Revisado por SimonJack

This is one time I will grant that the movie success of the 1939 comedy, "Ninotchka," might have influenced a Hollywood decision for another film - this one by MGM. The earlier film involved displaced European royalty, and this one has some of the same. And, of course, Melvyn Douglas was the male lead in that first comedy. But then, the differences leap out. Where the 1939 film was a satire with a timely plot and a fantastic screenplay, "We Were Dancing" is untimely and with a bland screenplay.

This is set in the third year of World War II and the first that the U.S. was involved. The idea that two former aristocrats as perpetual traveling house guests might be funny escaped the movie-going public of the time. And these decades later it escapes one for the simple reason that the script is flat. Where is the clever dialog, with the witticisms and the funny lines that Douglas was so excellent at? Where is the subtle, cute and zinger-loaded dialog that Norma Shearer could utter so well?

This film has none of that and very little of anything about it. It struck me as more of a drama and love story. I had to stretch to give this film six stars, and that's solely for the first-rate cast that it has. Beside the two leads, this film is loaded with top supporting actors of the day - Florence Bates, Lee Bowman, Marjorie Main, Alan Mowbray, Reginald Owen and Gail Patrick. Indeed, Marjorie Main's Judge Sidney Hawkes is the only funny role in the film, and the only one that will get some laughs.

With that cast, I doubt that MGM covered its budget. It's $1.7 million box office was near the bottom for the year - at 137th. At least one other reviewer to date called this film "boring." It may well be that to most audiences in modern times. It came close for this film aficionado. The only thing that kept it from slipping that low was the cast of various top supporting characters who kept popping in and out at times.