Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

audiemurph If you are watching the great Lionel Barrymore, then it is not possible for you to be wasting your time. "Washington Masquerade" can be considered a showcase for Barrymore, and he delivers a wide ranging performance for our entertainment. However, I think the most fascinating way to take in this film is to focus on Barrymore's famously arthritic hands. Like a tic that cannot be controlled, these hands never stop moving, restlessly in continuous motion throughout this film. I do not know if this was a conscious decision on the director's part, but those enormous hands, with their lengthy fingers, keep moving, moving, and moving; now sweeping his hair back, now smoothing out his clothes, now grabbing on to his lapels, now wiping or covering his face and brow, the hands are the true stars of this film.Brother John Barrymore may have been known as The Profile, but Lionel should be known as The Voice, the distinctive pitch and tone Lionel's alone. The final scene, in which he delivers a scorching speech to a committee of Congressmen, may be hokey and dated, but it's still an electric performance by the great one.

SamHardy The most interesting part of this film for me was watching the early work of cinematographer Greg Toland. Years later Toland would photograph Citizen Kane. It is hardly a tour de force of his talents but it does have some of his touches on display. His use of composition in the foreground and background is here. So is his use of semi-deep focus and stark black and white contrasts. Toland was clearly ahead of his time when this was made in 1932. A film as a whole has the look of classic cinema. Very unusual for 1932. The script is very wordy and tends to advance at a snails pace but Toland's interesting compositions kept it moving along for me.Also interesting to me is the way this film foreshadows Mr Smith Goes To Washington. In Mr Smith, a young, naive senator goes to Washington and absolutely refuses to be drawn into a world of corruption. In Washington Masquerade just the opposite happens. The hero succumbs to first sexual and then monetary corruption. In that respect, I found it a more interesting idea than Mr Smith.

Alonzo Church Lionel Barrymore, crusading attorney from the sticks, takes on the bosses of his home state and wins election as Senator. This movie asks the question: "Can an honest man go to Washington and keep his integrity intact?" Since this is the early 30s (and pre Code), the answer to the question manages to be both downbeat and unrealistic. Also, the politics of our hero really is straight Huey P. Long (with a touch of Perry Mason). This makes watching this film at times a touch unpleasant. The railing against bosses and big corporate interests is both shrill and unspecific. But the moral smugness throughout is unmistakable.The interesting thing here is the performance by Lionel Barrymore, which is far better than his norm. The character here feels real, even when he is spouting the populist nonsense of the day. Perhaps Barrymore intends him to seem a bit of a fraud? Lionel even gets a romantic scene with the Washington hostess who is trying to seduce him. (Bigger surprise -- the scene is actually sexy, and Lionel is credible in it.) Watch the film for the surprise Barrymore performance, and also for a sense that there were political films before Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. But not for the rather blah plot.

dugfowlr-1 I happened to catch this film just today on Turner Classics, and expected to see Lionel Barrymore perform his usual job of overacting in this 1932 release. Surprisingly, I thought he was perfectly in character as a reformer elected to the U.S. Senate, finding himself entrapped in what still seems common today of becoming a captive of either ego or the compromising pressures of constantly needing funds for reelection. In this case, being a lonely widower, he was trapped by an ambitious and unfaithful woman who married him and then led him to resign his seat for monetary gain in order to keep her. In the end, he redeems himself before an investigative hearing by being brutally honest about his own failings and that of the system.