User reviews

Not great, but certainly I enjoyed watching this fun little oldie. I'll probably forget about it a week from now, so I'd better review it while it's still fresh! I enjoyed the (sometimes) witty dialogue which often had double-entendres or hidden meanings. Constance Bennett had some of the best lines.

A group of four well-off men (Gaylord (Kenneth MacKenna), Reggie (Basil Rathbone), and two others) socialize together, each with a beautiful girl on their arm. The two married men are seeing single girls (possibly call girls? it seemed to hint at that only very briefly at the beginning of the film), and the two single men go for married women. Reggie actually only dates women in Europe -- he goes there to "play" but in his home city of New York remains unencumbered, truly a no-strings-attached bachelor/playboy.

Gaylord's married girlfriend is itching to get a divorce and snag Gaylord as husband #3 or #4. Gaylord has no desire to get married, and so to solve this problem he gets married (yes I wrote that sentence correctly!) -- he enters into a loveless, marriage of convenience with his secretary so that he can't be snagged into marriage by his girlfriend. He then sends his wife/secretary off to Europe with a tidy sum of money for her troubles so that he can continue his playboy ways.

It was interesting to see the morals (or lack thereof!) that so many of the characters exhibited as well as what the "rules" of the day were regarding divorce. As there was no such thing as a 'no fault divorce' back then, often elaborate excuses needed to be fabricated (as we see Gaylord, a divorce attorney himself, rattling off to his secretary regarding his various female clients who need new excuses for their third or fourth divorces). Another way out of marriage was proved infidelity - emphasis on proved - and this involved naming a "correspondent", i.e., the person with whom the cheating married spouse was having an affair. One part I didn't quite understand was when one of Gaylord's married male friends told him that the best way to fool around with married women was if you were married yourself, that way you couldn't be named correspondent in a potential divorce. So, only *single* men (or women) could be named correspondents??? I didn't understand if that was indeed true for real life at the time, or if it was just some not-very-well-explained plot device for getting Gaylord to enter into his sham marriage in order to set up the main plot of the movie.

Well, that's just a little sidebar tangent I went off on. The main plot of the movie involves a love triangle (square?) of sorts between Gaylord, his wife/secretary (Sylvia, played by Constance Bennett), and Reggie. Seems like Sylvia loves Gaylord, or at least would like him to love her; Reggie pursues Sylvia (he's a raging playboy so is it just the challenge of the conquest or does he really love her?); and then there's Gaylord who seems to be interested in his wife, but only after he's sent her off to Europe and he sees pictures in the newspaper society section of his lovely transformed wife hanging out at the races with Reggie. Throw Gaylord's married girlfriend into the mix and you've got a love "square" instead of triangle.

The above sets the movie's plot into motion; the remainder of the movie is to see who will be honest with whom and how all these people and couplings will end up.

I enjoyed Basil Rathbone in this flick -- I've never seen him in his most famous incarnation as Sherlock Holmes, I've only seen him in two other movies, where he played a real b*st*rd in both (David Copperfield and Anna Karenina), so it was nice to see him in a different type of role here. Constance Bennett was pretty good -- she plays better at lighter comedy, this seemed just a tad too sophisticated for her, but she did a good job nonetheless; no complaints really. And I really enjoyed Kenneth MacKenna, although judging from his resume here on IMDb, it looks like I probably won't be seeing him in any other movie any time soon, unless TCM pulls something really obscure out of its vault. I wonder why Mr. MacKenna made so few films -- he was a nice enough looking man in this flick and handled the acting fairly well. Hmmm, who knows. He lived into the 1960s. With the exception of 3 films in the last three years of his life, IMDb shows his film career as non-existent between 1933-1960. Maybe he decided the movie biz wasn't for him.

Overall score: 6/10

Edited 9/21/06 to add: I am reading a book on Kay Francis and was interested to learn that Kenneth MacKenna was married to Kay for about 3-4 years in the early 30s (they were divorced in early 1934). He preferred being behind the camera directing rather than out in front, so that explains his disappearance from film acting after 1933.

