Melodia da Broadway

This old musical still works all right as light entertainment, although it's certainly not nearly as spectacular as it apparently seemed to be in its own time. It has likable characters and a story with just enough to keep your attention, which make up for the often creaky pace, bad dialogue, and routine acting. It's also worth watching for Bessie Love, who gives a good performance as an endearing older sister character, which in most places still holds up pretty well.

Because sound movies were still a novelty, it's loaded with singing and dancing numbers that probably seemed impressive to its original audiences. Some of them are still entertaining, while others really just slow things down. For the most part, the script is bad and the acting (aside from Love) is pretty routine, both of which stand out much more now. For example, there is a stretch in the middle of the movie where the characters have essentially the same conversation several times in a row. You still like the characters, but only Love makes hers fully lifelike and sympathetic, at least whenever the weak script gives her any chance to do so. The overall effectiveness of the movie has faded, just as most of today's flashy but empty movies will look dull in 75 years. But at least "Broadway Melody" will probably hold up a little better over time, because it has an innocent energy that most such films today lack.

So, while it is only going to be of interest to those of us who already enjoy older movies, "Broadway Melody" is still decent light entertainment that is mostly pleasant to watch. There are many better films from the era, but if you like old movies and you're looking for something to do for an hour and a half, you could do a lot worse, too.

Anyone who's interested in early talkies will be fascinated by this film. It has all the goofiness you'd expect and a whole lot of charm -- not to mention all the musical numbers brilliantly remade a few decades later in "Singing in the Rain," which presumably takes place in the same studio at the same time. In fact, if you love "Singing in the Rain" and understand the spirit of that film, you'll love this film. This film was made to be a lighthearted extravaganza, and as other commentators have noted, it probably won Best Picture by wowing everyone with its astonishing special effect (they sing! they dance! they speak!). Reminds one of other films that have done the same (the whole boat sinks!). The interplay between the two sisters at the beginning is a little, shall we say, peculiar -- also fascinating. Not for film snobs, but a fun look at the past.

To say the least, watching this movie was an interesting experience. For one thing, "The Broadway Melody" predates the Hayes Code, which placed strong restrictions on what could and could not be seen (or heard) in movies. For example, we see numerous shots of Hank and Queenie in various states of undress, including shots of them in their undergarments as they change clothes, and even one of Queenie in the bathtub(!). No, nothing is revealed, but in 1929, it must have been scandalous to see this.

Another interesting aspect of this film is that, despite the fact that it is a "talkie," title cards like those seen in silent films appear throughout. Apparently, MGM wasn't quite sure how to progress the story of the movie as it switched to different sets.

Another thing I noticed was the similarities between some of the characters' names to those of real people. Specifically, "Jock Warriner" sounds like "Jack Warner" (who was head of Warner Bros. Studios) and "Francis Zanfield" is similar to "Florenz Ziegfeld" (of Ziegfeld Follies fame). It would seem the writers didn't have far to go to create some of these characters.

As for the acting, Bessie Love is the best performer in the film. Her character, Hank (yes, a man's name!), is intelligent, strong-willed, determined, and tough-minded, and she deservedly received an Oscar nomination for her performance in this film.

"The Broadway Melody" is a somewhat dated movie (to echo the sentiment of TV Guide), but it is still worthwhile to watch. The script is a little hokey, but the performances (especially from the women) shine through.

All the negative reviews put me off watching this for years but I thought I'd finally give it a whirl and discovered something instantly engaging and entertaining. It's no GODFATHER but it's certainly not rubbish.

So why are there so many negative reviews? Being so (relatively) well-know makes it an easier target to shoot down. Lesser known and vastly inferior early talkies such as CHARMING SINNERS or FRAMED slip under the radar and escape such vitriol. Being made in 1928 does obviously make it look old-fashioned but that goes with the territory - it's a 1920s musical with 1920s actors, what do expect? I wonder whether its detractors have seen other films from the late twenties other than M and UN CHIEN ANDALOU? This was never meant to be a work of art, it was just fun: entertainment for the masses. Clearly it's not in the same league as the wonderful GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 but it's actually better than GOLD DIGGERS OF 1937!

For maximum popular appeal it used a well trodden story - two sisters both in love with the same man so don't expect anything remotely original. What I wasn't expecting but got was such a strong emotional story. Bessie Love's performance at the climax of the film is genuinely heartbreaking. It's a remarkably sensitive and nuanced performance with an intensity you wouldn't normally get in a light comedy - extremely well acted. It's a happy ending, she's laughing but for us the viewer, we're almost crying. Unlike the Busby Berkeley classics from the time of The Depression, this was made in the optimistic and progressive late twenties. It is therefore really quite upsetting to know that the plans and dreams of these characters are probably not going to find their happy ending.

If you like films from the early thirties you will like this. It's a lot better than most 1920s talkies, it's a lot better than a lot of early thirties movies too. If you're familiar with old films you'll find it almost impossible to believe how well made and well acted this "first ever" talkie is considering the cinematic trash (including 69 copy-cat musicals in 1929 alone!) that was to follow. Considering nobody really had a clue how to make a talking picture at the start of the year the result is amazing. It has a sweet endearing charm about it, it's emotionally engaging, it's got a building tension, it's fun and sad - what more could you want? Obviously the filming is a quite static, the story is cliched and the songs are horrible but overall it's thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining.

I had the chance of watching this amazing movie when I bought the DVD version of The Broadway Melody. Although the restoration of the film wasn't that good, it still brought me to a conclusion that the film itself is a landmark achievement in the invention of a new Hollywood genre: the movie musical.

In the strictest sense of the word musical, however, The Broadway Melody is still at tips. It only contains some three songs blurted out of nowhere by the actors, as well as some orchestral music accompanying the movie as musical score. However, this kind of musical, which is still very much understood to be young in 1929's case, is already a rave not only for audiences but also for the critics.

Also, the technical aspects of the film, although are not outstanding enough to win the modern Best Picture, are very much appreciated in 1929's case. If we watch the movie in 1929's style, we can see that indeed it is a great movie. Long shots of dance sequences, great art and set decoration and of course great costumes would fill your eyes, not mentioning the kind of sporadic editing techniques and bright lighting that this movie utilized. This movie, in 1929's opinion, would really win the Best Picture, hands down.

However, what's more interesting with this movie is that, as a contemporary audience watching it, I am so enthralled at the history it had shown me. Remember, this is the transition to sound. It is much amusing to notice the fact that for the first time in my life, I have seen movie title cards (used for denoting various locations in the film) and that it is obvious that the movie utilized the 16-frames-a- minute hand-cranked camera which was common with the silent films of the 1920s, because of the seemingly fast motion (you'd notice it too)that actors made in the movie. Another thing is the static nature of the cameras in this movie. It is explainable since cameras are enclosed in "iceboxes" or camera rooms that are enclosed so as not to be heard by the then all-hearing microphone, that's why, in 2005's opinion, it did not have an imaginative screenplay. However, at this focal points, I can say that history has been shown in this movie and has added a great deal of weight for it to be considered as Academy Award winner for Most Outstanding Production of 1929.