Three working girls in Budapest pool their resources to get a better apartment and impress their dates. One dates a nobleman and, learning of her rejection by him, considers poison. Another... See full summary »
Three working girls in Budapest pool their resources to get a better apartment and impress their dates. One dates a nobleman and, learning of her rejection by him, considers poison. Another drinks the poison by mistake and lands a physician for herself. The third marries a businessman. The first girl gets a shop of her own. Written by
Ed Stephan <email@example.com>
While the onscreen credit states the movie is "based on the play" by Ladislaus Bus-Fekete (Leslie Bush-Fekete) and Hollywood Reporter production charts stated the play was called "Three Girls," no performance of that play has been found. Another Hollywood Reporter news item in December 1935 stated that Fox purchased Bus-Fekete's novel, "Ladies in Love" to be published in England in 1936. The book was published in the United States in 1937. See more »
An early example of Darryl Zanuck's favorite formula: three young ladies share an apartment [see THREE BLIND MICE, MOON OVER MIAMI, HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE, THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN, THE BEST OF EVERYTHING]. This time the setting for their various romantic difficulties is Budapest. Squeaky-voiced Janet Gaynor gets top billing as a poor girl who hawks neckties on streetcorners but also feeds rabbits for young doctor Don Ameche and still has time to perform valet duty for self-absorbed magician Alan Mowbray. Over-eager Loretta Young, on the other hand, obsesses over wealthy nobleman Tyrone Power. As a sophisticated gold-digger, Constance Bennett has the best role, allowing her to underplay effectively. Her plot thread involves an affair with wealthy Paul Lukas, complicated by the unexpected arrival of Simone Simon [who is introduced as a nymphet in a sailor suit]. With all these comic/romantic/tragic ingredients [poison is also involved], this stew is not completely digestible. However, despite awkward shifts in tone and rather flat lighting, it remains interesting as a showcase for a variety of film personalities, some on the rise and some not. Ironically, the most striking performance comes from a subsidiary character: Wilfrid Lawson, who implies an entire world of sophistication in his few scenes as an aging playboy.
14 of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?