MOVIEmeter
SEE RANK
Up 39,440 this week

-But the Flesh Is Weak (1932)

Passed  -  Comedy  -  9 April 1932 (USA)
5.8
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 5.8/10 from 118 users  
Reviews: 10 user | 1 critic

The Clements father and son live by the generosity of rich women. Max, the son, sets his sites on Lady Joan, who is rich, but down-to-earth and charming. At her house he meets Rosine Brown,... See full summary »

Director:

Writers:

(play), (dialogue)
0Check in
0Share...

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 10000 titles
created 26 Jun 2012
 
a list of 1301 titles
created 11 months ago
 
a list of 3236 titles
created 5 months ago
 
list image
a list of 9998 titles
created 4 months ago
 

Connect with IMDb


Share this Rating

Title: -But the Flesh Is Weak (1932)

-But the Flesh Is Weak (1932) on IMDb 5.8/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of -But the Flesh Is Weak.
Edit

Cast

Complete credited cast:
...
Max Clement
Nora Gregor ...
Mrs. Rosine Brown
Heather Thatcher ...
Lady Joan Culver
...
Sir George Kelvin
...
Florian Clement
...
Prince Paul
Frederick Kerr ...
Duke of Hampshire
Eva Moore ...
Lady Florence Ridgway
Forrester Harvey ...
Gooch
Desmond Roberts ...
Findley
Edit

Storyline

The Clements father and son live by the generosity of rich women. Max, the son, sets his sites on Lady Joan, who is rich, but down-to-earth and charming. At her house he meets Rosine Brown, an Austrian widow involved with a rich man. Instantly infatuated with her, Max pursues Rosine until she relents and agrees to marry him. But the elder Clement loses 4500 pounds gambling and Max decides he must marry Joan to prevent his father's imprisonment. Written by Ron Kerrigan <mvg@whidbey.com>

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Genres:

Comedy

Certificate:

Passed | See all certifications »
Edit

Details

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

9 April 1932 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

But the Flesh Is Weak  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

(Western Electric Sound System)

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Quotes

Lady Joan Culver: Isn't the prince amusing?
Max Clement: I think he's revolting.
Lady Joan Culver: Oh no he's not. Just a bit obvious. Knows what he wants and gets it. He's got a terrific reputation as a lover.
Max Clement: How do people get reputations as lovers? Women tell their friends?
Lady Joan Culver: No, not exactly. But it gets about. If you see a lot of women looking particularly radiant - somebody's been around.
See more »

Connections

Version of Free and Easy (1941) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
Aside from the blatant promotion of the rape myth and thoroughly unlikable characters, the film is STILL watchable.
25 July 2010 | by (Bradenton, Florida) – See all my reviews

This film has several story elements that simply wouldn't fly today....plus the two male leads are unlikable pond scum. These would make this film a hard sell for most of today's audiences. First the story elements that are now taboo. Robert Montgomery plays a man who falls for a woman instantly and because he KNOWS he must marry her, he pursues her in a manner that clearly would have him arrested for sexual harassment, stalking and possibly rape if he continued in such a fashion! This was all meant to be cute but comes off as creepy today--and it's interesting to see what people thought was okay back in 1932. To make things worse, late in the film, Montgomery slaps his woman caveman style! I am sure N.O.W. would have a few things to say about this. Second, Montgomery and his father (an oddly miscast C. Aubrey Smith) are both leeches who live off rich society women--sort of like man-hos. This is hardly endearing, though once again the writers didn't seem to get this! Talk about creating a hole from which your characters have to extricate themselves!!! Well, somehow, the film is pleasant enough that if you can ignore the huge problems with the characters, it is still a decent time-passer. The writing AT TIMES is decent (particularly the non-stalker dialog) and the film has a few clever moments...though Edward Everett Horton is a bit wasted in the film. It's a glossy MGM production...with multiple problems.


1 of 4 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Discuss -But the Flesh Is Weak (1932) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?