Style2

Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) Directed by Robert Florey

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:23 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 10 September 2008)

Going to a freak show with Bela Lugosi, this could be a suiting alternate title for this movie. It's a very short movie, that lasts just over 1 hour. It's obviously a small production with small production values. It's story is simplistic but also obviously effective for an early '30's genre movie. And hey, it has Bela Lugosi in it, which alone already makes this an interesting watch.
It's an early Edgar Allan Poe adaptation, though definitely not the earliest since that one dates way back to 1908. Coicindently this 1908 movie got also based on the novel 'Murders in the Rue Morgue'. It mixed in the famous Sherlock Holmes character in it, which makes it sound like a very interesting movie to watch, though that movie is simply not available now days and I wonder if the movie actually still exists.
It's a nice shot movie, that at times look like its down in the same style as movies from the silent era. The movie obviously has some stylish looking sequences. Especially the cinematography is sometimes something great and unique, for its time at least.
It has a slow moving story, that isn't always told well. In its potential it seems like a good enough story to make a chilling horror movie out of but I don't feel director Robert Florey used the story to its full potential. Instead now the story often feels more ridicules than anything else really.
All of the acting in this movie seems rather outdated now days and are also simply below par. Bela Lugosi plays a typical role for him and plays him in his trademark kind of style. It definitely makes this movie a good watch for the fans of him. They will surely appreciate and enjoy his performance in this movie.
A watchable movie but just not the greatest thing the Universal studios have to offer when it comes down to early 20th century horror.
6/10


Watch trailer

Boudu sauvé des eaux (1932) Directed by Jean Renoir

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 6:10 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 11 August 2008)

It's a movie with some more subtle humor but nevertheless it's not really a movie that could ever make me laugh, which was mostly because due to Michel Simon his very over the top portrayal of the tramp Boudu. You know, the kind of performance in which he plays his character constantly in a drunk way in an attempt to make him look funny. Also his look is far from convincing, with his fake looking beard and big wig. Hello afro! It just isn't the best or most likable character imaginable. When it comes down to French comedy from the early days of cinema ('20' and '30's) this really isn't the best the genre has to offer. For instance you're way better off watching a René Clair movie.

The movie can be seen as a social commentary to the French bourgeoisie and difference between classes. It's this element mostly that makes the movie an interesting watch. No denying that Jean Renoir was a great director who knew how to set up a story and scenes. He also always gets his point across, without having to force too much. Like always, he also in this movie uses some interesting sequences that have deeper meanings to it and the movie is filled with some metaphors.

As you could expect from a Jean Renoir movie, it's also technically a good one. The movie features some interesting camera-shots, which must have also been really original and revolutionary for its time. The editing isn't always too great however.

Not Renoir's best but it's an enjoyable enough little movie.

7/10

Me and My Gal (1932) Directed by Raoul Walsh

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:51 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 21 June 2008)

Raoul Walsh was one of the greatest directors of the '30's and '40s, mainly because of the reason that his movies were always such of a high quality and so entertaining to watch. This is a movie from before the real glory days of Walsh and it seemed like he was still having difficulties with this movie to find its proper style and approach.

The different story lines with the different characters just don't always connect with each other. The movie also takes too long with its story to set up things and introduce its characters. The movie is already a real short one and it wastes too much time with its set up. It doesn't even become fully clear what this movie is truly going to be about until like half an hour before the end.

At first this movie even seems as if its going to be a comedy but not a really funny one though. It then picks a romantic approach and after that it turns more into a thriller/drama. This of course also makes the movie a fairly disjointed one and also works out bad for the movie its story, as well as its style.

It's mostly the last halve hour that still makes this movie a perfectly watchable enough movie. It's also then that the story becomes truly solid and the movie also turns into a more original one to watch. Before that the movie was mostly just being formulaic.

It really isn't Raoul Walsh best movie, also in terms of directing, editing and camera-work. It's a cheap and simple looking movie that lacks in style and a good main clear approach of the story. I can see and understand what Raoul Walsh tried to achieve and tried to blend some of the most successful genres of its time into one movie. It's an approach he much better executed in his later movie "The Strawberry Blond" and I'm sure that there are a couple of more better examples to mention but I haven't seen all Raoul Walsh movies obviously. It's not as if this movie is an horrible attempt and is one bad movie but it nevertheless can't be seen as a successful attempt either.

The movie also features Spencer Tracy in one of his earliest roles. His acting seemed modern for its time and he did a great job in this movie.

A movie that luckily gets better toward its end.

7/10

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) Directed by Mervyn LeRoy

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:05 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 14 May 2008)

What an incredibly great and powerful movie this is about a common man who becomes a victim of the prison system.

It's a social critical movie that's right in the alley with movies from the same period such as "All Quiet on the Western Front" and other pre-code movies that weren't afraid to show the ugly side of society and show its imperfections and flaws.

The movie shows a WW I veteran who wasn't a criminal in the beginning but had to become one after his escape in order to survive, after being wrongly convicted and was forced to serve in a brutal chain gang system. So you can say that prison turned him into a criminal. This especially perfectly shows in the end of the movie, which is quite a legendary and effective ending and certainly something you wouldn't expect from a 1932 movie. I like how this movie subtly picks to social critical approach without ever getting preachy or anything about it.

It's an early '30's movie, so it's not just a movie for a tastes though. Some sequences and style of acting could today be described as being laughable but once your familiar with some different early '30's movies and its style of film-making this obviously shouldn't bother you.

Paul Muni does a great and powerful job with his performance of James Allen. He's not heroic, he's no angel, he just is who he is, which really makes the character such a compelling one. Muni also received an Oscar nomination for his performance in this movie, which was his first and also wouldn't be his last and he would eventually also win one in 1935 for his role in "The Story of Louis Pasteur".

A great powerful movie. And yes, I consider this to be a better prison movie that "The Shawshank Redemption", which always is being considered to be the ultimate prison movie.

9/10

Watch trailer

Trouble in Paradise (1932) Directed by Ernst Lubitsch

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:34 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 5 March 2008)

It's quite a new and refreshing thing for a 1932 that the two main characters are lying thieves, who move around and operate in the higher circles of society. You of course sympathize for them nevertheless because of the very natural and straight-forward approach of the movie and its characters.

It's a subtle little comedy that is mostly fun in its dialog. This approach also makes it obvious that this movie was based on a stage-play. This sort of approach doesn't always translate as well to the big-screen as this movie does.

But what makes the movie mostly effective and such a good watch it its classy directing approach of the movie, by Ernst Lubitsch, which is quite dynamic, especially also for 1932 standards. It features camera-movements as well as at times some real fast editing.

It's a story that moves along pretty fast and pleasantly. The story is nothing too heavy or serious, which insures that the movie is a great pleasant watch. It of course is also all somewhat predictable but this in this particular case doesn't take away any of the enjoyment of the movie.

9/10

Shanghai Express (1932) Directed by Josef von Sternberg

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 2:11 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 5 February 2008)

The movie has an original concept of a story set almost entirely aboard a train. It nevertheless knows to keep things going in a fast pace and to keep things interesting at all times. This is also thanks to the many characters that are pleasant in the movie. The much present light humor in this movie also makes this an entertaining one to watch as well. It's a movie in which there is always something happening.

But no, not everything in this movie works out as it should and it prevents this movie from being a true classic must-see in my opinion. Basically the core of the movie is that Shanghai Lily and Captain Harvey are still madly in love with each after haven't seen each other for years, before meeting again by coincidence on the Shanghai Express. However the love-story is ridiculously unbelievable, since Clive Brook is too wooden in his performance and Marlene Dietrich is too much of a femme fatale.

The movie is further more a good looking one, with especially some nice Oscar winning cinematography. Von Sternberg's movies from the '30's were among the most visionary of the era. It's one of the reasons why he is such a much praised director.

Movies in which Josef von Sternberg is directing Marlene Dietrich are always something above the usual, this movie forms no exception to this. They made quite a few movies together in the '30's. Von Sternberg by the way also directed quite some movies with Asian themes in them. He must have really liked the culture and he also seemed to have been inspired by its politics, much to the annoyance of the Chinese government itself, who wanted to ban this movie globally

A real good movie to watch!

