Interesting film. It's 1929, "talkies" are very new, so the stilted acting is understandable, but as this is the first time I've seen a Louise Brooks film, i can see the appeal she had for audiences.
_I overdid my reply:_ True, but remember that a chunk of what we see as acting in movies is due to the editing (which back then was cutting and pasting strips of celluloid!), at least for scenes with cuts between shots. And I think the directing had some impact: I can't imagine any other explanation for the stuttering door man or house man (I mean, I wouldn't expect that to be the actor's choice, but I haven't read the book). And @HipPocketMemories, in reply to another comment, says this movie was shot silent in 1928, then they reshot some scenes with sound and dubbed the rest (w/o Louise Brooks), before releasing it in 1929. Still, I'd say Powell does a decent job, and the Canary (Brooks) and her character's husband I think were giving 1920s audiences what they expected to see. The worst for me is the writing: ◆ the imbecile son who was "forced" to steal, and then writes a letter admitting to that ◆ the father not accepting that letter when offered ◆ the poker game in the DAs office is very poorly contrived On the other hand, S.S. Van Dine's Philo Vance books were quite popular back then, and I expect most of the bad plotting/writing is his (he's credited as "novel / story and dialogue" in IMDB), so I guess they went with a working formula. And the idiot detective sergeant (Pallette) I understand is there for comic relief, and I suppose that had to be played broadly.
No she didn't. This was filmed as a silent in 1928. Paramount then reshot some of it with talking scenes before it was released in 1929. By then Brooks was in Europe and she refused to return for these reshoots so her voice was re-dubbed by another actress.
Is nobody bothered by the second victim being outed at the poker table? He died because of Vance's 'psychological study'. Just because he was a prison escapee doesn't make it OK.
That whole "friendly poker game with suspects in the DA's office" scene stank (as a plot device). But remember he outed himself by blackmailing the murderer. Even today, I don't think audiences ever have sympathy for blackmailers, and back then, even before the Hayes Code, it was semi-scandalous (at least in some parts) for criminals (or wanton women) to get away without punishment.
Talk about racist stereotypes. Those characterizations of the building staff is absolutely repulsive. Just because the film was made nearly 100 years ago doesn't make it any less so.
Louise Brooks' voice was dubbed by another actress. Brooks' Paramount career and really her Hollywood career as a whole ended with this film. After Brooks' contract with Paramount expired and was not renewed due to her demands for a higher salary and her at times temperamental behavior she felt no obligation to return to the USA from Germany for retakes despite Paramount's demands. Upon her return she was blacklisted from Hollywood and never made a major motion picture nor was a star ever again.
I'm grateful you include closed captions as my hearing is poor. This is a great classic movie!
DITTO REDUCED HEARING AND TINNITIS.
I'm an absolute sucker for movies of this period. Love the look of them, the cars, clothes.the language. A different world 2:27
This is a really sharp copy! I've seen this movie before, but it was very grainy and hard to see sometimes. Great digital clean-up! 👍
Thank you for sharing great old classics.
Always good to watch a William Powell movie , one more time .🥰Good cast . 👍
Best print I've seen seen so far. William Powell great, as usual.
This is one of my old favorites. Thank you for showing it!😊
Thank you, I adore William Powell
Interesting film. It's 1929, "talkies" are very new, so the stilted acting is understandable, but as this is the first time I've seen a Louise Brooks film, i can see the appeal she had for audiences.
"Pandora's Box" is her best.
For an early talkie, William Powell had a fine command and showed natural nuances of expression.
I read it was shot as a silent movie in 1928 and then sound dubbed in later.
nice print, thank you
Great a copy you can watch. Well done
The acting sucks SUPER bad, however, the quality of this print MORE than makes up for it - a great pleasure to watch!
Indeed the acting is wooden but that’s part of the movie’s charm
_I overdid my reply:_
True, but remember that a chunk of what we see as acting in movies is due to the editing (which back then was cutting and pasting strips of celluloid!), at least for scenes with cuts between shots.
And I think the directing had some impact: I can't imagine any other explanation for the stuttering door man or house man (I mean, I wouldn't expect that to be the actor's choice, but I haven't read the book).
And @HipPocketMemories, in reply to another comment, says this movie was shot silent in 1928, then they reshot some scenes with sound and dubbed the rest (w/o Louise Brooks), before releasing it in 1929.
Still, I'd say Powell does a decent job, and the Canary (Brooks) and her character's husband I think were giving 1920s audiences what they expected to see.
The worst for me is the writing:
◆ the imbecile son who was "forced" to steal, and then writes a letter admitting to that
◆ the father not accepting that letter when offered
◆ the poker game in the DAs office is very poorly contrived
On the other hand, S.S. Van Dine's Philo Vance books were quite popular back then, and I expect most of the bad plotting/writing is his (he's credited as "novel / story and dialogue" in IMDB), so I guess they went with a working formula.
And the idiot detective sergeant (Pallette) I understand is there for comic relief, and I suppose that had to be played broadly.
Fabulous old movie ❤
Louise Brooks - whoooa!!!!
Ned Sparks! He's great. Everyone is wonderful in this movie.
Did Brooks actually speak her lines in this? She's hardly ever facing the camera when talking.
No she didn't. This was filmed as a silent in 1928. Paramount then reshot some of it with talking scenes before it was released in 1929. By then Brooks was in Europe and she refused to return for these reshoots so her voice was re-dubbed by another actress.
Louise Brooks!
❤Louise Brooks,this was not her voice though.
When actors were like gods....
It was filed in 1928!
😤Terrible portrayal of blacks! SMH! 😡 Otherwise, the movie would have been okay. 🙄 William Powell is always excellent.
I’m a big fan of Louise
Is nobody bothered by the second victim being outed at the poker table? He died because of Vance's 'psychological study'. Just because he was a prison escapee doesn't make it OK.
That whole "friendly poker game with suspects in the DA's office" scene stank (as a plot device).
But remember he outed himself by blackmailing the murderer.
Even today, I don't think audiences ever have sympathy for blackmailers, and back then, even before the Hayes Code, it was semi-scandalous (at least in some parts) for criminals (or wanton women) to get away without punishment.
Talk about racist stereotypes. Those characterizations of the building staff is absolutely repulsive. Just because the film was made nearly 100 years ago doesn't make it any less so.
What garbage
Yes,trolls are garbage.
Louise Brooks' voice was dubbed by another actress. Brooks' Paramount career and really her Hollywood career as a whole ended with this film. After Brooks' contract with Paramount expired and was not renewed due to her demands for a higher salary and her at times temperamental behavior she felt no obligation to return to the USA from Germany for retakes despite Paramount's demands. Upon her return she was blacklisted from Hollywood and never made a major motion picture nor was a star ever again.