SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Juana 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.

kidboots During the twenties Ricardo Cortez was talked of as a successor to Rudolph Valentino and was even billed over Greta Garbo in "The Torrent" but in 1929 he was just one of many stars running scared of the microphone. He didn't have to worry as he had a voice perfectly suited to talkies but that's where the small independent studios came in. While the majors scrambled around wondering if talkies were just a fad, studios like Continental and Tiffany just kept plodding along hiring sound stages and luring actors like Cortez who wanted to prove that talkies held no fear for them and their contracted studios could rest easy. His co-star Nancy Welford was a British actress who had just scored a hit in "Gold Diggers of Broadway" but it seemed if you made your mark in an early sound singie you were given short shrift if you wanted to go dramatic. Poor Nancy only made a couple of films including a "Broadway Brevitie" before disappearing into the shadows!!Even though Cortez and Welford were top billed the film really belonged to Henry B. Walthall in the type of role that was soon to be a staple for him in the talkies - he plays Boyd Milburn, a "genius" inventor who takes the blame when he arrives home and finds his wife standing over a man's body. Little does he realise that Peggy had offered herself to the man for her husband's advancement in the scientific world. Peggy's character is pretty questionable throughout the movie - the first scene shows her as saintly, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for her husband's fame. She seems to forget about him when he is in prison, then when he is released he finds that she has transferred all his patents to her name and she is reaping the benefits and wealth while he is now impoverished.And what a house she lives in!! For a little studio (Continental) they must have lavished most of their budget on the very stylish Art Deco sets. From the beautiful Tiffany style lamps to the gorgeous tapestries to the very futuristic wall decorations.Only the nearness of his beautiful daughter, Dorothy (Welford), who of course thinks he is just an old family friend, keeps him sane. She has her own romantic woes, she loves and is beloved by Paul (Cortez) but her mother is desperately trying to foist a blithering stuffed shirt onto her. Even though Boyd steps in to fight for the young couple's happiness, Peggy is livid and threatens to ruin Paul - she has given him access to all of Boyd's patents. When the old judge who was instrumental in sending Boyd to prison is found murdered and Paul had been summoned to a meeting with him it seems logical that he will be arrested for murder. But Boyd has seen everything from his hiding place in the garden and, with Dorothy playing a big part, everything is able to end happily.Nancy Welford proves that as an actress she makes a great singer - all big eyes and funny little quips, she even warbles the theme song "Forgotten".

edalweber Not a bad effort for its era. People seeing the audience reaction in "Singin' In the Rain" are seeing an anachronism.That would be the reaction of a 1950 audience used to perfected talking pictures.But for audiences accustomed to silent movies,even imperfect sound was marvelous,making complicated plots like this far more practical than with silents. As others said, Henry Walthall and Ricardo Cortez give very professional performances. The film of course is "stagy", partly due to the limitations of sound equipment at the time but more due to the type of story it was.Even later efforts like"The Mask of Demetrius" were just about as stagy because of the nature of the plot. For one thing, this and other movies allow us to see basically what a stage melodrama of the period was like,something almost impossible to completely duplicate today,because todays actors simply didn't grow up in that old tradition. Still, the sets are very interesting, and it is somewhat filmic, allowing scenes and shots such as closeups that stage can't provide, so it is better than merely a filmed stage play. All in all a rather interesting movie.

Robert J. Maxwell It's not really necessary to keep in mind that this movie was made at the dawn of the sound era. You don't have to keep it in mind because you'll be constantly reminded of it.The actors pause for eons between lines and when they speak the utterances seem to roll on slowly forever. When the wife addresses the husband's back, you can go outside and take a stroll around the block while he slowly turns around and prepares a response."Do you expect me . . . to believe . . . . . . . . . . . . that?"The lines are stilted and overly theatrical, as if drawn from the 1800s, a parody of the silent movie being parodied in "Singin' in the Rain." The acting is outlandishly overdone. "Oh, mother dear," sobs the young girl sobbing on her mother's shoulder. No kidding.The story is a little complicated and not worth explaining in detail. Henry Walthall takes the rap for his wife when she murders a man trying to rape her. He sends her diagrams of his inventions from prison. She patents them and becomes rich. After fifteen years he returns home under a nom de geôle and finds his spouse distant and materialistic, while his little girl is now grown up and cute. Conflict ensues. Some critical scenes have been deleted for one reason or another.The movie isn't without merit. We often use the expression "lockstep." Originally it didn't mean simply complete agreement on an issue. Lockstep was a method of getting a group of prison inmates from place to place, walking so close behind one another that the steps had to be simultaneous. It used to be sometimes used by hoofers on the stage too, where it was called "nesting." There is an interrogation scene in a police station that lacks any subtlety whatever but does use dramatic lighting. And the director shoots a woman making a phone call. When she hangs up, the camera goes out of focus and wobbles in for a close up of the telephone dial. Cut to a similar shot of another telephone later. It's a wonder he could move the camera at all, those blimps being what they were at the time.If it fails as gripping drama, it succeeds as historical curiosity.

boblipton This 1929 mystery-tearjerker suffers from all the stereotypical problems of talkies in this year -- a very few works like Mamoulian's APPLAUSE aside -- immobile camera and actors who seem unable to read a line with any naturalism. The sound track sounds poor, too, but that might will be an artifact of a worn print.Director Phil Rosen makes a good stab by using short cuts to fake a mobile camera, and it's a pleasure to watch old pros Henry Walthall and Ricardo Cortez exhibit their physical naturalness, but the many poor performances and, by modern standards, decidedly pinheaded plot keep this from being worthwhile as more than a curiosity.