8/10

Love Me Tonight (1932) Directed by Rouben Mamoulian

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 10:38 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 1 January 2008)

This is one incredible charming musical/comedy, from the early '30's. And that coming from a non-musical fan of course says a lot.

It's not a musical with big dance acts, feather costumes, or anything of that sort but just a movie that happens to feature songs in it, which is the sort of musical approach I prefer. The characters would often burst into singing in the middle of the movie, which of course sounds totally ridicules but it's so charming and the songs are so nice that it attributes to what it is that makes this movie so irresistible, joyful and entertaining to watch. This is really not the sort of movie you would expect from the guy who had previously directed "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" before this movie.

Maurice Chevalier didn't had the best signing voice, also of course due to his accent and also especially compared to different genre actors from the same time period. Same goes for most of the actors within this movie. But I sort of like that he isn't perfect in his signing. It seems to fit the movie and its style.

The movie has got some nice cheerful innocent humor in it. The great fun but of course simple written script, contributes to the whole fun feeling and atmosphere of the movie.

The movie doesn't necessarily really has a typical '30's style and more seems ahead of its time. It also makes this movie feel less outdated than most others, especially from the same genre, movies.

The cinematography is really amazing at times. It moves a lot, with pans and also zooms. It makes the cinematography in parts pretty original and innovating for its time. The movie also features some other 'tricks', such as split-screen and slow-motion, among other things. Perhaps this has to do with the Russian origin of director Rouben Mamoulian. His style seems more innovating than most of his fellow Hollywood colleagues from the same time period. It all adds to the atmosphere and unique quality of the movie. It of course also helps that the movie is set in France and Paris. It always has been the best backdrop for these sort of movies. There also was obviously put some effort and money into the sets of the movie.

Some real quality entertainment! This is as good as they can get.

10/10

Watch trailer

Vampyr (1932) Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 3:56 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 15 December 2007)

What an incredible atmosphere this movie has.

But it's a hard to follow movie. It often difficult to see and understand what is happening on the screen. They didn't put an awful lot of effort into the story. It's as if the movie is only trying to be artistic. So yes, it's definitely a case of style over substance but when the style is such a good and beautiful thing, it's rarely ever a real complaint. Also this style really adds to the nightmarish atmosphere of the entire movie. It's a very surreal expressionistic movie! The movie is also based on a novel by Sheridan Le Fanu. An Irish 19th century writer who would often incorporate his own dreams into his stories.

Especially the camera-work is phenomenal. Is it possible Alfred Hitchcock was also influenced by this movie? I noticed lots of similarities in the camera handling between his work and this movie. Just like an Hitchcock movie, this movie features a lot of staircase shots for instance, which is a part of the build up of the eerie suspense in this movie. The camera moves a lot and captures lots of emotions and elements in one and the same shot, often long, shot.

Otherwise, technically it isn't a very impressive movie. Not only the sound but also the images quality is very poor. There are many '20's movies that are better looking than this one. Appearantly this was all done intentionally to add to the movie its nightmarish atmosphere. Also the style of editing feels 'clumsily' old fashioned, as if Carl Theodor Dreyer was trying to bring us back to the '20's, when German expressionistic masterpieces such as "Faust", "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari" and "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" got made. I personally don't mind Carl Theodor Dreyer doing this, but I can also imaging it scaring away a lot of people. Further more the movie also uses lots of shadows, which always was one of the key aspects in '20's silent movies. Carl Theodor Dreyer always had been a director with an own unusual mind. Hench his previous movie "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc", that for most part consisted out of only close-ups of the characters.

A not always easy or accessible- but beautiful movie to watch!

7/10

Watch trailer

Island of Lost Souls (1932) Directed by Erle C. Kenton

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 7:17 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 16 January 2007)

 This is the first movie adaption of the H.G. Wells novel; The Island of Dr. Moreau.

 The movie is great to watch but it by no means is a classic. There are a few elements present in this movie that makes it distinct itself from other genre movies at the time but it still fails to really capture the right mood and atmosphere required for a good horror/fantasy movie.

