This film is cited by many (including Hitchcock himself) to be one of the director's worst films...and I honestly don't feel that's entirely accurate or fair. While the plot may be pretty standard, Hitchcock's artful handling of visual storytelling is very much intact, with many highly creative shots. Plus, it's quite funny throughout, even the parts where you know what the punchline will be.
If you didn't know this was Hitchcock, you never would guess it. It has none of the characteristics that he was later known for. This is one of the forgettable films from that era of his career. So the question then becomes: How is this as a movie all on its own? It's very typical of films of that era. It's a light silent romance. Unremarkable in every way.
The film was comedic and very lighthearted. I enjoyed the music that went with every action it was quite intriguing.I was impressed with the father teaching his daughter Betty the value of a dollar. I think by the father and Betty going to live in poverty ended up becoming a wake up call to her. Even though it was not any talking during the film, I really enjoyed it.
Early Hitchcock silent film that reminds you that even though he's known for his suspense, the man did know his way around comedy as well. In the long run, it's ultimately an unremarkable plot, but there are several fascinating shots I'd like to hold up to his later work, and Betty Balfour does a wonderful job as the charming lead in this romp.
Pitiful. Worst than Skin Game which I thought was Hitch's career low, but I was wrong! What was he thinking? Almost like hes going for a Lubitsch film. The leads are annoying and the plot is dull. How did a silent this lame survive while others are lost forever? Less than 1 star
The ultimate Griffith dilemma. An ugly, racist, sexist, classist film that already displays, in the silent era, Hitchcock's brilliance as a manipulator of mise en scene and the image. Some stunning camerawork....but, yea, its enough to make you sick to your stomach.
Early Hitchcock. Extraordinarily bland. Completely forgettable. The lead Betty Balfour is as annoying as the plot is boring. A couple of interesting performances rescues this from complete failure. Two solid jokes that made me laugh... but that's not at lot. But - hey - at least there were two laughs in this. Early Hitchcock bad films give a LOT of hope to bad young filmmakers.
Cette oeuvre muette du grand Alfred, tournée en noir et blanc, fin des années 20, vaut surtout pour sa première demi-heure plutôt alerte, pour ensuite se déliter dans une monotone réalisation menant cahin-caha vers un happy-end plutôt balourd et bâclé... www.cinefiches.com
Another minor Hitchcock. There's really not much worth writing about this one. Betty Balfour is goofy, but engaging. The story is a stale morality tale. Hitchcock doesn't get much opportunity to show off. The scene when Betty and her lover are rescued from the sinking plane is embarrassingly cheap looking; the plane looks to be made of cardboard.
The subject matter in this era of Hitchcock doesn't interest me too much, but even in these early days, you can see he was definitely the best there was at least for certain of this era.... While filmmakers were simply trying to capture the damn thing, being satisfied that the picture moved for chrisssake, he was really pushing the limits of his form. In my opinion he was the best silent auteur I've ever heard of.
Some parts reminded me of early Lubitsch comedies, but for the most part this was a dull and unfunny movie. Hitch keeps things lively, brings out energetic performances from the lead, and employs many sight gags, but when put together this did not work. I can't put my finger on what went wrong..., maybe its just me.