Writing on January 25, 1931, for
The New York Times, Mordaunt Hall declared the film "QUITE an intelligent and entertaining feature…,” but found the story implausible at times. “(T)he dialogue runs along smoothly and the acting is highly competent. It is not overwhelmingly subtle and the cheery or satisfactory ending is a trifle too sudden. Its argument is that, whether a young couple are living in companionate marriage or conventional marriage, they are only held together by love. Although superfically this is the case in this narrative, it seems as though the characters might have an excuse for parting forever had they not been bound by marriage ties… (It) opens with Richard Ives and Anne Vincent living together…Apparently nobody suspects that they are exponents of companionate marriage, and not until they put up at hotels together does society begin to observe this breach of social law. This causes one to think that most of the friends of the two lovers go about blindfolded. Then there are offered on the screen excerpts from a society paper which is evidently not concerned with the libel laws. From then on the chronicle becomes diverting in spite of its lack of suspense. Anne and Richard are married …They are happy for a year, and then the inevitable bickering occurs. Then comes the conventional excuse..the discovery that he is after all interested in that attractive blonde…Anne has her old flame, who virtually tells her that he hopes her marriage will be a failure when he says that if she ever separates or is divorced from Richard he will be waiting for her.Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie are thoroughly human in their rôles. The lighter vein is expressed by Charles Butterworth in his admirable, peculiar fashion. Claude Gillingwater is capital as Richard's father, who is responsible for making Anne consent to marriage.” On August 19, 2008, Dennis Schwartz observed: “This daring risqué melodrama...has aged badly and when viewed today seems arch. If it weren't for the fine performance by the twenty-four-year old Barbara Stanwyck in her first starring role, this would be a real snoozer. Archie Mayo...does a poor job keeping this morality tale alive, as it's way too chatty, the characters remain undeveloped clichés and it has no surprises up its sleeve to keep us tuned in....In this trivial and tedious weepie that lacks much punch and action, after both parties in the separation seek solace in others they have a reawakening after much soul searching and reunite for a happy ending. Thereby they reinforce the traditions of marriage over living a sexually free life and the film takes the sauce out of any arguments it offered to the contrary. Two years later the studio made an exact remake called
Ex-Lady, which starred
Bette Davis. At least this dud had Stanwyck. ==Preservation==