Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The songs are catchy and the plot is something we all can relate to, although in this day in age the way the women are treated is completely different than how they were treated in the '20s and '30s this movie seems extremely true to form for the time. This is a great breakthrough movie for those who are just getting into old films. This movie is comical and will get your toes tapping. I highly recommend this movie its one of those movies to watch when you need a pick me up because just watching it will lift your spirits and have you replaying the songs in your head and put a smile on your face due to the pleasant melodies and enjoyable dance numbers.

"Spring is Here" is a very early musical. While musicals were quite popular in the early days of talking pictures, most of them were like "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" and "The Broadway Melody"--stage productions where groups of chorus girls danced about for audiences. The musical style where folks were NOT on stage and just broke into song was a bit later invention. But, "Spring is Here" is a fluke--one of those 1930s films where music was woven into the story---much like the later Jeanette MacDonald films of the mid to late 1930s. However, since it is such an early version of this style musical, it came out before the genre was fully developed. In other words, it's a bit rough and doesn't translate as well to audiences today. The singing is DEFINITELY not the sort that will have you humming along with the singers. Instead, it's very operatic and the voices see odd in a movie--not at all natural and a bit tough on the ear. I am not saying it's bad singing--just odd given the plot. Also odd is that the singers stand so still and they are usually filmed in closeups--most likely because the sound equipment was very primitive and wouldn't allow for more naturalistic shots (much like in early talkies where folks stand in one spot so the microphones will pick up the sound properly).Despite the primitive nature of the film, however, I found "Spring Is Here" to be very watchable--mostly because I liked the parents, Louise Fazenda and Ford Sterling. Both were veterans of Mack Sennett silent comedies and both made nice transitions to sound in this film. In particular, Sterling was a very funny character playing the father of the leading lady. As for the leading lady (Bernice Claire), she is being wooed by two guys--her ex-boyfriend and a handsome new guy. With a little help from her sister and mother, the old boyfriend manages to once again catch her eye. Who will she end up with and how? See this cute little musical comedy. By the way, this being a Pre-Code film, you might be surprised by a few of the more suggestive but funny lyrics and situations in the film. And, get a load of the kiss in the garden--one that long and passionate never would have been allowed in the post 1934 era.

Most of the movies from this period are bad, stabs in the eye. But you have to watch your quota in order to register the form.These early ones are pretty fascinating because with the onset of sound, filmmakers veered away from story for a while and accommodated the stage show. This is an early musical following the pattern used on Broadway, set by opera centuries before and still somewhat followed. Its song stitched together in the slightest of ways.The songs here seemed dreadful to me, absolutely dreadful. Just changing tastes on which drek we tolerate, I suppose.The story is about a girl, and someone who loves her, and her confusion over him and another boy. Which is less boring is the question. She and all the supposed sexy girls here have that mannish, short hairdo that was popular for only a couple years, invented by film.There's a blustery father whose job it is to keep things moving. The origin of his role is belied in the middle of the movie when in the midst of his patter he says of a joke: "I just tell em, I don't explain em." Everything else about this is from the stage as well, a strange deviation for cinema as it tried to discover what it would be. Its precode, so while there is nothing overtly sexy is shown, its clear that there are sex acts all around the story.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Caught this today on TCM. It's one of those run-of-the-mill early sound-era musicals that soured the public on singing films until the exciting 42ND STREET and the early Busby Berkeley extravaganzas pumped juice back into the musical genre.Fazenda and her co-stars sing well in the operetta style that was still popular at this time, but their acting tends to be as stiff, stagy and clichéd as the story, dialog, and camera-work.It's interesting to see the kind of brainless and virtually heartless musical comedy that was current when SHOW BOAT debuted on Broadway and then on film, pointing the way toward more heartfelt, substantial musicals in the future. Tastes in comedy change, but I doubt anyone found this one very funny even when it first appeared. The humor is really forced and lame.The story is an ancestor of the teen comedies that would be popular decades later: a young jazz baby can't decide between two suitors, while her cranky, "old-fashioned" father and clueless mother provide comic relief.Hit with a bunch of stagy, static movies like this one, no wonder the public at the time got sick of musicals. The genre had to be reconceived a couple years later, turned into a faster, fresher, more kinetic entertainment that was truly cinematic.SPRING IS HERE is a typical plodding commercial product of its era. It's competent without being in any way outstanding. It will interest specialists as an example of writing and performing styles of the 1920s, but it won't win any new converts to early sound-era musicals. It's pretty bad ...