Reviews

Joan Crawford as a spoiled young lady who impulsively leaves a train headed to her father's Montana ranch. She then meets, falls in love and marries local cowboy Johnny Mack Brown all in short order. The movie is full of bad acting, extraneous comedic and ethnic characters and a cowboy chorus, some or all of whom break out in song at unexpected and inappropriate intervals.

The only saving grace is Crawford, who is alternately selfish, loving, impetuous and loyal. This would have been more interesting if we hadn't already seen her as same sort of character in several films since her celebrated portrayal in Dancing Daughters. She evens manages to get in a short scene of her manic dancing.

The worst acting award would have to go to Johnny Mack Brown. Never the best of actors, his portrayal of the naive, inexperienced, country cowboy is hard to watch. This sort of country rustic vs. city sophisticate would be much better done later in the decade by Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper.

This story of the travails or a new Senator in Washington obviously brings to mind the later "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Both men are idealistic freshman Senators, who's first name happens to be Jefferson. However, James Stewart is a young neophyte, while here Lionel Barrymore is a mature experienced lawyer. One sticks to his idealism despite being pressured by back room power brokers, while the other succumbs to the blandishments of sex and money.

The plot gives Barrymore ample opportunity to emote through several speeches and scenes. But the real find here is Karen Morley. She starts out as a Perle Mesta-type Washington hostess, while also being in the employ of lobbyists. Later she marries Barrymore, and for much of the mid portion of the film, one can almost believe she is actually falling in love with her much older husband and might eventually switch sides. However, towards the end she shows her true colors.

The final scenes seem hurried and the ending contrived. But the film is still worthwhile both for Ms. Morley acting and as a comparison to the later James Stewart picture.

Produced at a time when America was having second thoughts about the 18th Amednment, this is an interesting period piece that shows the effects of alcohol on two families as well as the unintended consequences of Prohibition. Unfortunately, the movie runs too long as the plot tries to develop the eventual interconnection of the two families. However, it does treat the effects of Prohibition in an evenhanded manner. Neil Hamilton has the best roll as the upright son of the Southern family who descends into alcoholism, despite having seen the effects of booze on his father. Robert Young, who has the corresponding position in the city family, remains "dry", but comes across as somewhat of a prude. Jimmy Durante is totally miscast as a Treasury Agent.

This is a typical love triangle movie with Myrna Loy, Rosalind Russell and Walter Pidgeon, with Franchot Tone at the odd man out. It's hard to know which is worse, the acting, the plot or the dialog. The outcome is fairly predictable, given the time period when this movie was made. As far as the acting goes, Ms. Loy is thoroughly unlikeable, Mr. Pidgeon stiff and Mr. Tone an insipid hanger-on. Ms. Russell comes off the best of the lot, thought her final scene when she is magnanimously prepared to give up her husband is unconvincing and without the necessary character motivation. Motivation is also lacking in the apparent coupling of Myrna Loy and Franchot Tone, when the prior attraction seemed to be all one-sided. The best acting by far is by the little known Nana Bryant, who plays Loy's mother.

Mildly interesting comedy with Edward Everett Horton given an rare leading role. He even refers to a "bedroom farce" with one of the other women during the film.

This movie has been well reviewed by others. Only two other comments. Exactly how is it that Mr. Zero can not only can make himself up to be an exact physical double of Mr. Smith, but he can also imitate the same effete, nervous-Nellie personality of someone he has never before met? The film would have been more interesting, as in other films where someone is impersonating another, if he had a less exaggerated persona. Also, of note is the fact that the three main female leads, all more famous in the silent era than after-wards, all lived into their 90's.

Interesting if bizarre dark comedy. This has been well reviewed by others. Two comments. The first is Warren Williams vacillating character, one minute dismissive of his ex-wife, then next expressing his undying love. This is not his most forceful or consistent role. The next is Joan Blondell and her motivation. She divorces her husband one minute and marries another shortly thereafter. Was she trying to make her husband more romantic, or was she living out her masochistic fantasies?

The dimpled Claire Dodd does a good job as the divorced friend of the couple. It was also nice to note Edward Everett Horton toning down his usual effete, fuss-budget persona.

The idea of a spy falling in love with one of the enemy is a literary cliché and has been used in the movies since the silent era. It is full of dramatic possibilities, but always faces the difficulty of resolving in the end the contest between loyalty and love. In this film, the problems are compounded by having Mexican-American Gilbert Roland portraying the Austrian counterintelligence agent with his Spanish accent intact, up against the all-American Constance Bennett as a Russian spy during what appears to be WW1. The two gradually fall in love without knowing each other's true identity. Despite the obvious drawbacks, all involved carry it off very well.

There are really two ending. The first, when they finally confront each other and reveal their true identities is dramatic, exciting and with a final surprising twist. The second is far-fetched and less satisfying. If you eliminate the final 5 minutes, the film is well-worth watching.

One doesn't watch this movie for it's somewhat uninspired acting, especially by Johnny Mack Brown, who no matter what film he was in only seemed to have one acting style. However, the realistic portrayal of the hardships faced by early settlers in the 18th century is the real reason to view this film. Those problems included weather, terrain, American Indians, and internal disagreements.

The only two failures of this verisimilitude are Eleanor Boardman's pristine complexion throughout the movie and the hero's decision to leave his family and the other settlers and single-handedly take revenge on the leader of the Indian tribe that had been attacking the fort and surrounding settlements.

Runaway gypsy, Myrna Loy, upsets the household of the well-to-do family that takes her in.

Of historical interest, but otherwise not much reason to watch. Undoubtedly, the early sound system limitations account for the static acting when dialogue is spoken. However, it can't excuse the declamatory style of speaking. Only Alice Joyce can occasionally speak and act in a more natural fashion. Miss Loy is merely ridiculous as the predatory, scheming wild-child.

Loretta Young has a supporting role only, despite being listed as the co-star. Also, she seems to have a pronounced overbite, presumably corrected later on by her orthodontist.

Frenetic story about two fast talkers with a get-rich-quick scheme to turn a plain hotel maid into a beauty contest winner. In addition to the basic Pygmalion story, there is the love angle with the daredevil pilot, the maid's friend, a couple of dialect comedian-CEOs, a nosy newspaperman, two kidnapping plots, bribery, etc.

The problem is that most of these sub-plots are not well integrated into the screenplay and serve mostly as annoying distractions. After all, what is Mary Astor actually supposed to be doing in this film?

Nevertheless, the leads are more than adequate, though it is hard to picture Marion Davies as "The Most Beautiful Girl America"

This, the first sound picture based on the Broadway hit "Dulcy", is possibly the worst Marion Davies movie I've seen. She monopolizes and mugs her way through every scene. There is even a very un-PC comment she makes toward the end of the scene in the billiard room. Her co-stars' acting is awkward and stilted. The only exception is Raymond Hackett as Davies' younger brother. I haven't seen any of his other work, but he seemed to have a natural presence before the camera. Then, of course, there is Franklin Pangborn's stereotypic characterization. The editing and continuity are awful. The director also wastes a chance to see a rare acting role from the writer Donald Ogden Stewart(Sr.).

This film features Mary Astor as the brains behind a NYC paper company, manipulating the personal life and business affairs of her boss, Robert Ames, who seems oblivious of her charms and too witless, frankly, to be a captain of industry. Ricardo Cortez is her long-suffering married would-be lover (did they ever consummate their relationship in Atlantic City?).

Never a Mary Astor fan, I found her performance in this film to be outstanding. She carries the movie all by herself and exhibits a wide range of emotions without once overacting, which would have been a great temptation in a film of this type. The film itself is marred by an inferior supporting cast, especially Robert Ames, and a too-hurried wrap up at the end.

This picture features John Gilbert who appears to have suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from WWI, and then marries Lois Moran on the rebound while drunk. She then pursues him across the US to prove she really loves him. El Brendel, "Swedish", not Hispanic as you might suppose from the name, is featured as ethnic comic relief. Perhaps more interesting for latter day viewers is the question of what was so charismatic about John Gilbert to silent screen audiences. While his acting (and voice) is adequate, it's certainly not outstanding, and while handsome, his appearance is leading-man ordinary (does anyone else think his nose is too big when seen in profile?).

Early Warner Bros. musical, stagy, slow, and mostly of historical interest. The poor quality film available for viewing doesn't help. It's interesting to see how much the movie musical improved between this movie and, for instance, "42nd Street" (also a Warner Bros production) just a few years later. The dialog portions are very static, presumably due to the requirements of early sound pick up systems. However, the result is to bring the action to a halt. The overacting is almost unintentionally laughable. Betty Compson finally has a decent scene near the end of the movie. Arthur Lake is just plain irritating, and I couldn't even warm up to Joe E. Brown. Some of the singers seems to be recorded live, and others poorly dubbed. By far, the most interesting scenes are Ethel Waters singing "Am I Blue", and the quartet of black tap dancers who are unidentified.

This Warner Bros. film starts off slowly as a romantic drama, but then becomes a fast paced murder mystery with an ending hard to predict. I was not especially put off by the stage origin of the screenplay, the inauthentic accents of a story supposedly set in Vienna, or the tenuous connection to the Firebird, either as myth or music. The performances of the principals were weak: Ricardo Cortez as the victim, Verree Teasdale (overacting), and Anita Louise (quite beautiful, but unconvincing). This is more than made up for by the supporting roles of Dorothy Tree as the sharp-tongued ex-wife of the victim and Lionel Atwill as the initially oblivious and later befuddled husband/father. Even C. Aubrey Smith, usually relegated to pipe smoking and pontificating, has a more substantial role in this film as the inspector who actually solves the crime.