 The movie its story takes a while to take really form even though the pace is surprisingly high. It does work good for the movie its 'mystery' but it doesn't always keep the movie interesting or likely. Of course it's not a requirement for a movie like this to be 'likely' but some more depth and better story flow and more detailed build up and explaining wouldn't had hurt the movie. Of course it's not that the movie is a bad one to watch now but it's just not a "Frankenstein" or "Dracula", though it really could had been, since in essence the potential was really there, with its story and in its style of film-making of the time period.

 The movie is definitely well made when it comes down to the production values and acting. The movie is good looking, with convincing sets and make-up effects for all the 'creatures'. The movie is not as 'campy' as you perhaps would expect and they did a good job at making the movie look as realistic as possible, without ever really getting ridicules by going over-the-top. The cinematography is absolutely great and provides the movie with a couple of creative looking sequences.

 Strangely enough the movie doesn't feature any music during the actual movie itself. Some of the sequences could had really used some (atmospheric) music, also as a tool to perhaps build up the tension. The movie now is almost like a silent-movie at times! Not quite good enough for 1933 standards.

 The movie is perhaps lacking a bit too much in depth, since the story itself offered so many great themes, about playing God for yourself and loosing yourself in the process of it. The movie fails at ever becoming interesting when it comes down to that subject and other deeper meanings in the story.

 The movie is also definitely uplifted by the performances of the cast. Richard Arlen might not be the best leading man but Charles Laughton on the other hand as Dr. Moreau is perfect. He delivers a great performance and puts down the character with the right sinister/well educated tone. I also liked Arthur Hohl in his role. Bela Lugosi also has a small role in the movie as the Sayer of the Law but I really couldn't understand halve of what he was saying! But his presence alone made a great impression.

 I still surprisingly like the 1977 movie version of the novel best.

 7/10

 Watch trailer

Towed in a Hole (1932) Directed by George Marshall

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 5:03 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 21 December 2006)

 This movie is really a piece of comedy excellence.

 This movie shows what Laurel & Hardy comedies are all about. A simple premise, slapstick moments, that all provides non-stop laughs.
The premise is incredibly simple. Laurel & Hardy have just bought a fishing boat, which they decide to fix- and clean-up. Of course they end up demolishing more than actually fixing or improving things. Stanley cleans the anchor, by scrubbing and wringing it out and Oliver is trying to close down some holes, by doing so he only creates new and more ones. There are of course dozens of jokes you can come up with, with having the concept of the boys fixing an old boat. But they actually managed to come up with some incredibly original and well executed slapstick moments. At one point Stanley even manges to get his head stuck between the mast and a wall, while his leg is sticking out of the porthole. Of course Oliver also manges to get his clothes and face dirty again due to Stanley's stupidity. Some of the sequences and gags go on for a long time but they in this case do never bore or loose any of its comical power.

The humor is perhaps a tad bit more crueler than normally in Laurel & Hardy movies is the case. The movie features a couple of good old fashioned tit for tat routines. The boys looked like they really got hurt at times and things seemed to got to rough in the heat of the moment. Its cruelness does make the movie a bit different from other Laurel & Hardy movies, which also does make it an original one at the same time.

But its moments are really what makes this movie such a great and hilarious one. It's a great example of how a slapstick movie should be like. It's all perfectly thought out, timed and executed in this movie. It makes the movie fun and hilarious to watch from start till finish and it makes this movie definitely one of the better Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts.

9/10

County Hospital (1932) Directed by James Parrott

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:24 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 9 December 2006)

 The premise of the movie might sounds very simple and limited: Oliver is in the hospital recovering from a broken leg and his good old pal Stanley pays him a visit. Stan of course causes some serious and hilarious havoc during his visit. The comical ideas and jokes set in a hospital room, with one of the character lying in bed with his leg up, might sound very limited but its amazing what the boys came up with. With such a simple premise and limited room to move- and resources. In one hilarious sequence they even manage to have Oliver hanging on the ceiling of his hospital room, while the doctor is hanging out of the window, at the same time.

 This movie basically features every visual comical aspect that makes a Laurel & Hardy movie so great. It's amazing, even such a simple thing as Stanley eating a hard boiled egg can work hilarious on the screen, even though very little is actually happening. But the movie also features some typical slapstick humor, as well as some over-the-top comical moments, such as the end driving sequence, that perhaps feels a bit out of place and is too fake looking to truly find it hilarious.

