Very seldom is the remake of a film better than the original, but this film is pleasantly one of the few exceptions. First of all, it is unknown to this reviewer why this film was remade so soon. Generally, film remakes are done after a generation of time has passed (20 years), but this film was remade just 8 years after the original in 1933. In addition, the original film cast was led by a cadre of Hall of Fame performers in their own right - Myrna Loy, Alice Brady, Frank Morgan, Ann Harding, and Robert Montgomery. You'd figure with a cast this good, how is any remake going to improve on those performances? Logical question. Yet, remarkably the five leads in this remake, pound for pound, improve on each of the original performances.

"When Ladies Meet" is the story of a married couple, a lady author and a charming single journalist. Joan Crawford, the author, considers herself a "modern woman" freed from tiresome conventions and moral imperatives. Despite the movie's 1941 date, the author's relativistic attitude toward marriage and fidelity would be right at home in today's left-wing intellectual circles. Her gradual evolution towards a different attitude is the meat of the movie. Mirroring the situation in her book is the situation of the married couple, Greer Garson and Herbert Marshall. The fourth member of the group is Robert Taylor as a journalist whose surface gaiety hides a serious moral foundation.The four actors make the movie much better than the script. Garson and Crawford strike sparks off each other in every scene they share. Herbert Marshall is suitably smooth and sleazy. But it's Robert Taylor in a role involving physical comedy whose work is the most impressive. As it turns out, he is the person most grounded in reality--and the hidden hand behind everything.Everything has the expected MGM gloss--extravagant costumes, beautiful sets, excellent photography. Highly recommended.

Hey, I like both versions of this film. Not into parsing them either. The assembled talent, story, parts, clothes, set. This is the kind of movie I like to watch multiple times. First, watch the movie through. Then, maybe follow separate characters through. There's a lot going on simultaneously. Then, watch the clothes. Then, check out the house, furniture, etc. There was so much style put into these. All of these elements are what made these 30's and 40's films so special. I don't understand why all the comparisons and nitpicking.In both versions, the lady of the country house is something of a wonder - Spring Byington here. I like the Jimmy part a lot, and thought both actors did him well. He's the kind of guy who makes a wonderful friend, though he could get on your nerves at times. He's a young man who will settle down and make a good husband, reliable and good company along the way. Woodruff was an older man who hadn't settled down, self-centered, made a bad husband and rather a dullard actually.I think the sorting out between the women worked for both of them. The wife shook off the dead weight or drew her line anyway; the "girl friend" woke up from her naive daydream. We hope the husband woke up as well. Looks like Jimmy has a chance to come out on top as well! What's there to be so cynical about?

Overlooking the poor acting in everyone but Byington, the silly wardrobe and the slow plot, the screen writing adapted from the novel hits the nail on the head, coming to its climactic precision in the conversation between Garson and Crawford near the end. The writing in that scene from 1941, though I don't read romance novels, I would bet outshines any similar effort in any romance novel since. It's intricate, well-woven, and so comprehensible it resonates.The author of the novel, I learned here at IMDb, has many other works. That doesn't surprise me.There were snatches where both Garson and Crawford were good, but they were just moments. Taylor and Marshall left a lot to be desired, but Byington was adorable as usual, as the flibbertigibbet. Even when she overdoes it, you know better is coming fast.