Illicit (1931) User Reviews

Precode film with good performances

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 31 August 2006]

The plot of "Illicit" is similar to the plot of an early Bette Davis film called "Ex-Lady" made two years after this one. They should be similar - Edith Fitzgerald wrote both of them. "Ex-Lady" was based on an unproduced play, and "Illicit" actually was a play. Both concern women who don't want to get married and men who do. Anne (Stanwyck)(like Davis) is an unconventional free spirit afraid that marriage will destroy the romance she has with Dick (James Rennie). However, word gets around that the two have been weekending in Connecticut, and Dick's father (Claude Gillingwater) convinces her to agree to marry Dick. Thanks to an old girlfriend of Dick's and an old beau of Anne's, trouble brews in paradise once the rings are exchanged.

This is an early sound film, so the rhythm is off, and some of the sound has an echo. However, a few pauses that are a little too long don't really impede the fine acting. Stanwyck is wonderful and gives indication of the wonderful star she will become. She's funny, vivacious, and likable. Charles Butterworth plays a drunken friend very convincingly, and Claude Gillingwater is dignified yet warm as Dick's father. Rennie makes an attractive lover turned husband for Stanwyck. Joan Blondell has a small role as a friend.

The film is interesting because it's early Stanwyck, but also because of the independent woman angle which soon will fade from view with the ushering in of the code. Once the '40s hit, the independent woman became an uptight career woman wearing a tailored suit, her hair up, and sporting a stern attitude. Young, carefree non-virgins became a thing of the past. But these precode films are what helped mold the strong images of Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Barbara Stanwyck and are worth watching.

young Stanwyck commentary on married life

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 28 August 2008]

In 1931, Stanwyck was still a young girl, with her LONG hair, child-like innocent manner, and round kid face. As Anne Vincent, she wants to stay single and happy, while her beau Dick (James Rennie) wants to get married. Along for fun is Charles Butterworth as George, Dick's sidekick. He tells the couple that they have been discovered, and totters off, for more drinks... Ricardo Cortez is also here as the ex-boyfriend Baines to stir things up; Stanwyck and Cortez had worked together on three films together in the 1930s. Look for a 25 year old Joan Blondell as Helen Childers, Anne's friend, in one of her early roles. Will things stay the same if they get married? That's the big question. Kind of a statement of the times, and even more so in a couple years when the production code will keep everything on the up and up, even when they aren't. This was Darryl Zanuck's 12th film as producer. Towards the middle of the version shown on Turner Classics, there are scratches or wear marks on the right side of the screen, not surprising for such an old film. Interesting to watch, but no big surprises.

Glum romance

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 19 December 2019]

Am somebody that doesn't mind in any way melodrama, and there are many great ones from the classic film era (name from the 40s and 50s), as long as the film in question is done well. The story sounded really good on paper, even if it is melodramatic personified, and have always loved Barbars Stanwyck as an actress. When it came to melodrama during the "classic film" era, she was one of the greats when it came to actresses, Joan Crawford was another good example.

'Illicit', a very early film for Stanwyck, has been inevitably compared to its "remake" made two years later 'Ex-Lady'. It is not very often where there has been personal preferences for remakes over their originals (David Cronenberg's 'The Fly', from personal opinion, is one of the finest examples of preferring the remake over the original), but to me 'Ex-Lady' is the better film. Found it to be wittier, more daring, that it didn't take itself as seriously and that it has held up better. Am not saying by any stretch that 'Illicit' is a bad film, it isn't and it is definitely worth a look if only once perhaps but that is dependent on one's taste. It is namely to be seen if you want to see Stanwyck in an early role pre-stardom and if you want to see every film of hers in existence.

There are good things here. It is nicely photographed and the period detail in all senses is truly opulent. Absolutely love Stanwyck's clothes and she looks great in them. There are some amusing and moving moments.