The characters are also great and hilarious. Aside from the boys the movie also features Billy Gilbert as the doctor and William Austin in a fun over-the-top role as Olivers' roommate.

The movie might not feel as fresh or fun as most other Laurel & Hardy shorts. Maybe it's because of the depressing atmosphere of an hospital, perhaps it's because of the limited room, perhaps it's because of the limited input of Oliver Hardy. Whatever the reason is, it is a fact but it however doesn't make this movie any less pleasant or hilarious, just a little bit different but that, in this case, is not a negative thing.

8/10

Their First Mistake (1932) Directed by George Marshall

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:54 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 7 October 2006)

Seems like I am one of the few but I think that this movie is one of the best Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts.

For some reason I find the mishaps of Laurel & Hardy with a little baby very amusing. The boys get themselves into some hilarious silly situations when they decide to adopt a baby to save Oliver's marriage. That way Mrs. Hardy (Mae Busch) would be occupied all day and Mr. Hardy will have more time to spend with his good pal Stanley.

The situations with the little baby are all very original and hilarious as well. There luckily also is room for some good slapstick humor in the movie, which I love so very much about Laurel & Hardy movies. Most of the comical situations in the movie are rather stretched out, especially the ones with Stan Laurel but in this particular case even the stretched out moments in the movie remain funny throughout.

The dialog is well written and forms one of the most funniest aspects of the movie. The movie as a whole is filled with some good and typical Laurel & Hardy situations. Everything combined makes "Their First Mistake" one of the most pleasant and enjoyable Laurel & Hardy shorts.

8/10

Pack Up Your Troubles (1932) Directed by George Marshall, Ray McCarey, Harry Black & Lloyd French

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:19 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 12 September 2006)

Amazing how they did it. This movie features war sequences, the lost of a friend who leaves a young daughter behind. All some serious heavy dramatic stuff but yet the boys manages to make this movie a perfectly entertaining one with some good slapstick humor and comical situations.

The movie at times is a sappy one that goes definitely over-the-top but yet for most part the story and its drama works effective. Stan and Ollie taking care of the young daughter of Eddie and their quest for her grandparents is quite heartwarming. Especially since the boys in this movie have an amazingly good chemistry Jackie Lyn Dufton, who plays the young girl. Especially Stan Laurel has a good chemistry with her. Dufton refers to Stan and Ollie as her uncle's in this movie and that special feeling is brought amazingly effective and believable to the screen.

Yet the movie is also one of their most fun ones, despite the dramatic undertone. The slapstick humor is especially top-class and the boys manage once more to get themselves into some silly and hilarious situations.

The movie its supporting cast is also good. The movie features lots of different actors in a variety of roles. Of course this movie also has the regular Laurel & Hardy actors in it, such as James Finlayson, Charlie Hall and Paulette Goddard. But it's the supporting cast as a whole that delivers a good and impressive performance.

A delightful and well made comedy that also works effective with its more dramatic moments.

8/10

Watch trailer

The Chimp (1932) Directed by James Parrott

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:14 AM / comment : 0 , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 11 September 2006)

It's really difficult to rate this movie. The movie beginning very promising and solid but soon descents to a lower level, due to some improbable moments and dragging humor.

Reason why I still decided to rate this movie a 7 is due to the first halve of the movie which is set in a circus. The humor and slapstick moments in the first halve are extremely well placed and executed by Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Also the presence of James Finlayson as the ringmaster is a reason to consider this movie an above average Laurel & Hardy picture. Finlayson delivers some fine comical lines in this movie and adds to the amusement level of the movie.

The second part of the movie in which the boys have a some mishaps with their chimp (a guy in a monkey-suit) too often gets too ridicules and simple to consider it funny all of the time. The humor is for most part dragging, also because of this very reason. Definitely not Laurel & Hardy finest moment.

The first halve and some other minor things still however make sure that this movie is an above, although slightly, average movie from Laurel & Hardy by director James Parrott, who in the same year also directed the far more classic Laurel & Hardy short movie; "The Music Box".

Entertaining enough but could had been far more classic, if the rest of the movie was just as good and solid as the first halve.

