ada
the leading man is my tpye
Grimossfer
Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%
Syl
Long before he became known for the master of horror, Sir Alfred Hitchcock did all kinds of films including this silent comedy starring Betty Balfour as a rich heiress who defies her father. This film is much lighter in tone than his others. Hitchcock dabbled in everything in film. Most of his early work is always worth viewing for study and entertainment. Balfour is the perfect leading lady. She is blonde, beautiful, and vivacious in her role here. This silent is different because the music are classical especially Ravel's Bolero. I knew this film was different by the music. Until I heard Ravel's Bolero, I wasn't sure. Once I heard Bolero, I knew the music was both familiar and classical to the audience. Unlike his other silent films, this film is much shorter and a little over an hour for viewing but the worth it.
TheLittleSongbird
It is a shame because when it comes to my personal favourite directors Alfred Hitchcock is #1. He has had some disappointments, but most of his films range from very good to masterpiece and even his weakest films are far from irredeemable. Along with Juno and the Paycock, Number 17 and Jamaica Inn, Champagne is one of his lesser films. There is definitely some interest value, the music is wonderful, the sets are attractive, Betty Balfour is very charming and quirky, the scene with the drunk is very funny and especially good is the camera work which is very inspired and still looks good. Particularly good is the shot from the glass, a sign of Hitchock's visual mastery coming through early. The club scene was a mixed bag, it looks stunning but just drags on forever. Hitchcock doesn't direct incompetently, there are moments but there was the sense that he wasn't very interested in the project and that he wasn't in his comfort zone, not enough of his style came through. Apart from Balfour, the acting is very theatrical particularly from Gordon Harker, while to call Jean Bardin bland is an insult to the word bland. There isn't a single character to root for, they are not very likable, being over-theatrical and airhead-like, and it is the case of being underwritten and overacted. The script didn't come across as that funny, consisting of silly and sometimes drawn-out situations and little of it genuinely sparkles, some of it even comes across as dated. There have definitely been worse special effects but they were inconsistent in quality, some are okay others were hokey. But the story was the biggest let-down, it was tediously paced and there was nowhere near enough to sustain the length(maybe the reason for why a few scenes felt dragged out, to fill in what little there is of the story). In short it just wasn't memorable, to sum it up in one world it would be dispensable. Overall, not completely flat but lacks sparkle outside of the visuals, music and Balfour's performance. Well, the twist ending was nice but came too late to make us properly care. 4/10 Bethany Cox
MartinHafer
The film begins with a flighty and spoiled rich lady crashing her plane near a cruise ship. You soon learn that it was NOT an accident--she just missed the ship and thought nothing of destroying an expensive plane to make it to the ship where her fiancé is waiting. They are planning to elope but her father is furious--especially since it all seems like a fun adventure to the daughter instead of serious business. So, to teach her a lesson, the father tells her that he is broke and she'll have to support herself. Well, considering the type person she is, this seems like a great plan (too bad Paris Hilton's parents never saw this film) and the wedding plans soon fizzle.Next they show the formerly rich girl trying to behave like a normal lady--cooking and taking care of her now "poor" father. So, feeling desperate to help support herself and Dad, she applies for work on a cruise ship. Oddly, she really never seems to actually do that much working once on board. However, what does happen is that a wolf gets a hold of her and things look bad--leading to a cute surprise ending.All in all, a very entertaining film and something that might surprise some Hitchcock fans, as it's nothing like his later films. A decent silent light comedy that's worth a look because of its story and high watchability.
Michael_Elliott
Champagne (1928) ** 1/2 (out of 4) A millionaire father (Gordon Harker) is tired of his daughter Betty (Betty Balfour) not following his wishes in which men she hangs around. To teach her a lesson the father tells her that he has lost all his money and they are now broke. Soon the two move into a shack where Betty must try to keep them alive and moving on. There's some nice stuff here but overall it's another mediocre film for the young Hitchcock. What really bothered me here isn't the silly and short story but how it's handled. We watch a movie where Betty is completely out of control yet at the drop of a dime she stops this behavior and turns into a responsible person. I know that's the point of the story but after she learns that they are now poor, not once is she upset about it nor is there any transition period for her character to develop. Instead she just goes from party animal to responsible person. The movie, for the most part, is a comedy and there aren't enough laughs to keep it moving at a better pace. What does work is the performance by Harker who easily steals the show. Balfour isn't nearly as good and I'm guessing Hitch had a thing for her because her acting talent really didn't make one want to keep watching her. Hitchcock handles the material a lot better than I figured he would and we get some of his favorite early techniques like the point of view shots as well as another nice one at the end with a champagne glass.