Most of my mixed feelings rating though is for the acting, which, excepting a bland and quite stiff James Rennie in a nothing role, is very good. Stanwyck is wonderful with all the things that made her a great actress at her peak emerging here and the main reason to see 'Illicit' (will confess to having to give it less than a 5 if she wasn't as good as she was). Charles Butterworth is the other standout and is an amusing presence, and Joan Blondell is always worth watching. Ricardo Cortez is fine too.

Unfortunately, 'Illicit' comes over as very creaky and stage bound today. Or at least that's my perspective. The pace can be quite dreary and the drama that the quite thin story has feels too much of a very over-heated (a danger with melodrama) filmed play. 'Illicit' has more of a serious tone compared to 'Ex-Lady', so serious that it comes over as a little too glum in places. The sound is quite primitive and has an awkward flow at times.

Did find 'Ex-Lady' (really sorry for the comparison) to be better scripted, just preferred the wittier tone and the tauter pace of it and also found it more daring as said. Anything that may have shocked in 'Illicit' back then is reasonably tame now, whereas you could see much better how 'Ex-Lady' was ahead of its time. Although the acting is good, as said Rennie fails to make much of an impression and a large part of it is down to that his character is very sketchy.

All in all, worth a look but a bit of an oddity. 5/10

An Early Talky Talky

[dougdoepke · 1 August 2012]

The best part of this rather boring gabfest is getting to see ladies high-fashion outfits, circa 1930. Some of them are real doozies. Stanwyck gets more than her share of slinky finery as a rich guy's paramour. Actually, the movie's premise is a significant one—does marriage somehow kill love? Anne (Stanwyck) seems to think so and sometimes acts on the premise. The trouble is that the premise gets drowned out by all the talk from one scene to the next, without let-up. Then too, director Mayo adds nothing to what turns out to be a filmed stage play. To be charitable, his options may have been cramped by the newness of movie sound equipment.

Pre-Code liberties are evident in the first few scenes where Anne, in a clinging negligee, and Dick (Rennie) discuss whether to marry or to continue living in sin. After that, the screenplay settles into more conventional marital mix-ups. But at least Stanwyck shines, showing why she was slated for bigger and better things. In fact, she's almost girlish, a really long way from the femme fatale of Double Indemnity (1944). Too bad she doesn't have more scenes with that other Warner's personality girl, Joan Blondell (Duckie). Anyway, I found the movie considerably less than I expected.

Nothing particularly illicit about this film

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 12 November 2009]

The naming of this film must have been just to attract Depression era audiences, because there is nothing really illicit about it. However, it is a very modern look at romance and marriage considering it was made in 1931. Barbara Stanwyck plays Anne Vincent, a modern woman who is afraid that her relationship with boyfriend Richard Ives will be changed by marriage. She bases her beliefs on watching her own parents and her friends. In her parents' case she says that she knows they loved each other, but divorced anyways, and she is sure that separation from one another is what killed them. However, social pressures prevail and the two do get married.

Anne's fears become realized as Richard seems to only be interested in going out when it involves other people, not just Anne. She sees him out with another woman one night when he is supposed to be working, and she decides what the two need is a trial separation from one another - to become individuals again. Throw Ricardo Cortez into the mix as someone who wants Anne's marriage to not work out, and you have the makings of an above average potboiler from the precode era.

This film is mainly interesting because of Stanwyck. Without her abilities this would be a pretty forgettable film. And those fashions! With all of the ermine and feathers, this film has Barbara Stanwyck venturing into Kay Francis territory. Also lending good support is Charles Butterworth as the seldom sober friend to the young couple, and the always wonderful Joan Blondell as Anne's close friend.

In a twist on a familiar theme...

[cbryce59 · 6/10 · 20 July 2012]

it is the man in a so-called "illicit" relationship who longs to get married and avoid a reputation, while Ann, played by Barbara Stanwyck holds out. She doesn't have much faith in marriage. But she is eventually convinced, in part by her lover's father. Will she be happy, or proved right, that is the question of the film.

