6/10
Ronald Colman is great--the movie, though, is quite stagy
21 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the big reasons I sought out this film was because it starred Ronald Colman. With only a very few exceptions, his films were terribly entertaining and he was a classy actor. In this film, his acting, as always, is great. The problem is that the film as a whole is pretty forgettable.

First the good. Apart from his acting, the other actors are generally good (though his friend "Algy" is played poorly--just too dopey and pointless a characterization). And, for a sound movie from 1929, the sound quality is great. Of course it won't match films in sound quality made just a few years later, but it's obvious this was no silent movie with sound later tacked on--which is so typical of Hollywood films of the late 20s (and French films well into the 1930s). Characters moved about and even had their backs to the camera with no sound problems.

Now the not so good. It is obvious that this was first a play, as the plot and pacing is very stagy and stilted. AND, the movie kept going on and on and on. The film would have best been completed in about 60 or 70 minutes, but to continue the movie they kept having the characters do really dumb things--I mean too stupid to make any sense at all. An Example was escaping from the evil gang and instead of going to the police or running to a hidden location, they went back to the inn where the film began and just assumed the gang wouldn't think to look for them there! Well, they DID find them and the movie continued on and on from there. It's a shame really, because with a tighter script this would have been a terrific film.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed