Whether you regard this movie as a "flawed gem" or a "near miss" depends primarily upon your attitude toward Ginger Rogers, Walter Connolly and Tim Holt. I personally endorse any film starring Ginger Rogers. It is probably a sad truism that most people outside Miss Rogers' fan base think of her primarily as Fred Astaire's dancing partner and co-star and do not know that she was a huge and very versatile star in her own right. This is not one of her best roles, nor is it one of her worst. However, even in this role, she mesmerizes me with her mere presence. For me, her beauty and charm always radiate from the screen.In the thirties and forties, Hollywood embraced a number of actors with incredibly distinctive voices - Walter Brennan, Andy Devine, Wallace Beery, Eugene Palette, AND Walter Connolly, to name a few. I always enjoy seeing these actors for their unique vocal qualities alone. Here, Connolly is a treat not just for his vocal quality, but for his portrayal of a simple man elevated to an unanticipated level of affluence who is threatened with the complete loss of control of both his business and his family. He is simple, but not stupid. When he encounters Ginger Rogers in the park, he hits upon a scheme to salvage his family that ends up salvaging his business, as well. The film's plot revolves around this plan, and it is a great concept for a comedy movie.Tim Holt enjoyed two great roles in his career - the spoiled son, George, in The Magnificent Ambersons; and Bogey's sidekick, Curtin, in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Both stories are dramas, and he has serious, uncomplicated dramatic roles in both. To me, he was ill-suited to a comedy such as 5th Avenue Girl. Due to either the direction or his own initiative, he portrays a character that is not very clearly projected or very sympathetic. He never convinces me that he is actually "falling" for Ginger. He is her primary antagonist for most of the film, and he constantly rags on her. I suspect that Tim Holt is not capable of the nuanced performance necessary to convey his gradually increasing emotional involvement with Ginger or to create a more sympathetic character.In two key scenes, Holt abruptly attempts to plant a big kiss on Ginger. Both scenes are extremely awkward and detract from the film. The first attempt is on a park bench, without any indication that Holt has begun to soften his stance against Ginger. In an earlier scene, he grudgingly admits that she looks pretty in a new dress.The second scene is on the front porch of the family home. We haven't seen any build-up because the cut from the previous scene is so abrupt. All we see is Ginger shoving him and his unwanted kiss away from her - as she would any cad. If the movie had shown some growing tenderness and affection and warming dialog in the front porch scene, we would know that he is not just trying to jump her bones. But even in the few lines he has that are not critical of Ginger, his tone is harsh and accusatory. Thus, for me the lack of a sense of chemistry between Holt and Rogers is what keeps this film from being a classic comedy. It is still very enjoyable, whether you regard it as a "flawed gem" or a "near miss."

'5th Avenue Girl' doesn't work, but it's a fascinating failure. I was especially impressed by Robert de Grasse's superb camera work. On two different occasions in this movie, Ginger Rogers has a conversation with someone while walking down a steep flight of stairs: in both cases, the camera seamlessly precedes Rogers down the stairs, which means that de Grasse and his crew must have made the steep descent facing backward. Elsewhere, rear-projection footage of Fifth Avenue and the Central Park Zoo is blended with live actors (in a multi-level set for the zoo) in a manner that looks much more convincing than usual.The single worst drawback of this movie is the presence of Walter Connolly in a lead role as a Capraesque self-made millionaire who likes poor people. He meets a down-and-out young cynic (Rogers) at the zoo, and -- somewhat improbably -- he invites her to move in with him and work for him. Somewhat improbably, she accepts. Connolly has never impressed me in any of his roles. His high-pitched voice and indecisive manner are annoying. He's so weak and subdued here, we instantly recognise that there's nothing sexual about his proposition to Rogers. Which is part of the problem. This film would have been much better if Connolly's role had been played by Edward Arnold, bringing his usual hint of danger to this character.Franklin Pangborn, an actor who consistently *does* impress me, surpasses himself here in a deft performance as Connolly's sentimental butler. It's a delight to see Pangborn dispense with the 'nelly' mannerisms that he employed in most of his performances. Less impressive here is James Ellison as a chauffeur who spouts Marxist dialectic. Verree Teasdale, whom I've never liked, gives a performance here resembling a female impersonator.One of the consistent pleasures of Hollywood films from the 1930s is the frequent appearance of obscure character actors in delightful vignettes. We get one of those here, from Robert Emmett Keane as a man obsessed with sea lions. Charles Lane is cast against type: doing his usual sourpuss routine, but this time on behalf of the 'little' people.Connolly's character lives in a *huge* mansion overlooking Central Park, and the set by Van Nest Polglase is so sumptuous that it actually works against this film's credibility. There are some nice bits and bobs throughout this movie (including a showy turn by Jack Carson, strumming a ukelele), but we could have done without the lectures on the plight of the proletariat. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.

but still a nifty comedy, boasting solid performances by Ginger Rogers (as always), Walter Connolly, Verree Teasdale, Tim Holt, Jack Carson, Franklin Pangborn, and Louis Calhern. James Ellison as the chauffeur and Kathryn Adams as the spoiled daughter are annoying. But Rogers and Connolly (in a rare starring role) take top honors as the working girl and the baffled millionaire who meet on a bench at the zoo. Lots of social commentary by director/producer Gregory La Cava, one of Hollywood's forgotten directors who was, nevertheless, a big name in the 1930s. What's missing from this film, compared to La Cava's My Man Godfrey, is a sense of zaniness among the rich. Here they are petty, nagging people while in the other, they are unrelentingly silly. Plus no one could play a fluttery matron like Alice Brady (well, maybe Billie Burke). Teasdale is OK, but this kind of part was not her forte; she seems too smart to be playing this kind of brainless twit. This is one of Connolly's best roles and he is wonderful. He died the following year. Rogers seems almost to be in an audition for 1940's Kitty Foyle. The acting style she uses in both films is similar. But Rogers was always worth watching. She has a style that allows her to get very quiet and contained, and it's very effective. While the political issues are very much the same today, it's laid on a bit thick here with the spoutings of Ellison's chauffeur and the mooning daughter. Adams strikes me as being an especially bad actress. Anyway it's worth a look. The house is incredibly cavernous and ugly. Charles Lane, Harlan Briggs, Florence Lake, Ferike Boros, Bess Flowers (as the Civil War debutante), and Alex D'Arcy co-star.

The ridiculously rich (look at that mansion) and the perfectly groomed poor. Ginger Rogers proves that she was one of the best comedic, deadpan actresses of her time, even without dancing. The bratty kids, the wise ass chauffeur, the horse faced butler. The clothes, love that 1930-40's look. it must have been a real ego trip to be stinking rich during a time of world wide depression, which made the rich even richer. Great writing, acting and directing. As good as "It happened One Night". There were many movies made in 1939, a couple of them like GWTW and TW of Oz, get all the press but this movie is a gem. Walter Connolly and Verre Teasdale as high society husband and wife are great.