The Phantom in the House (1929) User Reviews

At his self sacrificing best

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 15 June 2014]

Some rather stilted acting characterizes this melodrama about a man who confessed to a murder his wife did and got life in prison for it. Henry B. Walthall who played a lot of noble and self sacrificing characters on the silent screen and in talkies was at the top of his game in both those categories. The title of the film is a misnomer because there are no ghostly apparitions here, simply Walthall hanging around his family under an alias. But his daughter Nancy Welford bonds with him and can't explain the connection she feels.

Walthall was an inventor and his patents were assigned over to his wife Grace Valentine which has made her a most wealthy society dame. She wants a title for Welford to marry and there's some silly English earl played by Rolfe Sedan hanging around probably looking to give some woman his title for her money.

That's not what Welford wants, she wants to marry earnest young Ricardo Cortez. But Valentine threatens to ruin him if he marries her.

Into this mess walks Walthall back into their lives, given parole after 15 years. He's traveling incognito at first as the daughter has been given a whole different story about a father who died in the late World War. I won't go any farther except that in the end both the women come to a radical reassessment about things. And Walthall once again thinks of others.

I doubt we'll ever see a remake of this old fashioned story. The Phantom Of The House was written for a different with different tastes in literature and different ideas about what constitutes a hero. Also it is plain the players were getting used to sound and both Walthall and Cortez did much better work in sound very shortly.

It's a real museum piece of a film.

Close But No Cigar

[boblipton · 4/10 · 15 November 2006]

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.

Time has been very unkind to this potboiling melodrama. Viewed today its too static and clichéd

[dbborroughs · 4/10 · 16 January 2008]

When a male friend tries to take advantage of a woman she kills him in order to protect her honor. Her husband rushes her way just as the police arrive and ends up taking the rap for her. 15 years later he returns home, his wife rich with the money from his inventions, and his daughter believing he's dead. As he tries to get his life back complications arise which threaten the lives of his wife and child.

Slow melodrama this film suffers from being made in the early early days of sound. Scenes are often static (though not as static as some other films of the period) with the result the movie feels like its moving at a snails pace. The script isn't bad but it feels more like a mannered play than anything thats real. The dialog is either a pronouncement or an attempt at witticism which more often falls flat. The cast is a mixed bag. To be certain stalwarts like Henry Walthall and Ricardo Cortez show every reason why they had long careers, others clearly were hired because they could speak. This is not the sort of thing one really needs to see unless you are in need of sleep.

Guilty of Attempted Melodrama.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 23 November 2013]

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.

As an Actress Nancy Welford Makes a Great Singer!!

[kidboots · 7/10 · 21 May 2014]

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".

This looked a lot better back in 1929 than it does today.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 12 January 2010]

THE PHANTOM IN THE HOUSE is a very, very old fashioned film--the sort of film that was common back in 1929 when studios first began making talking pictures. So, I cut it a lot of slack. However, when seen today, it really comes off very, very poorly.

One of the first problems you'll probably notice is the sound track. The voices and lip movements are way out of sync on the DVD from Alpha Video and I assume all existing copies have that problem. One reason it was common in early sound films was that initially the sound was NOT included on the film strip but came on an accompanying record. Invariably, the record and film not be matched up perfectly--and this film is no exception. Additionally, like all such early films there is very little incidental music and sound effects--making for a strangely quiet film. By the early 1930s, this problem was eliminated, but the only way they knew to add music was to literally have a small orchestra stationed just off camera! h These were not the major problems in the film--just two you'll no doubt notice. However, a few more serious problems did impact how much I liked the film. The dialog was generally bad and the acting quite wooden, though there were some exceptions. Ricardo Cortez and Henry Walthall were professionals who already looked comfortable in front of the camera. This is especially true of Walthall who had been on stage quite a bit during his long career. The rest of the cast were not so skilled and it showed.

Still, these were not the most serious problem in the film. The biggest single problem is the plot. It was hardly believable and the way some of the people acted was ridiculous. For example, when the film began, Walthall and his wife are in the room with a dead man--a man the wife had just killed. Walthall THOUGHT she'd been having an affair yet HE claimed it was him who killed the man! It was clearly self-defense--so why did he say he did it?! He spent 15 years in prison for something he did not commit AND he thought his wife was guilty! This made no sense. Additionally, while he was in prison protecting his wife, he was also sending patents for inventions to her and she became wealthy. When he was paroled, she wanted nothing to do with him!! Think about it--he saved her and provided for her so well that she now was quite rich YET she wanted him to just disappear! This, too, made no sense.

Overall, the sound issues and dialog can be forgiven--after all, that the was the norm for 1929. But a clichéd and silly plot cannot--so I can't recommend you see this soapy film.

What a Wild and Incredibly Silly Story

[Michael_Elliott · 9 March 2017]

The Phantom in the House (1929)

** (out of 4)

Peggy (Grace Valentine) accidentally kills her lover just as her husband Boyd (Henry B. Walthall) walks in. Boyd agrees to say he did the crime and spends the next fifteen-years in prison. When he's released he meets back up with the wife but both agreed not to tell their now adult daughter Dorothy (Nancy Welford) that he's really daddy. Soon she wanting to marry Paul (Ricardo Cortez) but he's accused of a murder he didn't really commit. This leads Boyd with a decision to make.

If you watch enough of these early sound pictures then you'll notice a few things. For starters, there's usually some sort of musical number for no reason. Second, there's usually a lot of boring dialogue that means absolutely nothing to the story. The third thing you'll notice is that there's usually enough plot for ten different movies. All of this can be understood because sound was something new and people wanted to hear it.

With that said, those three things usually make these early talkies rather difficult to watch today and there's no question that this here is one of the silliest I've ever seen. The entire plot is just downright crazy and stupid. What makes matters even worse is that the love affair, the murder, the lie and the prison term is all handled in the first seven minutes of the movie. From here we get on to the new stuff with the daughter getting involved with a man her mother doesn't approve of. This here leads to another murder and we're off on a whole new storyline.

The best thing about this picture is Walthall who really was a very good actor. He was perfectly capable of handling silent pictures and he made the transition to sound very well. He's very low-key here but he's certainly easy to follow and you can't help but enjoy the performance and the character Cortez gets the top-billing but the picture certainly belongs to Walthall as he's the actual lead. The supporting performances are mixed to say the least with Valentine coming off the worst with her overacting.

THE PHANTOM IN THE HOUSE is a pretty routine drama and for the most part it's very boring. The over-the-top nature of the story and the fact that it was an early sound picture help keep it mildly interesting but for the most part it's a dud.

A House with No "Phantom"

[JohnHowardReid · 3/10 · 3 October 2011]

Nancy Welford could sing a song, but she couldn't act to save her life. Grace Valentine, to judge from this effort, couldn't act period. Not that this is exactly what you would call a class "A" production. It's a "B" through and through, so poor acting doesn't matter all that much – nor does a believable script – so long as the movie delivers plenty of thrills. This it does not do. There's a bit of a climax certainly, but nothing temperature raising. Phil Rosen has directed with all the expertise of his counterpart at the Podunck Amateur Dramatic Society. True, Ricardo Cortez, Henry B. Walthall and Jack Curtis manage to extricate themselves from this dreary "B" with one or two kudos, but everyone else sinks with it.

The Phantom in the House review

[JoeytheBrit · 4/10 · 5 May 2020]

Not a phantom at all, but a selfless ex-con who poses as a friend of his selfish wife in order to spare his daughter the indignity of discovering the father she believed dead has actually served time for murder. Of course, Dad was innocent, but 15 years inside has left him with some unsavoury acquaintances with names like 'Biffer'. Ricardo Cortez is the headline act, but actually plays support to D. W. Griffith regular Henry B. Walthall in this relentlessly dull drama. It picks up in the final reel, but all interest has evaporated by then...

very interesting old early talkie

[edalweber · 8/10 · 18 December 2013]

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.

For those who love old B movies.

[mark.waltz · 3/10 · 8 March 2016]

Oh how the reel creeks in this tedious melodrama that starts off ridiculously and slides down into the muck of a total yawn-fest. Knowing that his wife killed an admirer accidentally in self defense, the husband spends 15 years in prison while she turns into a bitter, controlling shrew of a mother for their child. When he is granted parole, the husband moves in as the eternal guest, becomes supportive to his daughter (unaware of his identity), and tries to brighten up her life, even though she is involved with an alleged scoundrel that her mother does not approve of.

Snail paced direction by Phil Rosen and dialog delivery is the nail in this squeaky coffin that features weak acting, an unbelievable plot line and poor, slow editing. Silent star Henry B. Walthall looks like a walking corpse as the long-suffering husband, and handsome Ricardo Cortez seems embarrassed by the whole thing while playing the young love interest. A melodramatic plot twist comes out of nowhere to attempt to liven things up, but by that time, it is too little, too late. Yes, this is a very early talkie, so some creakiness is expected, but this just never crosses the line into anything memorable.

Creaky, stagey, slow-moving drama

[scsu1975 · 3/10 · 19 November 2022]

Henry B. Walthall takes the rap when his wife kills a cad. He is sentenced to prison for "the rest of his natural life," which begs the question, what happens if his life becomes unnatural? He is paroled after 15 years and, oddly, has more hair than when he was first incarcerated. Apparently, you can join the Hair Club for Men while you're in stir.

Walthall returns home, where he meets his grown-up daughter, who believes he was killed in World War I. He pretends he is a friend of her mother's. The daughter is engaged to Ricardo Cortez, but the mother disapproves because she wants her daughter to marry a Marquis. Then the judge who sentenced Walthall is murdered, Cortez is implicated, and Walthall is about to take the rap again (idiot) when the real killer is nabbed.

Terrible acting by the female leads. Grace Valentine, as the mother, is as horrible as they come in the acting department. No, wait a minute, that's not true. Her daughter, played by Nancy Welford, is as horrible as they come in that department. She made five films. Here, she sings "You'll Never Be Forgotten." Yes you will.

The Marquis is played by Rolfe Sedan, whom I instantly recognized, being a fan of "The Adventures of Superman." Almost thirty years later, he would play a scientist who would freeze the Man of Steel.

Walthall is adequate, but this ain't "The Birth of a Nation;" it's more like "The Death of a Career."