7/10

The Music Box (1932) Directed by James Parrott

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 7:54 AM / comment : 0 , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 6 September 2006)

From start till finish this is a totally hilarious movie to watch. The movie is consistently funny and filled with some very well thought out and executed sequences.

Apparently lots was improvised during the making of this movie and this is notable in a couple of sequences. It makes the humor feel less forced and less predictable as might be the case in most other Laurel & Hardy movies and slapstick movies in particular. That probably is also the reason why persons who normally don't watch or like Laurel & Hardy movies are still highly amused by this excellent piece of work.

This is one of the most consistent Laurel & Hardy movies. The movie is a roller-coaster ride of non-stop hilarity, with some unforgettable and highly amusing sequences.

The premise of the movie is actually very simple. The boys have to deliver a piano to a house. Only problem is, the house is on top of a 131 steps long stair. What happens next of course is totally predictable and the piano of course falls down numerous times but every time it is done in a totally hilarious and original way. Most sequences really made me laugh out loud. But luckily the hilarity does not stop once the boys have finally reached the house. Inside the house they continue their silly antics and of course manage to break basically everything inside of the house.

One of the other things that makes this movie so great are the extras. Normally the bit parts aren't nearly as funny or relevant as the two boys but in this case every character works as a comical one and they uplift the movie to an even higher level of comedy-greatness.

This might not be the most 'perfect' Laurel & Hardy movie, also from its more technical point of view (editing, effects etc.) and yes, it is a simple movie but its hilarity totally compensates for this.

An essential, Oscar-winning, Laurel & Hardy viewing.

9/10

Helpmates (1932) Directed by James Parrott

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 2:13 AM / comment : 0 , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 13 July 2006)

This is one hilarious Laurel & Hardy comedy short.

The story is, as always, deliciously simple. Oliver Hardy just had a wild party in his house the other night. The next morning he hears by telegram that his 'lovely' wife shall return from Chicago were she has been with her mother the last couple of days. Of course the house is a total wreck so in all his panic, Oliver calls his good friend Stanley to help to clean the mess up before Oliver's wife gets home. But of course instead of cleaning up, the boys make an even bigger mess.

This is basically the only joke of the movie; the two boys cleaning the mess up. It provides some absolutely hilarious and well executed slapstick sequences. The slapstick moments are amazingly stupid and unlikely but because of that also extremely hilarious. This movie is really filled with great slapstick moments, so fans of slapstick comedy will be absolutely delighted while watching this movie.

This is how I want a Laurel & Hardy movie to be; simple, stupid and filled with well executed slapstick humor.

9/10

Grand Hotel (1932) Directed by Edmund Goulding

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 9:04 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 2 May 2006)

According to Dr. Otternschlag; People come, people go. Nothing ever happens. The good old doctor couldn't be more wrong. Lots of things are happening in Grand Hotel when several different persons with different motivations check into the hotel.

The movie follows several different characters in the movie who all in a way get connected to each other. All of the characters are in the hotel for different reasons. It makes the characters very powerful and interesting to follow. The movie might not be as old fashioned as it might seem at first sight. The movie might be made in 1932 but the story and its characters sure don't feel old fashioned and the movie doesn't fall into some typical genre clichés. The movie is unique in many ways, which makes this movie a very enjoyable one to watch, even for those who normally don't watch early cinematic pictures.

The movie has a wonderful cast. John Barrymore is good and convincing as the thief with a good heart, Baron Felix von Geigern. Greta Garbo shines as always and so does Joan Crawford, whose performance is perhaps a bit underrated. Lionel Barrymore goes over-the-top at times but at least I could stand him this time. I normally can't stand him in movies but I must admit that he entertained and perhaps somewhat surprised me this time.

Yes, so its really the cast and diversity of characters that makes this movie a greatly interesting one to follow. At moments there is nothing much happening on screen but due to its characters the movie still remains interesting throughout its entire running time. You just never know what's going to happen next in the Grand Hotel.

It's interesting to note that the movie won an Acedemy Award for best movie but it wasn't even nominated in any other different category.

A surprising and entertaining movie that is great thanks to its characters and storytelling, which makes this movie a very good- and interesting one to watch.

8/10

Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top