Nonureva Really Surprised!

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

JohnHowardReid Director: HARRY BEAUMONT. Screenplay: Dorothy Farnum. Based the 1916 play by Clyde Fitch. Photography: David Abel. Film editor: Howard Bretherton. Art directors: Esdras Hartley, Lewis Geib. Assistant director: Frank Strayer. Art titles: V. Vance. Copyright 14 March 1924 by Warner Brothers. New York opening at the Strand: 30 March 1924. 10 reels. 9,900 feet. 128 minutes. COMMENT: This is actually Willard Louis' film. He plays the Prince of Wales with total finesse, whereas Barrymore is forced to play most of his role in whiteface, which doesn't really suit him, despite director Harry Beaumont's willingness to indulge him with countless shots of his "great profile". It's not until the end of the movie that Barrymore gets a chance to really show off his acting skills, whereas Willard Louis plays his princely caricature as if to the manner born. And it's good to see super-lovely Mary Astor who makes both a charming and believable heroine here. The movie is fortunately available on a superb 10/10 DVD from Warner Archive, as well as a totally unwatchable Televista pressing. A pity all Warner Archive offerings don't always come up to this same impeccable standard. Across to Singapore (1928), for example, would rate only 6/10 in my book due to extensive nitrate decomposition.

Michael_Elliott Beau Brummel (1924)*** (out of 4)Warner wanted to make a name for themselves so they went all out with this lavish production that features a terrific performance from John Barrymore. He plays the title character, a poor man who has the woman (Mary Astor) he loves taken away from him because of his low standing in society. Heart-broken, Beau sets out to use his charm and wit to get back at the society who ruined his life. Have you ever watched a big-budget movie and wonder where all the money went to as it's obviously not showing on screen? Well, that's certainly not the case here as one can't help but be impressed with the magnitude of this film. The sets, costumes and production values are all extremely high and this helps keep the film moving even when the story isn't doing much. I think the biggest flaw with the movie is its 128-minute running time, which leads to some dead space here and there. The story itself isn't all that ground-breaking even for this era so I'm guessing the main reason for the longer running time was just to give the film a more "epic" feel. With that said, this is still a very impressive movie. As I said earlier, the massive sets are extremely impressive and one can't help but get caught up in their sheer beauty. The images of the costumes alone makes one really focus in. Just take a look at a sequence towards the end when a large number of soldiers are marching. One does wonder what all these extras in these lavish costumes cost the studio. Those familiar with Astor are probably more aware of her sound films so seeing her here, at 18-years-old, was a pretty big eye-opener just because I wasn't use to see her look so young. She is pretty good in the role and handles working next to Barrymore and never gets tramped by him. Willard Louis is extremely good as the Prince of Wales who is the one Beau really goes after in the film. Carmel Myers, Richard Tucker and William Humphrey turn in fine work as well. Alec B. Francis plays the long-time servant and is wonderful. As for Barrymore, he's pure magic here. A lot of people are going to call the performance hammy or stage-bound, which might be fair but from all the movies I've seen of his this one here gave the closest feel of what it might have been like watching him on the stage. He really nails every inch of this character whether it's the poor boy at the start, the rich jerk or the eventual fallen and broken man. Barrymore is clearly having a great time playing all of these different styles and he's especially effective in the final scenes, which I won't spoil. The scene can be called melodrama but it's melodrama at its highest peak thanks to Barrymore. He alone makes this film worth checking out.

calvinnme This film is a great showcase for John Barrymore's talents. He gets to play the spurned romantic, the comic rogue who is always laughing at everyone else, the beaten man in decline still hanging on to his dignity, and finally an insane aged man completely unaware of reality.Brummel starts out as a young man in love with Lady Margery (Mary Astor). The feeling is mutual, but Margery's mother is ambitious and insists that Margery marry the wealthy Lord Alvanley. She considers Brummel not good enough for her daughter. To soothe his grief, Brummel plunges down the path of a self-destructive and hedonistic lifestyle, indulging in the finest food, drink, clothing, and women, but nothing can kill the sting of his losing Lady Margery. Alec B. Francis, as Brummel's gentleman's gentleman Mortimer, actually has a role equal in importance to Mary Astor's role, and he shines in it. Early in the film Mortimer corrects a visitor when he refers to Brummel as his master. Instead, Brummel is his life. He stays with Brummel when he can no longer pay him, and even after he is wrongfully discharged and he returns to England, he continues to send money for Brummel's upkeep. This is a long film for a silent at over two hours in length, but it doesn't drag at all.Let me just say whether or not you enjoy this film may depend on what version you watch. There are a lot of low-priced public domain knock-offs of this film that are in really bad shape. The Warner Archive version has the score written by one of the winner's of Turner Classic Movies' Young Composer contests and, although not restored, is in pretty good shape. That is the version I would recommend.

theowinthrop This was a special treat tonight on the Turner Classic Films Channel as they were honoring John Barrymore. Barrymore appeared in this 1924 silent film, which has only just gotten a complete score for the first time since it was released (the score was quite good - ironically a British version of the Fitch play had a complete score that only one piece, a very sturdy little minuet, survives - but it would have been good too, as it was by Sir Edward Elgar). The play by Fitch is rarely shown today (as I have mentioned elsewhere on this board, Fitch is a little old fashioned by some standards but his plays do pick up life when performed). This play was commissioned by the reigning stage star of the 1890s in America, Richard Mansfield. Best remembered for his transformation part of DR. JECKYL AND MR. HYDE in 1887, Mansfield would eventually help speed the modernization of drama by championing the early plays of George Bernard Shaw (who rewrote THE DEVIL'S DISCIPLE for him). Mansfield died in 1909, and the film producers needed the permission of his wife to produce this filmed version. The effect of Mansfield on this production must be immense. Stills of his costumes for Brummel still exist, and match the costumes worn by Barrymore (who may have seen the older actor in the role in the 1890s).The plot follows how Brummel, a young army Captain, loved Margery (Mary Astor), who was forced to marry Col. Lord Alvanley (William Humphrey). Made cynical by the way he was forced to drop his competition for the woman who loved him, Brummel decides to pay back society by purposely poking fun at it's leaders as a social butterfly. By chance and nerve he becomes a favorite of George, Prince of Wales, getting him out of a ticklish situation with the wife of a tavern owner. He leaves the army and becomes the Prince's closest friend and confidante. This leads to Brummel actually being useful - with the fashion conscious (if grossly overweight) Prince, they modify the costumes and dress of the society, encouraging top hats, cravats, frock coats, and pants and doing away with wigs. But Brummel becomes more and more cynical in his treatment of the Prince, and eventually they reach a parting of the ways when Brummel seems to be romancing George's sister-in-law Frederica, Duchess of York (Irene Rich), and then when Margery returns and the Prince falls for her. Further divisions are heightened by enemies that Brummel made including discarded lover Lady Hester Stanhope (Carmel Myers). In the end, deserted by George and other friends, Brummel flees his creditors and ends in Calais, where he goes broke slowly, and eventually loses his mind.The 1954 Granger film followed a similar trajectory, with one or two major errors that weaken it in comparison. Fitch concentrated his play as a character study of a fascinating flawed man, in a losing game with the social order of his day. The 1954 film suggested that Brummel was politically a liberal, who could have influenced George to be a Whig in his politics (which was not possible actually - George toyed with Whigs like Charles Fox to annoy his father George III, but was a total reactionary who made George III look wimpy in comparison). In this film the Duchess of York suggests that Brummel should not be a court jester as he is, but should be a leader. Barrymore shakes his head - he has no such desires. That is more in line with the real Brummel.The other major error (in line with a politicized Brummel) was that the 1954 film showed the odd situation in England in the period from 1807 to 1820 when George III went mad for the last (and permanent) time, and the Prince of Wales was made Prince Regent (in 1811) - which was de facto King of England while George III was alive and crazy. Robert Morley played George III in the 1954 film, at one point nearly killing the Prince of Wales (Peter Ustinov). This is not in the 1924 film. Instead the story concentrates on the rise and fall of Brummel.Barrymore does well in silent acting. Perhaps the director, Henry Beaumont, made too many shots of Barrymore's great profile, but that was to be expected. He manages to show the actor in him, especially in scenes with his three leading ladies (especially the 18 year old Astor and Ms Rich). His aging and insanity sequences are also good - look at the scene where he has just fired his last loyal servant (who had the temerity to beg forgiveness for him from the new King George IV) and now has to serve himself dinner. He's never done it, and the look of dismay on his face is priceless. His aged madman, at the conclusion of the film, is also remarkable - getting so much out of the use of his eyes.Definitely a superior version of the film to the Granger version, even if the latter was in color and with sound.