This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Although the so-called "Lubitsch touch" is evident every now and again (e.g. when Cooper moves a chair, he inadvertently discloses all the rubbish underneath it; March listening and reacting to his play being performed off-camera; Cooper breaking furniture off-camera), this is a disappointing movie. It suffers from excessive talk. Admittedly, some of it is witty, some of it is amusingly brittle, but a great deal of it is just plain dull. Cooper is miscast, and that doesn't help either. He does his best, but at this stage of his career, he not only lacks the forceful personality called for in the script, but tends to deliver his lines too slowly. March, however, is perfect. And so is Miriam Hopkins, who is often quite stunningly costumed. In fact, as might be expected, production values are first class: Beautiful photography, a great music score, clever sound effects.

What really surprised me about DESIGN FOR LIVING was that Gary Cooper has fun with his role as a Bohemian artist involved in a three-way affair with roommates Miriam Hopkins and Fredric March. No surprise is that Miriam Hopkins is delightful as a free spirit who can't decide which man she loves most and that Fredric March is capable of switching to light comedy when the occasion demands it.But it's Gary Cooper who had my attention in the kind of role he so seldom played and in a performance that's anything but deadpan, which is what his later career in westerns demanded. Under Ernst Lubitsch's direction, he allows himself to unbend and rid himself of any inhibitions, using facial expressions and body language that show he had a flair for comedy to match Hopkins and March.The menage a trois angle is played up in this watered down version of the original Noel Coward play, but Ben Hecht's racy dialogue is evident in this pre-code era. Miriam Hopkins is perfect in the central role of the charming free spirited woman who falls in love with both men, but marries a stuffed shirt business man (Edward Everett Horton) when their relationship cools off. It's an unusual "straight" role for Horton usually assigned to someone like Ralph Bellamy who always played unlucky suitors.Summing up: One of the most enjoyable pre-code romantic comedies from the '30s delivers wit and style and one of Gary Cooper's best early performances.

On a train to Paris, playwright Fredric March (as Thomas "Tom" B. Chambers) and his painter friend Gary Cooper (as George Curtis) are interrupted while snoozing by attractive blonde Miriam Hopkins (as Gilda Farrell). A commercial artist, Ms. Hopkins banters with her fellow Americans about art, then goes to work for her virtuous boss, Edward Everett Horton (as Max Plunkett). Mr. Horton doesn't approve when Hopkins begins dating both Mr. March and Mr. Cooper. Horton has known Hopkins five years, and hasn't made it "to first base," but her new friends get Hopkins there quickly.Roommates eleven years, March and Cooper both fall in love with Hopkins. "Curious to have a little bit of feminine fluff breaking up our friendship," March tells Copper. The bed in the men's apartment seems to have collected a lot of dust (watch as Hopkins throws herself on it). Hopkins says she loves both men. Since they all like each other, the three decide to live together, to "concentrate on work" and make "a gentlemen's agreement" to "forget sex." But, when March or Cooper leaves Hopkins alone with the other, abstinence becomes difficult. Moreover, Hopkins reminds the men, "I am no gentleman." This Noel Coward play was dramatically altered, by writer Ben Hecht, for director Ernst Lubitsch and Paramount. Great credentials, but something was lost in the translation. "Design for Living" intends to be a modern, sexy comedy. Looking back on it, you can appreciate what they were attempting with Hopkins' character. But, despite Mr. Lubitsch's clever opening, there isn't much "chemistry" between Hopkins and her leading men. And, despite Mr. Hecht's clever writing about their laundry, long-time roommates March and Cooper have no screen rapport. Though good, the film doesn't add up.***** Design for Living (12/29/33) Ernst Lubitsch ~ Fredric March, Gary Cooper, Miriam Hopkins, Edward Everett Horton

Wow, look at the folks in this film--Frederic March and Gary Cooper in an Ernst Lubitsch film! You certainly would expect a lot from such a film. Well, although some might strongly disagree, but despite these actors and Lubitsch teaming together, this is not one of the director's better films. The problem is that the love triangle in the story prevents this from being a legitimate love story--something seem in most Lubitsch films.The film beings in Paris with March and Cooper living together in a cheap apartment. They are struggling artists, with March trying to become a successful playwright and Cooper trying to become a great painter. Into their struggle comes Miriam Hopkins, who has fallen in love with both they guys--and vice-versa. However, to preserve the friendship, they promise a "sex-free" friendship. The presence of Hopkins is a two-edged sword. On one hand, she encourages both men to be better at their craft and is responsible for working behind the scenes to be them recognized. On the other, there is strong sexual tension and ultimately this pulls the friendship apart. Can they work through this or will they each end up miserable...and frustrated? This film never could have been made a year later once the Production Code was revised and strengthened, as the notion of a three-some (even a non-sexual one) became strictly taboo...as was the liberal use of the word 'sex'. However, despite all this, the film really is mostly tease without a whole lot of action--though there is some implied sex (such as when March spent the night and was having breakfast with Hopkins halfway through the film).Sadly, however, despite some interesting sexual dynamics and good acting, the scrip just never paid off that much. Now it wasn't a bad film, but more like a film by a great director that is only very good. The so-called "Lubitsch touch" just wasn't that obvious. Yes, there was comedy but the romantic spark just never arrives. A nice but not especially wonderful film. Frankly, everyone in the film has done better work.