La combine

Somewhat interesting curio from the early sound days, about a naive boxing champ who falls for a flashy "flapper" just before the big championship fight, not knowing that she's a gangster's moll setting him up to throw the fight so her real boyfriend can make a fortune betting against him. As another reviewer has mentioned, this film is actually in much better shape than a lot of surviving films from that era, which makes it not quite as frustrating to watch (no hisses on the soundtrack, no irritating jump cuts because footage is missing, no tinny sound, etc.) as many of its contemporaries. The script--co-written by the legendary George Abbott, who came a cropper on this one--is simplistic to the point of laugh-inducing, the acting by all involved leaves a lot to be desired, the camera-work is of the "bolt-the-camera-to-the-floor- and-crank-away" school. Director Mal St. Clair was much more at home turning out the light comedies at which he excelled and shows none of the flair and sense of humor he was noted for. Actors step on each others' lines, there are awkward pauses where, apparently, actors missed their cues and a few other technical shortcomings and gaffes, but it's still worth a watch just for its historical value. Another thing it's worth watching for is a minor actress named Marie Astaire, who has a small part as Florence, one of the "wild" girls in the party scene that takes place the night before the big fight. She's beautiful, sexy and makes more of an impression than the two female leads. She didn't have much of a career (her IMDb page lists 24 roles, most uncredited) and I have no idea if she's related to the famed Fred Astaire (her IMDb page makes no mention of it), but she's worth paying attention to, as is the famous Broadway star Ann Pennington, who makes an appearance at the party scene and does a very racy dance that shows off her spectacular legs, which is something else she was famous for.

Overall this film actually has more minuses than pluses, but it's still worth a watch. You could do worse.

Please understand that my score of 7 is based on when it was made. Had this film appeared just a few years later, I would not have been as charitable. It's just that for an early silent is IS pretty good.

There were several reviews that complained about the sound, but actually compared to so many films from 1929, this was was excellent and the acting was actually pretty good. First, you could actually hear them talking without much straining--and this CAN'T be said of films like COQUETTE (also 1929). Second, while there isn't the incidental music, this is true of just about every film in 1929. Also, while a few of the actors were dreadful (particularly "the champ"), the film was far less static than most of the early sound era. The characters in some films made at that time stood almost wood-like and shouted up towards the microphones--this one never is that bad. Had you not known how bad most 1929 and even 1930 films were, then I could see you complaining about the sound. Believe me, though, the sound in this is excellent.

As for the film itself, many will find themselves laughing at the plot--after all, just about every boxing film cliché is present. However, please understand that most of the films featuring these clichés borrowed them from NIGHT PARADE. When it appeared in 1929, the clichés weren't yet clichés and this style of sports film was the rage. Today, though, it will seem pretty old fashioned and predictable.

If I would rate this film for historical purposes, it deserves an 8. If I write it for watchability today, then it probably deserves a 5. While predictable, there still was some charm and I liked the locker room fight scene with Pops. However, I will admit that as a true cinephile and lover of silents and early talkies, I am a bit biased and tend to overlook many of the problems with these transitional films. To see more technically competent films, you really won't see too many until 1931 or 1932. Heck, in Europe and Japan they were STILL making silents until the early to mid-30s.

Night Parade (1929)

** (out of 4)

A boxer (Hugh Trevor), too stupid for his own good, falls for a girl (Ailen Pringle) weeks before a big fight not knowing she's connected to a racketeer (Robert Ellis). The night before the big fight the racketeer convinces the boxer to throw the fight in order to get a big pay out but will he go through with it? This early talkie from RKO is just like a lot of early talkies and that means a lot of static film-making. The movie appears like it was shot in 1910 because the camera never moves. The camera sits in one place during each scene and only slightly moves for what reasons I'm really not sure because it's certainly not moving for a close up or anything like that. The performances are also very weird and at times some of the characters appear like they're speaking in slow motion so that the camera can pick up what they're saying. On a technical side this thing is pretty ugly but it remains mildly interesting due to its story, which is pretty good, although predictable. There's nothing too overly special about this film and I'm sure most will find it boring so it's only real interest is to those who like seeing these early sound films.

... and that's why I'd recommend you skip it, even if you're an early sound film buff, as I am. Neither the script nor the acting are particularly bad for an early talkie, it's just that everything and everyone in this paint-by-numbers film about the boxing world is so completely conventional and forgettable. Bad films I'd recommend from the early sound era would be "Golden Dawn" or "Lights of New York" because they are so horrid in places that they wind up being fun for the early talkie fan.

There are, however, a few interesting facts involving this early talkie film:

1. There is no parade in this film, although a good portion of the action does take place at night. The film was renamed "Night Parade" to capitalize on the success of some other films of the time that had the word "Parade" in the title.

2. Aileen Pringle, who plays Paula Vernoff, the bad girl that tries to lure the boxer down the wrong path, actually had a pretty good range as an actress, although she shows none of that here. She had some good roles in the silent era, but approaching 40, she got increasingly smaller parts as the 1930's wore on.

3. Famed dancer Ann Pennington actually shows up as herself and dances one number. The film is well-preserved enough that we get a good look at her talents and those famous knees of hers. This is a rare thing to have on film.

4. Male lead Hugh Trevor, who plays wayward boxer Bobby Martin, died in 1933 at only the age of 30 due to complications after an appendectomy. This is one thing I notice over and over in these old films - relatively young people dying of infections and car accidents that they most likely would have survived had they lived today. It really puts the passage of time in perspective.

5. Finally, for this to be such an old and a mediocre film it really is in excellent shape. The sound and video are largely unscathed from the passage of time, which is rare for the RKO film library in general.

This is probably as basic a boxing story as was ever filmed. A highly unembellished tale of a young pugilist, who is honey-trapped by a high stakes gambler on the eve of his most important title match. The film has a complete entourage of stock melodramatic characters proscribed for this genré. It is relentlessly ordinary. The dialogue is predictable, the acting is uninspired, save for some hammyness. No surprises here.

It's been my experience in vieweing the first year or so of Radio pictures output, that they all have a cheap, soft focus, a usually dark look to them, mostly quiet tracks with no background music, though all have a more or less constant, faint, odd humming sound like the whirr of a camera. Their story picks are almost all low action, predictable, happy ending little time spenders like this one. The casting is imperfect, Miss Pringle's overmodulated speech makes her sound like Margaret Dumont, and maybe she's a bit too old for her part; Dorothy Gulliver, just out of her Universal contract, though cute, doesn't have the voice or acting talent for talkies. The title and promotion for it reflect maybe a lack of confidence.

The title is meaningless. The adverts are downright misleading, with lines like "R-K-O Sensational Pagent of Life and Love. Roaring Boasts of Broadway And Her Whispered Secrets!" There's nothing at all about Broadway in this film. Nothing, maybe save a strange, nonspeaking, quick cameo by stage star Ann Penington. I guess the hottest films of 1929 were "Gold Diggers of Broadway", The Broadway Melody" and "Broadway", so they lied and said this had something to do with it too.