Cortechba Overrated

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

calvinnme I'd give this one a 5/10 if it wasn't for some of the unique things going on. Some of it is just plain cheeky. For example, I think the name "Big News" was given to the film to confuse people with the play "Good News" that was made into a film the following year. The opening score even has some of the music from "Good News" in it, though cleverly disguised.This one is an early talkie, plus it apparently was made on the cheap at Pathe, so the entire film basically takes place in two rooms - The news room of driven but often drunken reporter Steve Banks (Robert Armstrong), and a speakeasy that is a front (it must be, there are never any customers!) for a drug dealing operation run by Joe Reno (Sam Hardy).Banks likes to go drinking with O'Neill (Wade Botellier), a drunken discredited and thus ex reporter, and Steve's absentee home life has his reporter wife (Carole Lombard as Margaret) coming to the newsroom to tell Steve she is calling their marriage quits. Meanwhile, Joe Reno is worried that Banks is going to expose his dope peddling operation, and calls the newspaper to say he's been drunk and disorderly and bothering the nonexistent customers at his completely illegal business. The paper fires him.Banks reacts by going to Reno's speakeasy with his drunken friend (WHY DOES HE NEED THIS GUY?) and HE ACTUALLY LETS HIM IN!!!. Reno then unintentionally tips his hand to Banks who gets the evidence he needs and writes up an expose on Reno's operation. This dawns on Reno AFTER Banks leaves.Banks has been fired. Reno knows this. For some reason he goes to where Banks used to work - Banks might have given the story to a completely different paper and never returned - and frames him for a crime of which he is easily absolved. Plus Reno is seen by everybody including Banks AND the cops AND everybody knows Reno had a motive to do what he did. What an idiot! I'll let you watch the terrible print that is available and see what happens.Why am I disrespecting Carole Lombard? Because she is a mere shadow of the actress she'll be just five years later. But part of it really isn't her fault. The lines she is given are ridiculous and actually sound like the stuff of title cards from the 1910s. She is either tall statuesque and silent or overacting hysterically. But she improves tremendously in just this year. Her next film, Racketeer, is much better. But you would never guess by this one performance that she is the member of the cast people are most likely to remember almost 90 years later.There is one weird angle that you would never see after the production code. I guess to fill up time there is a part for an overweight lonely hearts reporter - Helen Ainsworth as Vera - who dresses in men's' clothing and does a kind of risqué vaudeville comedy routine between scenes to lighten the mood. The paper editor warns her "Don't be gay on my time!". Only in the precode era, and probably only in this first full year of talking film. Recommended for the goofiness of it all.

Cristi_Ciopron A crime comedy drama with R. Armstrong and Carol Lombard (before a 3rd vowel was added), she has more of a supporting part, which she plays in her dignified way, a bit otherworldly, spectral, very classy, her generic character in her early sound movies, a distinguished young woman; she also seemed determined on her ascending way to stardom. The supporting cast is very good.The life at a newspaper headquarter is shown as cool, but isn't glamorized. The age was more stoic, and the life's hardships are confessed, admitted, allowed, expressed; the sets show a dirty editorial office, with the throng, garbage and untidiness, and the threat of unemployment. The leading actor plays a reporter fond of his profession and of drinking.Armstrong, a very believable leading player, could be a dynamo, even as a drained journalist. I know that his reputation paled, faded afterward, which is unfair. He was credible in each leading role he has made.The movie, co-written by DeLeon, is exciting and refreshing. The _subjacent play seems good.

bkoganbing Big News casts Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard as a pair of reporters married to each other but working for rival papers. If you expect to see the gifted comic Lombard from such future classics as My Man Godfrey and Twentieth Century Big News will disappoint you greatly. This one is strictly the show for Armstrong.Armstrong drives his editor Charles Sellon to distraction with his drinking and carousing and it certainly is wearing on his marriage to Lombard. But as he says speakeasies are great place to pick up stories and Armstrong has been successful.A particular speakeasy owner Sam Hardy is the leader of a narcotics ring in their town and Armstrong has the goods on him. Hardy tries something stupid, he goes to the newspaper office and murders the editor and frames Armstrong for the crime. But naturally our intrepid reporter is too smart for Hardy.Big News is little more than a photographed stage play and the original play was no world beater either. It never holds your interest in the way such other films like Detective Story, Dead End, Rope, or Rear Window do that are all almost exclusively on one set.Big News is directed by Greogry LaCava who also did My Man Godfrey. Whatever he brought out in Lombard for that film stayed buried here. In fairness to Carole, she was not given much to work with.Still it's 1929 and movies were learning to talk. Films like Big News show how much was left to learn.

MartinHafer Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard star in this early talky about the newspaper business. Armstrong plays an obnoxious drunk who, inexplicably, Lombard loves. He constantly shoots off his mouth and you wonder why the paper puts up with him. By the end of the film, however, he's redeemed himself and shows that he's a darn find newspaper man.The film is odd in the way it portrays Armstrong as a relatively high-functioning and lovable alcoholic. In some ways, it seems to excuse his addiction and presents a very odd and convoluted message. It's also odd in that one of the characters seems to be that of a very manly lesbian. Both are things you never would have seen in a Hollywood film once the toughened Production Code was enacted in mid-1934--when alcoholism needed to be punished and lesbians needed to vanish.So is the film any good? Well, in spots it's quite good and in others it lets the viewer down. A few of the performances are poor (such as when the murder is discovered near the end of the film) but the overall plot is engaging and worth seeing. But, for 1929, it's actually quite good--had it been made a year or two later, I would have given it a slightly lower score.For folks like me who simply watch too many movies, it also was a thrill to see Tom Kennedy play a SMART policeman—as he almost always played very stupid ones!