Barbara looks lovely in this film, with darker hair (even though tight satin gowns are very unforgiving). She plays a modern woman, and does so with charm, instead of stridency. As newlyweds, they are blissfully happy, with plenty of money, travels and a beautiful townhouse in Manhattan. But hubby (James Rennie, who was married to Dorothy Gish for a while) is still a bit of a stiff....he complains when Ann turns on the music after a dinner out. She wants to go dancing, he whines about the late hour. Besides he might be catching a cold. Boo hoo. Yet when his friends call up, suddenly he is raring to go. And Ann knows why-he is still carrying a torch for a former girlfriend.

Joan Blondell is smart and chic in a small role.

(One of the most unrealistic lines is when Ann tells her husband she is going to move back to her old place for a while, tonight, right away. Try that in NYC...)

First Stanwyck Starrer

[boblipton · 6/10 · 1 April 2002]

This movie creaks with age, but is memorable for being Barbara Stanwyck's first movie as a star. Miss Stanwyck gives an excellent performance, as always, but the supporting cast, particularly Charles Butterworth, steals the show as an amiable drunk whose bark is worse than his bite.

Are Love and Marriage like a Horse and Carriage?

[atlasmb · 7/10 · 15 July 2015]

The action in this film takes place within the rarefied air of art deco penthouses with thirty-foot ceilings. There, the central characters--Anne (Barbara Stanwyck) and Dick (James Rennie)--fall in love and make decisions about their relationship.

Dick is somewhat amused--and a little intrigued--by Anne's "theories" about marriage. She see it as a hindrance to love and a guarantee that romance will die. Basically, she is a proponent of free love.

Different conceptions of free love have been expressed by many notables in the fields of science and the arts over the centuries. The actual Free Love movement is a more recent development with its beginnings in the 1800s. Although its proponents espoused many various views on culture, politics and the nature of man, there were common threads--primarily a condemnation of state-sponsored marriage and the view that the institution of marriage runs contrary to the nature of man and that it impinges on the freedoms of both partners and amounts to little more than enslavement, particularly of the woman.

One can see where Anne is coming from, but it is not surprising that certain aspects of traditional marriage hold a romantic interest for Anne. Dick is so in love with her that he might agree to anything she wants. But they are constantly judged by others who reflect the mores of society. Eventually, the couple agrees to live apart and love from a distance.

You can probably guess where the story is going, despite the fact that this is a pre-Code production.

The staging feels, rightfully, like a play. Its tone is light-hearted for the most part, centering on characters whose lives seem to revolve around emptying cocktail glasses and witty repartee. But it's a stylish production and the acting is suitable for carefree banter sprinkled with Anne's "theories". Fortunately, her free love notions do not include the social engineering leanings of others who theorized in this realm.

Nothing shocking today, but amusing moments and a great leading lady present to raise the bar.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 21 April 2015]

By 1931, Barbara Stanwyck was moving quickly to the forefront of Hollywood stardom, and critics (as well as the public) were taking notice. An association with Frank Capra at Columbia and a non-exclusive contract with Warner Brothers made the movie audiences of the pre-code depression era aware of her massive talents, particularly as a serious dramatic actress who could handle comedy as well. Her movies were often hit and miss, going between mediocre melodramas like "Ten Cents a Dance" and such classics as "The Miracle Woman", as well as fascinatingly fun exposes on sin with "Night Nurse" and later on "Ladies They Talk About" and "Baby Face". If anybody could sin on screen with a gleam in their eye, it was Barbara Stanwyck.

"Illicit" certainly doesn't lack on sinful glamour with its lavish Park Avenue settings, a pre-code forbidden plot involving single lovers (Stanwyck and James Rennie) obviously involved in a sexual relationship, droll comedy by Charles Butterworth (as a fun-loving lush who constantly "borrows" Rennie's stash of liquor), and perky Joan Blondell. Unfortunately, playing opposite the talented Stanwyck, James Rennie seems to be a total bore in the male lead, while there are definite sparks between Stanwyck and Ricardo Cortez, playing her old flame who just won't give her up and would be more willing than to adhere to her desire for a serious relationship without the benefit (or in her opinion, curse) of marriage. The imperious looking Natalie Moorehead is the other woman who comes between Stanwyck and Rennie, discovering boredom after their freedom comes to an end thanks to his pressure on her to tie the knot. While their characters are interesting, they are too one-note to add much more to the plot where you pretty much already know what is going to happen.

Unfortunately, as excellent as Stanwyck is, her character really doesn't have any motivation for avoiding marriage other than memories of her own parent's ill-fated union. Claude Gillingwater offers brief wisdom as Rennie's understanding father who would like nothing more than to see Stanwyck become his daughter-in-law, but after his one scene, totally disappears from the film, taking away the only sensible character in the film. Two years later with more character development and ten less minutes, the same story was better served as "Ex-Lady" where the rising Bette Davis got a better leading man as well as a career for her character than Stanwyck, who obviously enjoyed being a party girl even when her marriage was on the rocks. Stanwyck does get a great exit though, but by that time, it's almost too little, too late.

The Theory is Talked to Death and Never Parts

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 7 September 2014]

The Theory, Should Lovers Marry or Not is Endlessly Talked and Talked in this Pre-Coder that Benefits from the First Starring Role for Barbara Stanwyck and She is Up to the Task of Looking Spunky and Frustrated, Randy and Depressed with Alternating Scenes as the Movie Bounces off the Walls with Theories and More Theories Batted Around..."What do Theories have to do with love?" Stanwyck Asks. Exactly.

Most of the Pre-Code Fun is in the First Act as the Movie Uncomfortably Moves All Over the Place with Dry Discussions, Wordy Arguments, and Not Much Else. In All of this Soap Opera Seriousness it is Charles Butterworth as a Witty Drunk Steals Every Scene. Ricardo Cortez is a One Note Bore, but Joan Blondell and Natalie Moorehead do Add Some Spice to the Dreariness and Moorehead's Margie Confronting Stanwyck about "Dick" is a Highlight.

Overall, Pre-Code Watchers are Likely to be Disappointed After the First Few Scenes. Lovers of Staged Dialog and Glittery Costumes Might Find it More Appealing. Yes, the Virtues of Marriage as the Preferred Lifestyle Managing to Squeeze the Sex Dry is an Edgy Subject and would Vanish in a Few Years from the Screen, but this is a Slog of a Story that Could Have been Summed Up in a One Act Play.

Stanwyck saves dull pre-code melodrama.

[a_chinn · 5/10 · 8 April 2017]

"Can romance survive marriage?" Barbara Stanwyck plays a young woman who she and her beau are contemplating marriage, but worry it's going to basically kill their sex life. Although this is a pre-code film, it's not that racy outside of a few moments, such as at a lingerie party (buying, not wearing), when a friend of Stanwyck's states, "Once a girl is headed to the altar, she becomes so conventional." That's about as racy as it gets, although Stanwyck and her beau do have some affectionate scenes that wouldn't fly later with the Hayes Office. Stanwyck elevates this below average film at least average.

Interesting story even today

[Jim Tritten · 8/10 · 1 April 2002]

Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie are ultra-modern 1930s lovers who shun conventional trappings such as marriage. She is afraid that marriage will kill the romance. Who has not had these fears? He is eternally patient, but his father maneuvers her into a commitment. Their marriage stumbles (whose hasn't) and the ex-girlfriend and ex-boyfriend enter the scene. Soon this thoroughly modern couple are acting like typical married folk and Barbara declares that the marriage has indeed killed the love. Stanwyck exhibits skills as an actress that will make her famous in better films later. Claude Gillingwater's portrayal of the father is excellent and serve as a good role model. Charles Butterworth (the faithful friend) was really quite a wit and succeeds in stealing a scene or two. I can overlook any technical flaws in the movie because I think that the central issues are still relevant today. Who has to compromise more in a marriage? The husband or the wife? Will each of the lovers do what is necessary to save the marriage when they know they have problems? All is not revealed until the final scene whose outcome is by no means certain. Good movie, not a great one, but good entertainment for a couple that talk to each other. I say watch it (if you can find it) and see if this pre-Code movie does not warrant your appreciation and was worth your time.

Average pre-code film, featuring a baby-faced Barbara Stanwyck

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 28 May 2017]

This film starts off strong enough, with Barbara Stanwyck playing James Rennie's lover and some charming early scenes. In a bit of a twist, she's the one not interested in marriage, as she believes it will destroy their happiness. It's clearly a pre-Code (and modern!) premise, and the baby-faced Stanwyck is adorable as she exclaims 'And we're both a riot in our underwear!' while talking about things they have in common. There are also some cute moments provided by their friend, a toper (Charles Butterworth), and when Stanwyck and Rennie are talking on the phone together. The film is not quite as good as it could have been, though, as the plot is predictable (they get married, and sure enough, they both cheat), and the conflicting emotions are not reflected well enough in any of the cast's acting. You have to give it credit for the premise though, and it's worth watching for Stanwyck and Butterworth.

illicit

[mossgrymk · 5/10 · 26 February 2021]

Pre coder that teaches the always timely lesson that G rated couples have no monopoly on banality.

About As Bad As You Can Get

[Michael_Elliott · 20 July 2012]

Illicit (1931)

* (out of 4)

Incredibly bad pre-code from Warner features Barbara Stanwyck in her first role with the studio. In the film she plays Anne, a free spirit who doesn't want to marry the man she loves (James Rennie) because she fears it might ruin their relationship but soon she's getting pressure to do so. ILLICIT is without question one of the worst films I've seen from this era of Hollywood. In fact, it's so incredibly bad that I think Stanwyck should be thankful that studios made so many movies back in the day because if this type of film was made today I think it would have ruined her career. At least back then they had one film after another being released so people could forget this poor thing. I think the biggest problem going for the film is the fact that it simply doesn't know when to shut up. This here is yet another early talkie, which is ruined because the screenwriter simply didn't know how to do anything than throw out worthless dialogue that after a while will make the viewer contemplate suicide. I must admit that I thought the film was nearly half over when I checked to see how long I had been watching it and in terror I noticed it was just ten-minutes. The entire opening bit with Stanwyck and Rennie discussing marriage is so drawn out that you can't help but thing the run of dialogue could have been handled in just a few lines. The pre-code elements really aren't naughty enough to draw much interest and the cast too is mostly wasted. Stanwyck is good in her part but the screenplay really doesn't give her much to do. Rennie is somewhat bland but Ricardo Cortez is here for some fun as is Joan Blondell and Charles Butterworth who of course steals the film as the lovable drunk. ILLICIT is poorly directed with some ugly cinematography and it's clearly the worst film I've seen Stanwyck in.

As the infamous Marie Antoinette ruefully discovered . . .

[tadpole-596-918256 · 6/10 · 28 May 2021]

. . . ladies cannot expect to cook their goose, and eat it, too. "Anne" tries to accomplish just this during ILLICIT. Though this wicked wench may not be literally beheaded, she winds up thoroughly stymied and "fixed," with clipped wings to boot. Trashy tart Anne fancies herself to be the Queen of Hearts, but her hubris lands her in the gutter beneath the two of clubs. ILLICIT proves that such an over-confident strumpet may crow for a day, but her moment of tawdry triumph will leave the heartless harlot eating crow for the rest of her miserable term. This flick provides no indication that Anne is even fertile (her icy demeanor argues against said possibility). Jaded Jezebel Anne seems as likely to wind up in the frigid deep freeze as any 1960's Bette Davis hag. While a vile vixen like Anne may twist a guy around her little finger during a brief infatuation, ILLICIT proves that soon the worm turns, forcing a wanton witch to become an "Eye in the Dark," beyond the pale of polite society: Left on the outside, looking in with hopeless chagrin.

early Stanwyck

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 20 August 2023]

'Dick' Ives II (James Rennie) proposes marriage to girlfriend Anne Vincent (Barbara Stanwyck), but she says no. Her parents' marriage put her off and she questions the institution in general. His father is pushing for it. With a brewing scandal, she reluctantly accepts the marriage.

This is the earliest Barbara Stanwyck for me so far. The filmmaking is relatively simple for this pre-Code drama. It's all about the subject matter and it's done in a dour tone. I never got much from Dick. He has no charisma. I'm only here to see this early Stanwyck and not much else. I don't particularly care for these characters, but I am slightly interested in how this all ends.

"Your hair is like a halo under the Edison electric lights."

[utgard14 · 4/10 · 5 August 2014]

Boring, talky Pre-Coder with Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie as a young couple happily living in sin. Babs isn't a fan of marriage, you see. Well they're eventually pressured into marrying and things between them go south. Will these two kids make it work? If you have the patience of Job, watch it and find out. Everybody else drink lots of caffeine first. It's a very creaky early talkie that feels more like a stage play. Charles "Cap'n Crunch" Butterworth plays a drunk and Joan Blondell brightens things up whenever she's on screen, which isn't enough. Stanwyck fans might want to check it out for one of her earliest roles.

Creaky potboiler is too primitive and dated to be watchable today...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 20 July 2012]

Only fans of Barbara Stanwyck will find ILLICIT anything more than a tedious bore. She has a refreshing quality as a young woman who thinks marriage will spoil her relationship with a rich man (James Rennie). On the side, Ricardo Cortez hopes the marriage will turn sour so he can continue romancing Stanwyck.

That's all there is to the plot which has absolutely no pacing or any dramatic tension. The poor print quality shown on TCM hasn't been restored and the sound is on the primitive side too. Surprisingly, the film has been close captioned.

Stanwyck is the only redeeming virtue the film has. Unfortunately, the script is full of dated clichés and much of the plot has no originality whatsoever. Tedious stuff, although I'm sure pre-code addicts will have a differing opinion.

The Vitaphone orchestra conducted by Louis Silvers is quiet throughout, only giving a hint of music for the film's opening credits but the soundtrack is full of loud hissing sounds.

Excellent Barbara Stanwyck

[mircaragolr · 8/10 · 20 July 2012]

First time Stanwwyck captivated me. Attractive, cute, sensitive, intelligent. A master performance raising an overall OK movie to a different level. I fell in love with her character as an actress and as a young woman. Ann is a beautiful young lady full of sensitivity, common sense and intelligence. The movie reveals a conflict of feelings between two people triggered by their love toward each other. You would say it shows two characters with a behavior ahead of its time, but scratching the surface of the "mores" of the time, it really portraits a common conflict of love, in which the characters act in a mostly mature and civilized manner -I would add she way more mature than him, and this kind of acting does not have anything to do with the "mores" of the times. Quite the opposite,human beings have behaved maturely through history regardless of the prevailing social norms. Finally I would like to add that now I understand how Barbara Stanwick gained her reputation as a remarkable actress during her youth.

Be careful what you ask for---you might just get it.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 9 September 2013]

"Illicit" is a very confusing film. On one hand, it's very much a Pre-Code sort of film. It features a couple who openly admit they're engaged in premarital sex (and his father seems pretty comfortable with this arrangement). And, she openly shows disdain for marriage and vows to just have a good time. Yet, later in the film, after living this sort of lifestyle, the characters are miserable and the 'happy ending' seems amazingly contrived. You wonder just what sort of message the film is trying to make. Plus, while I love some of the very salacious Pre-Code films, this message is so jumbled, I am really very ambivalent about this movie. If you see it, it stars a very young Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie. But, my advice is that there are certainly more interesting films of the era--ones that are less talky and a lot more shocking. And, the filmmakers managed to cast Charles Butterworth in a supporting part and he isn't particularly funny--a very strange thing indeed.

Watching paint dry would be more interesting

[1930s_Time_Machine · 1/10 · 2 November 2022]

This could possibly be the most boring film ever made.

Although this film has no merit whatsoever, that it was actually made is of some interest to us here in the 21st century simply as it shows how attitudes have changed. Topics for popular entertainment then were gangsters, murderers, vampires and..... people living together out of wedlock! As a piece of social history it is amazing that back in 1931 an unmarried couple living together was considered shocking and weird enough to make a movie about. The past really is a different world!

The irrelevance to us however is not why this film is so interminably dull. The real reason is that it's just terribly made. Besides the script being totally lifeless, it's the direction which is so bad - it's embarrassingly atrocious. Archie Mayo was considered not just to lack any particular style, imagination or indeed technique, he relied on his sound man and camera man to create the mood and he relied on his actors to develop their own characters: this lack of any direction is horribly evident with this. The first half hour is virtually just one static camera sitting in a room filming two people talking. Occasionally someone else comes in the room, reads their lines then goes again. It's like watching a cast sitting around a table doing their first read-through before someone wisely decides that it's a non-starter. Being made in 1931 is no excuse for bad film making. There were plenty of very decent films made in that year: Frankenstein, Blonde Crazy, The Public Enemy to name just a few.

Although her script is lamentable, Barbara Stanwyck does however give a good performance. Although she's just 24 and in her first staring role, she easily outshines everyone else in this film. She brings a refreshing and natural style to the stale and contrived proceedings with a twinkle of naughtiness in her eyes tinted with a sense of vulnerability.

Besides Barbara Stanwyck's completely wasted talent, there is one highlight in this film. That is offered from Joan Blondell in a very early supporting role. She's at a party and says: 'You're so old fashioned that you still wear underwear.' Us Joan Blondell obsessives will immediately need to take a cold shower!

Early Barbara Stanwyck

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 23 October 2018]

The premise of Illicit is better than the finished product. Barbara and James are husband in wife in everything but legality. They go on vacations together, they breakfast together, but in the middle of the night, Barbara always goes back to her own apartment. She simply refuses to marry him, convinced that making it legal will kill the romance in their relationship. Of course, they give it a try, and audiences can see which of the pair is right.

While it's very cute to see Barbara Stanwyck acting so casual and natural, Illicit really isn't worth watching unless she's your favorite actress. Barbara made so many other pre-Code films you can choose from, like Night Nurse or Ladies They Talk About. This one has its gasp-worthy moments, but so do the others. For example, James Rennie is begging Barbara to marry him and resorts to the tactic of saying many women would jump at the chance. "At how much per hour?" she counters, a line that would never make it past the censors four years later.

fascinating

[savoir · 9/10 · 1 April 2002]

Prohibition; scorned women, that was the early 30's. This was before the "decency" rules came into effect. Avant garde is the only way to describe this. Dated, yes. But very descriptive of the times. Only Stanwyck could do this well. Her strength and sensitivity are evident in every frame. This is a history lesson of the times and traditions that existed way back when!

Without the benefit of clergy

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 3 July 2018]

It's not the film Illicit put a permanent roadblock in the careers of Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Blondell. But both even early in their careers were doing better material. It was more of a speed bump than a detour.

Illicit has young people James Rennie and Stanwyck falling in love, but both coming from the upper crust have seen too many marriages fail even in their own families. They come up with the radical idea of just living together without the wedding rings or benefit of clergy. An idea that the Code would certainly not countenance.

Then they try separate dating and exes from both in the persons of Joan Blondell and Ricardo Cortez show up. Cortez is his usual smarmy self and Blondell is the best one in the film.

Besides Blondell, fans of Charles Butterworth who like seeing him as these droll playboy types will like this one. As Rennie's father, Claude Gillingwater is his usual crotchety parent.

Rennie sadly is stiff and doesn't register well. The part called for a Cary Grant, but he was still on the horrizon.

Illicit is a naughty film by the standards of the times. Today it wouldn't raise an eyelash.