Before Morning

In answer to a previous reviewer, the opening line is clearly: "Good evening, Albert."

I agree the film is in a very poor state, though it's not surprising nobody bothered to preserve it - the direction, staging, and acting, along with photography and editing are appalling, even for it's age - there were hundreds of decently, and professionally made films at that time - this is not one of them.

I expect it worked better in the more intimate environment of theatre but it's transference to the screen leaves a lot to be desired... Even many silent movies were more exciting than this.

The gaps in the delivery are almost big enough for the 'prompter' to get the words in... :)

So many bad films are being remade of classics these days, you have to ask how anyone could be so stupid. The films that need to be remade are those that have great possibilities, but, for some reason, never fulfilled their promise. The plot of Before Morning is wonderful, with twist after twist. The screen play held my interest, despite the poor direction and acting. I was hoping that other IMDb reviewers would tell me it had been remade. Alas, no. There must be some way to bring Before Morning to the attention of some venturesome producer.

One of the difficulties of the transition from silent to talkies was that not enough actors could successfully make that transition, and even those that did needed time to get the hang of it. That's why so many movies from the early to mid-thirties don't vocalize well. The actors either sound stiff and wooden or else too loud and dramatic, which is the case here.

It came as no surprise that "Before Morning" had been a stage play first, because it's acted as if it's still one, with over-the-top dramatization and lines being spoken as if the folks in the rear balcony have to be heard. Also, the storyline (death, cover-up, blackmail, deception, secret identity, etc.) would work well on stage, but somehow didn't work so well on film.

It was a nice try, though.

"Before Morning" was originally a play and it looks as if they were filming a play when they made this movie. This is NOT a good thing....as the acting is very stagy, there's no incidental music and the pace is glacially slow. It's a shame, as the basic idea of the story isn't bad at all.

An actress is planning on getting married and she tells a male friend about this. The man isn't feeling very good and goes to her bedroom to lie down. Soon, however, she finds the friend is dead and she is worried what the man's wife will think. Nothing happened unseemly, but she's worried about the appearance of impropriety. One of her friends recommends they call a trusted doctor (Leo Carillo). Unfortunately, this plan is not a good one, as the doctor is evil and uses this as an opportunity to shake down the actress as well as the man's wife!

As I said, the idea was interesting...the execution was clunky and dull. I blame the director for this...as the pacing and acting are his responsibility. It also didn't help that the big twist came long before the movie ended and the film kept dragging on and on afterwards.

I agree that the first line is "Good morning, Elvis." There is no doubt about it in my mind.

Louis Jean Heydt's part in the film is interesting, as it was his first motion picture. And he played many parts in movies from 1933 until his death in 1960. There are a few awkward times when his performance in this movie. That is no doubt due to his inexperience.

At the time of Heydt's death, he was appearing in a production of the play There Was a Little Girl, and his co-star opposite was Jane Fonda. He died of a heart attack immediately after the first act of that play, and the performance went on by understudy William Adler.

I love the old movies dating back to this era. Who cares if it moves a little slow at times? There could be a counter-argument made that today's films move much too fast. I also agree with the observation that this one, with its engaging storyline, could be successfully remade today.