"Sin Takes a Holiday" stars Constance Bennett as a secretary in love with her boss - how's that for a novel plot line? Well, perhaps in 1930, it was, and there is more to it than that. It's an early talkie, so the timing is a little off as the actors get used to the technique. It's also pre-Code, so anything goes. And does. In this film, everybody cheats on their spouses. The boss, however, is unmarried, but his girlfriend wants to get married to him right away. So he marries Bennett and sends her abroad so he can have his cake and eat it too. While there, Bennett is escorted about by Basil Rathbone, in a delightful performance. He falls in love with her, but Bennett needs to find out if she can have a real marriage with her husband.

Having read some of the comments, I'm unsure if people think that Bennett was amoral. The marriage for opportunity plot was used over and over - "Mannequin" is just one example - and Bennett marries her boss to do him a favor, not so much for the money. Plus, the title is "Sin Takes a Holiday" and it does seem that she avoids a dalliance with Rathbone while abroad. So while I find the crowd her boss runs with fast and loose, I did feel Bennett was a very likable character. Not to mention, a great beauty.

This pre-Code comedy is more interesting for its decor and reflection of the morals of the day than for its acting or story. The plot revolves around three characters, each in love with the one who isn't in love with her or him. Things work out in a way--two characters find each other and the third is left to move on. All this happens in an atmosphere of wealth, where amoral dalliance is both expected and titillating. An unfortunate effect is that the three characters come off as facile and, ultimately, unlikeable, the comedic talents of Bennett and the imposing presence of Rathbone notwithstanding. Despite the dismissal of a group of morally repugnant friends at the end, I didn't believe in the couple's future happiness--nor in the morally bankrupt world they inhabit and seem to enjoy. And I felt sorry for the one left out. He seemed the only character with a conscience. The always delightful presence of Zazu Pitts should be noted, though she plays a small role in the plot development. Enjoy this film for the marvelously fantastic Art Deco sets and wonderful period gowns. But ultimately, the resolution of the plot leaves one unsatisfied.

Lightweight froth featuring an early role for Basil Rathbone as a playboy who falls for newlywed Constance Bennett after learning that her marriage to businessman Kenneth MacKenna is a sham. Rathbone's ok, but, outside of the Sherlock Holmes movies, it's strange to watch him behaving reasonably honourably. Bennett looks a knockout, even when she's supposed to be dowdy.

Gaylord (Kenneth MacKenna) quickly arranges a marriage of convenience to his secretary, Sylvia (Constance Bennett) to avoid the advances of his socialite friend, Grace (Rita le Roy). Gaylord draws up a 1 year contract with Sylvia so that there is an understanding about how they can both behave and he encourages her to travel to France and do her own thing. However, after spending time in France with Reggie (Basil Rathbone), Sylvia returns to Gaylord to ask what he truly feels....

This is a fun film. No-one is correct - everyone behaves atrociously. The men are ultimately revealed as cads or blind to their actions while the women are calculating and far more deliberate and nasty in their actions. It's interesting to watch to see who Sylvia will end up with........she ain't no angel.....don't be fooled by her apparent innocence. She's just as much of a bitch as Grace as her behaviour demonstrates. We have a confrontation at the end between all the characters involved which is what we have been anticipating and the dialogue is very entertaining.

A mention about the character Gaylord. Well..........there's his name first of all...and then there is the fact that he doesn't seem interested in any women.....GAY....or maybe not, eh? I also think that they needed to make Constance Bennett far more plain in the first half of the story so that her transformation into a babe is believable. As it is, she looks good before and after. No change there.

An enjoyable film.

A Cinderella story with Bennett transforming from dull office worker to ritzy glamor girl and a big gain in self-confidence. Never mind that her new found status depends on a marital arrangement with employer that relieves him from an unwanted pursuer (LaRoy). So Bennett's new-found status is never secure even as new opportunities open up. Thus complications ensue.

There're some clever lines to enjoy along with Bennett's poignant innocence, still the flick lacks enlivening snap due mainly to Director Stein's flaccid direction and leading man Mac Kenna's rather bland presence. Too bad the zany Pitts doesn't get more screentime. Also, looks like the producers weren't sure whether they wanted a romantic comedy, drama, or Cummings showcase. Thus, the mixed, wavering results.

And how about those ritzy uptown gowns of the period-- real eye-catchers, along with the fancy flivvers they ride around in. Then too, the decorous parlors and liquor lounges are well-crafted and outfitted. At the same time, it's a challenge to see the unromantic Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) in a romantic role and even embracing the girl. Nonetheless, that majestic aquiline nose is perfect for the aristocratic Reggie Durant. Anyhow, Bennett would go on to A-grade movies with leading men like Cary Grant, (Topper, 1937). And a good thing too, since she's clearly better than the results here.

In a precode marriage, sylvia (constance bennett) agrees to marry her boss. But only under his terms... she promises to toot off to europe immediately, so he can fiddle around without the danger of having to marry his girlfriends. Which is so similar to the plot of the modern film "cactus flower"! So sylvia dutifully heads to paris, and meets the dashing durant. Which complicates things. Rathbone had done a couple silents and talkies prior to this, one of which is the fun "last of mrs. Cheyney", the first version. And so famous for playing sherlock holmes. Bennett is probably best known for "topper" and "merrily we live", both so much fun. Zasu pitts is in here as well. The movie is pretty good, if predictable. What happens when someone wants to change the terms of the agreement? Directed by paul stein. Died at 59.

Divorce lawyer Kenneth MacKenna is discussing with his friends the problems of playing the field; chief among them is becoming a co-respondent in a divorce case, and then having to marry the woman. One of their number has a solution: he has a wife. He sees her twice a year, pays for her handsome life style, and is immune to such fripperies. So he offers his dowdy secretary Constance Bennett $5,000 a year, plus a trip to Paris to guard him against such risks. She's in love with hm, of course, but accepts. On the ship to Paris she encounters one of McKenna's set, Basil Rathbone. He's enchanted, and offers to make her, so to speak, an honest woman, even as Parisian couturiers transform her.

It's a rather distasteful pre-code movie in broad outline, and the impression lingers in retrospect. There's also the early-talkie problem of the slow-moving pace of dialogue. Even so, Basil Rathbone offers a fine performance, and there's also Zasu Pitt and Rita La Roy to amuse.

SIN TAKES A HOLIDAY is the story of a divorce lawyer who comes up with the idea of having a wife in name only for his convenience. In other words, because he has a wife, it's a lot easier to rebuff the advances of his lonely female clients. He asks his faithful secretary (Constance Bennett) and at first she refuses. Part of this is obvious to the viewer--she secretly loves this lawyer. But when he behaves boorishly towards her, she decides to take him up on it because she can travel and have anything she wants...except her boss.

Unfortunately, there are two major problems with the film. The story has been done many times before in various forms and is very predictable. The other problem is that the "dramatic transformation" of Miss Bennett from a dowdy secretary to a ravishing socialite is just too unbelievable. She looks pretty much the same in both roles other than the clothes. But, like when Clark Kent removes his glasses, you are expected to believe in this miraculous change--it just isn't that miraculous as Bennett just isn't that desirable or different.

Overall, an interesting film where the actors try their best--it's just that the material isn't that interesting and is a disappointment in light of the salacious title! It's a pleasant romantic time-passer and that's about all.

Not sure what to call this oldie, but I guess drawing-room comedy might answer the mail. The plot centers around a rather interesting or curious love triangle. Girl marries Boy 1, arguably for the wrong reasons. Due to the unique nature of their union, she sets sail for Europe and encounters Boy 2, who, of course, knows Boy 1. On the Continent, Boy 2 becomes quite taken by her. What's a girl to do? Well, to give away the ending would not be nice, so suffice it to say it all gets resolved back in New York, though the ending might not please all viewers. Constance Bennett gets lead billing, but I was much more entertained by the performance of Basil Rathbone, who is just grand. Considering that the film probably takes place at the onset of the Depression, the lifestyles depicted are quite startling.

All in all, a rather delightful film.

This bit of fluff has such a silly premise. A man (Kenneth MacKenna) marries his secretary (Constance Bennett) in order to make himself unavailable to a woman he's been seeing (Rita La Roy), who is getting a divorce and has her eyes on getting him down the aisle. The marriage is a sham, he'll pay her for $5000 for a single year, and allow her to travel and live wherever she'd like, because he has no real interest in her. Delicately, they make it clear there will be no physical relations. She's saddened by the whole thing, but she has no other offers and so reluctantly agrees. She then sets off for Europe. Naturally, many of the men over there (including one played by Basil Rathbone) find her more than a 'plain Jane' and pursue her. Jealousy in two love triangles ensues when she returns to New York to talk to her 'husband', with both La Roy and Rathbone's characters present.

Constance Bennett is reasonably good in the leading role. Her attitude is almost too morose at the outset, but she stands up for herself to all of the other characters. One theme seems to be that attraction increases the more unattainable someone is, which is an interesting premise. However, the film feels amateurish in its direction and in its script. It's uninteresting and flat for too many stretches despite is brief 81 minute run time. The ending is also horribly predictable, and worse, unlike other romantic comedies where we know what's coming but are all rooting for it, here we really don't want it to end this way. Lastly, the title 'Sin Takes a Holiday' is a ridiculously sensationalistic attempt to sell tickets, and while the film is pre-Code, it's quite tame.

This sophisticated comedy about a bunch of upper class folks who don't take marriage seriously and fidelity is merely an option seem never to have heard of the Great Depression going on all around them. This film from Pathe Studios starring Constance Bennett, Kenneth McKenna, and Basil Rathbone is firmly in the pre-Code era.

Not for any naughty scenes or really risque dialog. It's merely the whole attitude toward marriage. Kenneth McKenna who incidentally is a divorce lawyer proposes marriage to plain jane Constance Bennett. Her function is to be a wife in name only so he can play to his heart's content and never be concerned with getting trapped by one of his female dates. He even sends Bennett off to Europe.

Where under the tutelage of Rathbone, Bennett gets a makeover that could have come from Queer Eye for the straight girl. Rathbone who is part of their terribly sophisticated set is impressed enough with his own creation to make a play for her.

I realize that in the Great Depression folks when they got an extra nickel went to the movies for a bit of escapism. This wasn't escapism it was pure fantasy land. I really couldn't take this at all seriously.

Some good players, some good performers thoroughly wasted.

We all know where this film is going right from the start; at least those of us who are not naive. Constance Bennett is anything but a "plain" secretary, and Basil Rathbone, who began a long history of being a heinous anus in such films as The Adventures of Robin Hood and many others, is perfect for the sleazebag role he plays in this film. Rathbone would eventually escape this typecasting when he assumed the role of Sherlock Holmes much later in his career.

In this film, he makes a deal with his secretary, Bennett to pose as his wife to ward off advances from his many female clients. As I mentioned earlier, we all know where this is headed, and. Of course, the trip is more important than the destination. Add a star if you are a soap fan.

It has been said that there is a small finite number of original plots out there waiting to be made into marketable movie narratives---and that everything else represents a variation of an item from that list. This is probably true. In any event, look no further than to compare Sin Takes a Holiday (STAH) with Bachelor Apartment made just a year later. While the situations and characters are somewhat different (to probably avoid legal copyright issues), the fact that both involve a group of thoroughly jaded women interacting with a similar group of unmistakably lecherous men while the principal cad in the stories finally ends up married to his morally upright secretary clearly illustrates this point.

Constance Bennett became a frequent star in the many early 1930s pre-code Hollywood films exemplified by STAH. She projected the right combination of glamour, cynicism, humanity and humor that was inherent in these roles, and she made them both interesting and watchable even though they often tended to resemble each other. And the now unknown actor Kenneth MacKenna (born Leo Mielziner--the son of a rabbi) was well cast as the amorous divorce lawyer who became his own best client. In addition, the relatively youthful Basil Rathbone (then only 38) displayed considerable evidence of comedic flair and leading man charm that unfortunately was later to be overshadowed by his remarkable prowess as an outstanding screen villain as well as the definitive modern Sherlock Holmes.

While the United States was soon to go through the devastation of the Great Depression, many people continued to take great delight in observing the ridiculously absurd antics of the idle rich in the almost endless body of pre-code films like STAH coming out of Hollywood.. These movies made no attempt to depict reality to the average moviegoer, who likely did not own a tuxedo or an evening gown and never actually knew a fabulously rich person in real life. They provided a means of escape from an ordinary nondescript existence, and allowed many folks to have a good laugh at the expense of a class of people they would never really get to know in their daily experience. It is no wonder that the popularity of pre-code cinema helped Hollywood to survive the economic struggle that was soon to overtake the Nation.

STAH is not a great film or perhaps not even a good one. But as a time capsule from long ago when such tales were actually popular with a large segment of the American public--it is worth your time and attention.

Stagey, talky early sound-era movie is a guaranteed sleep aid. Everybody just stands around bloviating. Characters hardly move. The B&W print is flat and unrestored. Same deal with the sound.

In short, it's the perfect 4 a.m. TCM movie where you just want to drift back to sleep.

If there's a story in there about marriage and divorce I didn't get past all the sermonizing from the stiffs in tuxedos. I can't believe Depression-era audiences willingly paid their 5c to sit in a dark theatrer and be lectured by a bunch of pompous jackwagons. Movies like this would have had me cheering for The End.

Today, I discovered Basil Rathbone. Yes, I know he's been around, I'm familiar with the Sherlock Holmes series...but, today I saw him in a new light thanks to TCM and 24 hours of his films. His elegance, dark beauty and subtle sexuality struck a chord in me today. Sin Takes A Holiday is a delightful film. Categorized as a drama, in the beginning we are led to believe it will be light and airy, however, as we are drawn to the characters, such as Constance Bennett's seemingly light facade and Kenneth MacKenna's and Rathbonne's dawning realizations...the underlying moral dilemma of the situation awakens a timeless knowledge in all of us.

OK, it was fluff, and not a major drama. But the script never really held up, despite some occasionally interesting dialogue.

Kenneth McKenna's character was attractive, somewhat likable, but not at all admirable. His change didn't really make sense.

Basil Rathbone's, on the other hand, was eventually admirable and his character's change did fit.

Constance Bennett's character never did really seem frumpy, and the glamor she showed later into the story didn't seem really a change.

Interesting premise, generally likable people, and all made for a pleasant, but not especially intelligent or believable, film.

Watchable, yes, and it can be seen at YouTube.

I watched this movie with my wife. She is a rom-com buff. I am not. I found it very interesting that I truly liked this movie while she was lukewarm about it.

Sylvia Brenner (Constance Bennett) was in love with her boss, Gaylord Stanton (Kenneth MacKenna), though he didn't know it. Stanton wasn't in love with anyone. The only thing he loved was his freedom of attachment. While all of his friends were married, he was happily dating a married woman which meant he didn't have to tie the knot himself. Dating a married woman should've made him a more despicable character, but for some reason it didn't in this case.

When Stanton's paramour, Grace Lawrence (Rita La Roy), stated that she was getting divorced which would free her up to marry Stanton, he was visibly concerned. Should she divorce her husband and name him as the "correspondent" (i.e. The man she was seeing on the side), societal rules dictated that Stanton would have to marry her. He was part of high society after all.

To wriggle out of marrying Grace he proposed to his secretary Sylvia. The proposal was more like an indecent proposal. No, he didn't want sex from her, he offered her $5000 for a year's marriage that would only be a marriage on paper. If he was "married," he wouldn't have to marry Grace. He would continue his playboy ways and Sylvia could go on holiday since her new job was being Stanton's "wife." His proposal could've been viewed as offensive, and Sylvia certainly didn't like the idea, but she accepted it anyway either out of wanting to help the man she loved or because it was better than being a secretary.

I thought the movie was creative, funny, and compelling. Sylvia would face a real lover's conundrum when she met Reggie Durant (Basil Rathbone) while she was vacationing in Paris. He fell for her and wanted to authentically marry her. Reggie's presence added to the drama--would Sylvia marry him or would Stanton finally reciprocate the love she had for him? It would give the audience something to fret over until the very end.

Free on YouTube.