StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

writers_reign It's both impossible and unrealistic to write about this movie - now eighty-seven years old - on anything other than its own terms. One can only try to imagine how lavish it must have appeared to those first audiences, and what is almost unwatchable today - John Boles, for example, is beyond embarrassing in his pathetic rendition of It Happened In Monterrey, which sounds as if he recorded it to a spinet accompaniment, whereas the Sinatra version, itself sixty-one years old, sounds as if it was recorded last week. They also 'lifted' a Peter Arno cartoon from The New Yorker - the one where a couple in a precinct house, the man carrying an automobile seat, ask about reporting a stolen car; for the record this was the freshest sketch on display. Elsewhere we get an early glimpse of Bing Crosby, still one third of the Rhythm Boys, and a reprise of Rhapsody In Blue. It has a certain merit as a time-capsule but that's about it.

MartinHafer Back in the day, Paul Whiteman and his orchestra were big...almost Elvis big. Today, practically no one has heard of the guy though one of his band's soloists, Bing Crosby, went on to super-stardom. But you can tell Whiteman and his band was quite the powerhouse when you see this 1930 film and put it in perspective compared to other Hollywood films from the same year. First, very, very few films had any color in them in 1930 and when they did have Two-Color Technicolor, it was used for only a few minutes at a time--such as for big production numbers. Yet, amazingly, this film is in Two- Color Technicolor for the entire movie--a very, very expensive proposition! Second, the sets and costumes are incredibly lavish and look amazing. The bridal-style dresses in one of the numbers is just eye-popping! Third, the cinematography and sound are state of the art. Watching the tiny people climbing out of the handbag is STILL a technically amazing scene...and for 1930 it's really astonishing. As far as the story goes, there is none. The film consists of one production number after another as well as a few comedy sketches and animations. This isn't a complaint...but it also makes it one of the most unusual films of all time. It's not really a musical in a traditional sense--more a record of a bygone era and acts. Some of the skits or musical numbers are pretty dated and haven't aged too well, some are still impressive. In many ways, this film is more something for film historians than the average viewer. Fortunately, the National Film Preservation Board recognized this as well and a pristine (or at least as close to pristine as possible) copy is being held by them for posterity. Well worth seeing and really NOT a film I could easily score. It's a wonderful artifact but might be tough viewing for some viewers.

tedg Gosh, what an amazing artifact!I understand the context was a wild rush by all the powerful studios to make lavish song and dance movies, and this was Universal's. It differs from the others in the way it exploits cinematic tricks. Its why it flopped, they say. And its why it is such an interesting historical document.Superficially, it is 100 minutes of non-stop vaudeville show, often with the stage explicitly noted. This sort of entertainment was what the studios thought was safe, but as they went to extremes in all the ordinary ways, they went to extremes in converting the show to cinematic form.So we have magical appearances, superpositions, games with size. We have the show referenced as a giant book on stage. We have the band-leader played with. Now normally there is a folding where you have some sort of a skit or story about the band, and another level of show which the band supports. The first episode in this has the band-leader as a cartoon character, in Africa "earning" his crown as king of jazz. It has to be Africa, you see.We have the cinematic tricks echoed in much of the humor, which depends on misdirection and disguise. You can see that many numbers don't fit the overall scheme, because they must have been simply developed independently and inserted. But the big numbers still use camera tricks. I suppose the reason it failed was because it was "too experimental" for the ordinary audience.I'm having some dealings with Hollywood deciders at the moment, and get frustrated when they want to define the mass viewer as unwilling to advance even a little. This film should be watched if only to see what was too cinematic to swallow.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

tramette89 When I first saw this film, I was amazed at some parts and extremely disappointed at others. To be sure, the comedy acts are absolutely abysmal. (Audiences in 1930 didn't find them any funnier than audiences today, so don't feel too bad about hating them.) Also, a lot of the vocalists are grating and painful to listen to. Of course, the parts where the film really shines are the parts that feature the magnificent Paul Whiteman orchestra. This band has been unfairly maligned because although Paul Whiteman was titled "The King of Jazz", his orchestra was not a jazz band per se. But man, were they ever good musicians! Just get a load of the "Meet the Boys" segment towards the beginning...Harry Goldfield doing his best Henry Busse impersonation, Joe Venuti and Eddie Lang playing "Wildcat" in one of their few film appearances, the entire violin section playing a lovely rendition of Caprice Viennois, Chester Hazlett and Roy Bargy doing a pretty rendition of Nola, followed by Wilbur Hall's trombone virtuosity display on the same number. (And let's not forget little Mike Pingitore on "Linger Awhile"!)Oh yes, and did I mention it has Bing Crosby's first appearance in a feature film? He's with the Rhythm Boys, and man, those guys are HOT! Just get a load of them on "Happy Feet". And check out eccentric dancer Al Norman if you want to see something really crazy.Last but not least, I would like to mention Wilbur Hall's wonderful trick violin act, and, might I add, the most unique rendition of a Sousa march you'll ever hear in your lifetime. (You haven't heard "The Stars and Stripes Forever" until you've heard it on a bicycle pump!)Go get yourself a copy and have fun!