IN: Review: It seems that several of the people who have reviewed this movie only watched it in the first place because it was filmed near where they live. How's that for a ringing endorsement? If this movie was filmed near where I lived I wouldn't be mentioning it in my review. It is horrid! Several reviews state that this film is a spoof or tongue-in-cheek horror movie, it is neither. It is sad to see this film reviewed as a comedy as that makes it not only a bad attempt at a horror film but as a comedy as well. I did laugh though, at how unbelievably bad the film was.

This movie has 2 good things going for it, the mask and the weapon of choice, unfortunately it would have been more interesting watching an hour and a half of the mask and weapon laying on a table then watching this garbage. The social commentary behind the film is also laughable, juvenile and stupid. Don't bother with this movie, you've already wasted time reading this review don't waste anymore on this movie. Arrggghhh! It's infuriating that movies like this even get made. I was expecting the entire cast a crew to be credited to Alan Smithee, a name used when a person, usually a director, doesn't want to be credited with a movie because it's so bad.

There is nothing redeeming in this movie, I spent $1.19 on the rental and feel I was ripped off. Avoid. 1 out of 10
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.

The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.

The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Released just before the Production Code crackdown in July, 1934, Mitch Leisen's all-star Paramount musical is leeringly suggestive -some even claim misogynistic- and highly entertaining. Two murders occur on the opening night of "Earl Carroll's Vanities" (one on-stage!), but that doesn't stop the manager (Jack Oakie) from putting on a show as a lascivious police detective (Victor McLaglen) investigates. Everyone is hiding something and Gypsy Rose Lee must have seen this backstage murder mystery before she penned "The G-String Murders" as the denouement is similar (although more satisfying here). Gertrude Michael, as a vicious diva, stops the show (in more ways than one) with her exotic "Sweet Marijuana" number and Duke Ellington finishes with the truncated "Rape Of The Rhapsody". The hit song, "Cocktails For Two", came from this film. A bizarre and bawdy camp classic highly recommended! Here's Louella O. Parsons in the "Los Angeles Examiner" on May 17, 1934

Earl Carroll's hand-picked beauties' pirouette about on the Grauman United Artists screen in a fig leaf and not much else. But September Morn herself never had a better figure than these charmers, who are made up to please the eye, especially the eye of the tired businessman. But don't for a moment think Mr. Carroll's girls, au naturelle, are the only attraction. Believe it or not, MURDER AT THE VANITIES is a musical comedy thriller, if you know what I mean -a murder mystery incorporated in a musical show. It all happens on the opening night at the time the play is in progress and a search is on for a murderer. Just by way of suspense, a cop threatens to stop the show every few minutes. Victor McLaglen is something new in cops. All the time he is trying to track down the murderer, he keeps his eye fastened on the chorus beauties. The murder mystery is good with the exception of the denouement, which is pretty flat. Probably faulty direction. Dorothy Stickney, who plays the maid, is about as melodramatic as the heroine in a ten, twenty, and thirty show. For no good reason, she rates a never-ending closeup in the big dramatic scene. The girl ensembles are good, and it's a positive relief to get away from the inevitable overhead shots. The costumes are beautiful; in fact, this is a musical that Paramount can feel is really to their credit. As for Carl Brisson -well, he would be an addition to any show. Good-looking with a delightful singing voice and an easy, assured manner, he is all his press agents claim for him. I also like Kitty Carlisle, who plays the leading lady in the show. Gertrude Michael, as the deep-eyed villianess, gives an interesting if rather fictional portrayal. Jack Oakie, as the stage manager, is the same old wisecracking Jack, but we wouldn't change him. Jessie Ralph is excellent as the seamstress. Others in the cast are Charles Middleton, Gail Patrick, Donald Meek, Barbara Fritchie, Toby Wing and Lona Andre. The screen play is by Carey Wilson and Rufus King, and the direction by Mitchell Leisen. The music is by Arthur Johnstone and the lyrics by Sam Coslow. In addition to MURDER AT THE VANITIES, there is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Paramount Newsreel, and a two-reeler, THE WRONG DIRECTION.

I disagree with Lolly on the denouement, it's satisfying if over-the-top. Why would she blame the director? Was she displeased with the story's ending -or the way it was staged? And what's a "ten, twenty, or thirty show"? Note the swipe taken at Busby Berkeley and his "overhead shots". As hard as it may be to believe today, the public was tiring of Buzz' schtick by May, 1934. Mitch Leisen said, "if you are showing a stage show that's supposed to be in a theater, you should stay within the bounds of the proscenium arch, and not do a Buzz Berkeley routine with a stage set that's acres big."

Q: Don't you think Berkeley's spectacular effects justified taking this liberty? ML: Apparently they did because they're reviving all of his pictures and none of mine, but personally I don't like it.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive