unfaithful businessmen who were abroad without their wives.

When he conned Harry Taylor (Guy Kibbee) out of $2000 that gave him the opportunity to meet Mary Kendall (Carole Lombard), Harry's niece. It was clear that Michael was instantly attracted to Mary. He would have the chance to spend quality time with Mary when her significant other, Frank Reynolds (Lawrence Gray), went out of town on business. Frank was thrilled to leave Mary in capable hands, which I don't get.

Sidebar.

I've noticed in a few movies now that high society men are totally fine with other men entertaining their wives and girlfriends. I've seen it in "Ladies' Man" and other movies where wealthy aristocratic men, too busy to entertain their wives, allow another man to do it for them like it's a great relief. I don't know what school of thought that's from, but I'm certainly not a student of it.

When Frank left town and Michael took Mary out to show her a good time, the predictable happened: they fell in love. I remember thinking, when Frank remarked he'd only be gone ten days, "It only takes one day for you to lose your girlfriend." And sure enough he lost her on day one.

Michael had a problem though: his current occupation. His grifting partner, Irene Harper (Wynne Gibson), wasn't going to let Michael walk off the job because he was in love. For starters, he was supposed to be using Mary for a big payday. Added to that is the fact Irene still had feelings for Michael.

None of that mattered to Michael. He was going to discontinue his con, admit his past, and tell Mary he loved her.

He did just that and she reciprocated. Not only did she reciprocate, she asserted that his past didn't matter to her at all. At this point I had all kinds of NSFW names for Mary intimating just how foolish she was.

You mean to tell me that the past of a man you've known for one full day doesn't matter because you love him? Woman, you don't even know how deep or dark his past is! You don't even know if Michael is his real name!

This happens so often in older movies especially. Women quickly fall in love (which makes me believe that they don't know what love is or I don't know what love is) and don't bother to vet the guy at all. And if he reveals something disparaging about himself, then it's a wrap. He must be the one. Only a good man would open up and reveal the skeletons in his closet. Apparently, men didn't begin seriously lying until the latter part of the 20th century.

So Mary proclaimed her love for Michael while also stating how she didn't love Frank. In addition, whatever past crimes Michael may have committed, they're over now. His past was his past, even if it was as recent as yesterday. SMH.

The relationship fell through anyway after Irene bent Michael's ear. She laid it down plainly how his past is a lot more sordid and impossible to run from than he could've explained to Mary in a five minute conversation. As Michael pondered on Irene's words he came to the same conclusion and broke it off with Mary in a rather cold manner. For Irene's part she got to be Michael's sorry second choice. She didn't seem to mind.

As for me, I minded. I minded how little everyone seemed to mind. How little Frank minded Mary being entertained by Michael. How little Mary minded what Michael was. How little Irene minded being an afterthought. If you can't respect the characters, it's hard to respect or like the movie, and I didn't like this movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Perfectly fine. Perfectly unremarkable.
I_Ailurophile9 November 2022
As fine as any given actor or filmmaker may be, not all their features are guaranteed to be equal. Take Carole Lombard, for example; at their best her films are brilliant classics, while others range from a plain "good" to a sad "disappointing" or worse. 'Man of the world' is enjoyable - written well, and directed, with suitable acting and solid craftsmanship. It also leaves very little impression: at one point I found myself growing tired, and as I slowly drifted to sleep and my mind went foggy in the moment, I couldn't tell the difference between the value of the movie when it was still playing and its value after I had reflexively paused it. It's entertaining in the passive way that any fundamental combination of light and sound can be. Is that enough?

The story is fine material for cinematic telling. It's so fine, in fact, that in its broad strokes we've seen this tale play out many other times. Characters range from naïve to gullible, from sympathetic to mean; the dialogue serves the plot. The costume design, hair and makeup, production design, and art direction are swell. A motion picture has been successively made; it began, it ended, and we have spent 72 minutes of our time thusly (or more, if we paused). What else is there to know?

I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Man of the world' than I did. I neither like nor dislike it; there's nothing whatsoever about this that's special or demands one's viewership. If you're looking for something light and frivolous to watch, this will surely fit the bill. If you want anything more out of a viewing experience, keep looking.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed