Q: I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful.

I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).

Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...
A: negative
Q: Though the story is essentially routine, and the "surprise" ending is nothing but a bad joke on the audience, you can see what attracted these good actors to the project - it offers them the kind of roles in which good actors can shine, and shine they do. The film is impeccably made - for its time. It was remade in 2000 as "Under Suspicion" and if you only want to see one version of the story (that's all it deserves, really), I recommend the latter one, with Hopkins' up-to-date direction and the more explicit references to plot points that the original could only hint at. The ending, however, still blows. (**1/2)
A: positive
Q: Nay Sayers of this film are likely bitter from some seriously unrequited love. This is a great film for anyone capable of understanding Johnny Mathis's song, or any song from that era: Bobby Darin's, Beyond the Sea... or Stan Getz's, The Girl From Ipanema, et al...

I measure films by how many times I have to watch them before I'm satisfied... Chances Are had me back a few good times.

I also watch the synergy between the cast... I thought they worked well together.

Open your heart, and let the comedic magic of film transport you.

'Alan
A: positive
Q: Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.

Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.

The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiance can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.

Finally, the character of the fiance's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.

There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating.
A: negative