Dois Contra o Mundo

The unlikely romantic pairing of Constance Bennett and Neil Hamilton somehow works in this fast paced critique of privileged society. Constance is a spoiled rich girl (something she's always good at playing!) who tries to bend the rules once too often in a desperate attempt to protect her family. It doesn't help that Neil Hamilton, in one of his warmer performances as a do-gooder attorney, has to grill her on the witness stand despite his being in love with her. These two headstrong people are forced to bend a little in each other's direction as circumstances dictate: she learns that being privileged doesn't necessarily mean being better; he that being ethical may have its moral limits.

Constance Bennett's energy and wit find an unusual focus in her romantic pursuit of Hamilton. She may not be willing to give up caviar for the luncheon special beans he prefers, but she's game to keep on trying!

I never cease to be amazed at how in the early 1930s they were able to pack twice as much plot, action, social comment and ideas in 70-minute movies than exist in today's movies that are twice as long.

This one was very loosely inspired by a contemporary scandal about a murder committed by a rich socialite "defending his sister's honor" as they used to say in the era of the sexual double standard that underlies so many plots in those days.

Yes, as some have pointed out, some of the main characters are spoiled rich people. So are some of the main characters in novels by Tolstoy, Henry James and Edith Wharton. If it bothers you, go back to your Spiderman movies.

The plot revolves about a budding romance between Constance Bennett, one of the more spoiled idle rich and a member of the family involved in the scandal, and Neil Hamilton as a socially conscious attorney formerly from her social class.

The pace is so fast that it takes some time to sort all the characters out, which may deter you at first but it all becomes clear eventually. The film takes jabs at sensationalistic tabloids, the double standard and our justice system's bias towards the rich, but like everything else in the movie, doesn't linger on these any longer than needed to make its point.

Not to say that the movie is at all preachy. There's plenty of comedy and snappy dialogue along the way.

If you seek uplift, Bennett's character gains much insight into her own nature and lifestyle as the film advances but, again, the point isn't belabored.

Bennett and Hamilton both charm in their roles and the whole cast is excellent.

Wonderful movie for its time - great story with lots of intricate twists - and while I agree that the pairing of Bennett and Hamilton might be a bit off, it was wonderfully (naturally) acted all around. It was particularly fun to see Helen Vinson in such a feminine light before she became known for her "shrewish" roles (see "In Name Only" for one) and "Aunt Em" Clara Blandick as the snobbish spinster aunt was fun, too. Anticipating the "human clotheshanger" Bennett's appearance each scene is always fun. Don't agree that Carole Lombard would have been right for this role - just not enough sophistication for the part although no flies on her!!! Very enjoyable and I also underline how underrated Constance Bennett was!!!

So, 1932 is the height of the Depression and millions of folks are out of work. And yet, despite this, Hollywood is cranking out tons of films where you'd never think a depression was on and the stars are all rich and happy...like "Two Against the World". And, you make the rich folks in this particularly self-absorbed and loathsome. This must have been a hard sell back in the day.

When the film begins, the Hamilton family is meeting with their lawyer. It seems that an employee in the company they own died and he is asking them how to proceed. Not one of the family asks if the family of the deceased has a valid claim...they just seem bored and instruct the lawyer not to accept a settlement. At this point, I really HATED the Hamiltons and wanted them to pay and pay dearly. Adele (Constance Bennett) is roused from her boredom about all this when the lawyer for the deceased family arrives. Dave Norton (Neil Hamilton) is handsome and instantly Adele is smitten and pursues him vigorously throughout the film.

Later, in a weird plot twist, Adele's brother murders someone. She witnesses it and she runs. Soon the murder case is dropped because they have no leads. But Norton pushes the Defender's Office to re- open the case...and he doesn't realize that Adele is caught up in it.

The bottom line is that Adele and her family are amoral jerks...so how is the audience supposed to care one bit about her and her brother?! The story is also completely unbelievable and rather silly. Because of this, I disliked the film intensely and see it as a seriously flawed movie. Nice production values but a seriously messed up story that should have left viewers storming out of the theater!

What an Odd Ending. This Entertaining Poke at the Snobbish Elite who Go about Their Detached, Uncaring, Whimsical Ways in the Throes of the Great Depression and much Human Suffering is Average or slightly above.

Constance Bennett's Natural Acting is in full Command and the Supporting Cast Lead by Neil Hamilton are OK. The Film is Professionally Handled and the Social Concerns of the Time are Given Appropriate Due.

But, there isn't anything Outstanding here and it's kind of Pedestrian and the Ending is "Out to Lunch" at a Diner, Eating Beans. However, Fans of Bennett and Early Talking Cinema might Want to Check this one out. Just Don't Expect any Great Shakes. Pass the Ketchup.