2/10
Blame the bad script, direction, editing, and just maybe...the acting.
18 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If you ever want an example of what makes a classic film from a major studio not stand the test of time while many of their others from the same year do, just take a look at this crackling pile of corn where only one actor comes out unscathed. That is Loretta Young who has youth and inexperience on her side, showing some sparkle among the heatless actors here, boring as all get out, especially leading man Conrad Nagel. As a crooked attorney who is attacked and ends up in the Quebec outback treated by Young, Nagel gives a snooze fest inducing performance, so hideously dull that he can barely even be accused of giving a bad performance because he displays no emotional depth or acting ability here, ironic because I've seen him in films where he was o.k., if not an amazing actor. The silent melodrama aspect of this film is overwhelming, and I'm sure that the silent versions of this, at least in a movie theater, come off better. Young doesn't come in until 20 minutes or so, making the wait for her arrival, extremely painful. Considering that Warner Brothers had many excellent films around this time ("Little Caesar", "The Public Enemy", "Five Star Finale") really is confusing because this seems like something possibly made several years before and held back.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed