Dinner at Eight
|
List Price: Our Price: $15.99 You Save: $3.99 (20%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $7.69 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Dinner at Eight
Movie Review: "I'm going to be a lady if it kills me!"
Summary: 4 Stars
Mrs. Oliver Jordan is giving a dinner party for an aristocratic British couple, and the movie portrays a day in the life of each of the guests:
Mrs. Jordan (Billie Burke): selfish, self-centered
Mr. Jordan (Lionel Barrymore): good-hearted, broke, very ill
Carlotta (Marie Dressler): stage star of 1890's, now washed up
Larry Renault (John Barrymore): two-bit actor who thinks he's
great; commits suicide
Dan Packard (Wallace Beery): money magnate
Kitty Packard (Jean Harlow): his floozy wife who wants to mingle
with the rich; they hate each other (in real life too)
Paula Jordan (Madge Evans): 19-year-old daughter, in love with
Renault
The acting is still very stagey; audio technology had not caught up to the camera yet. Marie Dressler is excellent and is fun to watch, though Harlow has always gotten all the raves; she's good but just a tad too over the top for me with her whiney voice, platinum hair, and outrageous costumes. A star-studded production in the manner of GRAND HOTEL, it was a big hit. Much has been made of its contributions to the art deco period in designs and fashion; as a motion picture, though, it all seems just a bit creaky now.
Movie Review: Good acting, tiring plot.
Summary: 4 Stars
This movie is well done in the sense that all the acting in it is very fluid. It has some of the finest actors of the day, both Barrymoores and Marie Dressler. The plot centers around the backstories of these guests at a dinner party. Several of whom are having affairs with each other and are trying to do some sneaky business deals behind people's backs. For the most part, I found the plot agonizing. I just didn't care for that type of melodrama. However, from an actor's point of view, the performers are flawless. Athough, even among the best of the best, I found a shining star in Marie Dressler. She is flat out superior as an actress with that added spark that puts her over the top of the rest. And her character of the aging actress was actually one of the more likeable ones in the show. So, I would use this movie for an acting class. But I really wouldn't necessarily watch again for personal enjoyment.Movie Review: Great performances from MGM's top stars of the 30s
Summary: 3 Stars
Dinner at Eight was one of the earliest star studded blockbusters. It followed the tremendous success of "Grand Hotel" the year before, and has several carryovers - John and Lionel Barrymore, Jean Hersholt, and Wallace Beery as actors, and William Daniels as the cinematographer with William Axt providing the score. To this they added Jean Harlow, Marie Dressler, Lee Tracy, Edmund Lowe, and Billie Burke.
The film is based on the Broadway play of the same name by George S Kaufman and Edna Ferber. It was adapted to the screen by Herman Mankiewicz, Frances Marion, and Donald Stewart.
This was a powerhouse of talent -
* Wallace Beery had been nominated as Best Actor for his role in "The Big House" (1930) and won for "The Champ" (1932),
* The Barrymores were Broadway royalty and had just appeared together in "Rasputin" (1932) as well as "Grand Hotel" (1932), John had an enormous success with "Svengali" (1931) and Lionel had won the Best Actor for "A Free Soul" (1930).
* Marie Dressler won the Oscar in 1930 for "Min and Bill" (Beery was the co-star) and was nominated again in 1932 for "Emma".
* Jean Harlow was MGM's hottest rising star with enormous successes in "Platinum Blonde" (1931), "The Beast of the City" (1932), "Scarface" (1932), "Red Dust" (1932) and "Red Headed Woman" (1932).
Look for Jean Hersholt who makes a brief appearance as John Barrymore's producer. Also note that John and Lionel never play a scene together. This was not uncommon. The brothers often feuded and could go months without speaking to each other. Many of the screen appearances have them working independently.
Often spoken of as a comedy, (e.g., AFI ranks it #85 in its list of 100 top comedies) buyer beware - the comedy is about as sporadic as the gulps for air of a drowning man, and the plot of the film resembles people being sucked down the social and economic drain. This is a Depression era melodrama, not a comedy, even if it is interspersed with the occasional laugh. Here's a brief overview of some of the main characters -
* A third generation shipping magnet (Lionel Barrymore) whose health is failing and whose business is on the rocks.
* A greedy and less than honest businessman (Beery) who stays in an adulterous union to pursue his political career.
* A drunken, womanizing, suicidal, actor (John Barrymore) whose best days are past him and who is on the verge of bankruptcy.
* A self absorbed housewife (Billie Burke) who is more concerned with her dinner party than her husband's health and her daughter's scandalous affair.
Not exactly light faire.
George Cukor (1899-1983) directs. Cukor was nominated 5 times for an Oscar and won once ("My Fair Lady") in 1964. He's best known for his comedies ( "The Philadelphia Story", "Adams Rib", "Born Yesterday", "Pat and Mike") but was equally capable with drama ("Romeo and Juliet", "A Star is Born", "Gaslight"). He's famous for saying "Don't just do something, stand there!" All things considered, this is one of Cukor's poorer efforts. Basically he has decided to treat the film as a play, and shoots it accordingly.
This was David Selznick's (1902-1965) first film for MGM after leaving RKO (where he worked with Cukor). Selznick would go on to produce such Oscar nominated classics as "Viva Villa" (1934), "David Copperfield" (1935), "Anna Karenina" (1935), "A Tale of Two Cities" (1935), "A Star is Born", and, of course, "GWTW" (1939). For a Selznick film the production values are exceedingly poor, even down to the trappings of the rich and famous.
Williams Daniels (1901-70) is the cinematographer. Daniels was a favorite of Erich von Stroheim and also Greta Garbo who used him in all but 2 of her films. Daniels lensed more than 150 films. He was nominated 3 times ("Anna Christie", "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "How the West was Won") and won once ("Naked City" in 1948). Daniels camerawork follows Cukor's lead - you are watching a play.
"Dinner at Eight" is one of those interesting 1930s films that shows its heritage from the silent era. Dressler and John Barrymore provide excellent examples of silent screen acting, and while it works well on the sound stage since they were both great actors at their core, silent or sound, it is essentially silent screen acting. The camera work is also very much like the standard silent film - a static camera that rarely moves, focused on medium shots for 30 seconds of more, with the occasional two shot. Actors exit and enter while the static camera remains motionless, as if we were watching a play. What is remarkable about this film is that a year earlier, in "Grand Hotel", the camera work is modern and fluid and yet it's also an MGM film and also photographed by Daniels.
What is strange is that while the camera work is vintage 20s, there is virtually no background music. William Axt (1888-1959) was primarily a silent film composer, working on films like "The Mark of Zorro" (1922), "Greed" (1924), "Ben Hur" (1925),and "While the City Sleeps" (1928). He continued working through 1940 when he retired.
"Dinner at Eight" was #2 at the box office. The New York Times and Film Daily said it was one of the 10 best films of the year.
1933 was a good year for films. Box office hits were Mae West's "I'm no Angel" and "She Done Him Wrong", Roby Keeler and Dick Powell in "42nd Street", "King Kong", and Garbo in "Queen Christina". The Oscar winners were "The Private Life of Henry VIII" (Actor), "Morning Glory" (Actress) and "Cavalcade" (Picture). Other notable films released that year included the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup", Laurel and Hardy's classic "Sons of the Desert", and "The Invisible Man". Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made their film duo debut in "Flying Down to Rio". FWIW - 1933 was the year that Walt Disney referred to the gold statue as an "Oscar" when he won it for "The Three Little Pigs".
Despite the poor camerawork, the depressing script, and the lack of any background music, the film contains marvelous performances. Marie Dressler is a hoot, and Jean Harlow, in addition to being Harlow, gets a chance to shape her comedic skills which would emerge more strongly as time went on. John Barrymore gives a tremendous performance, especially in his final scene by the fireplace, and Billie Burke is hilarious as the oblivious housewife whose world is crumbling around her while her biggest worry is that she will have to serve crabmeat instead of aspic as her appetizer.
Movie Review: One Time Golden Age "Dinner" Now a Bit Warmed Over
Summary: 3 Stars
It's interesting. I was for many years a fan of classic American films of the 30's and 40's. However, now that I am a bit older, I am discovering that there are really only a handful of truly great American films that survive the test of time into the new millenium.
Unfortunately, "Dinner at Eight" is not one of them.
Melodramatic, stagy, and cursed with a deadly lack of pacing that the normally talented Cukor must have winced at years later, the film just doesn't hold up as a classic. Not sure if it wants to be a depression drama, a comedy of manners or a love story, the film settles for slabs of everything and lurches along weighed down with scenes that go on FAR too long.
That said, the film is saved by some fun performances, especially those of Billie Burke, Jean Harlow, Marie Dressler and the great John Barrymore, playing a role not unlike that of himself--an actor who had seen glorious days as a popular matinee idol but who's career was destroyed by alcohol, ego and a fickle public.
For better films from this approximate period, try "Twentieth Century," "My Man Godfrey," "It Happened One Night" or the brilliant "Trouble in Paradise".
Movie Review: Too negative to be enjoyable -- Payton Place of the 1930s
Summary: 2 Stars
I enjoyed some of the performances, particularly by Billie Burke and the Barrymores. The acting was superb in this movie -- I have no complaint about the acting ability of anyone in the cast, including the bit parts. May Robson as the cook, although she had only a small part, was very good, as were all of the leads.
Some reviewers here indicate the story is tiring and I cannot but agree. Practically every leading man in this film is either a philandering husband (who could not be faithful if he tried) or a tyrant and sometimes both. While the acting was good, this part of the storyline got really old, almost to the point of being too stereotypical. The burnt-out actor and actress roles were portrayed as such caricatures that it was hard for me as a viewer to relate to them.
This movie reminds me of typical biography movies of the 90s and 2000s decades, where famous people are portrayed as having awful, sordid lives, despite their apparent fame and success. These kind of "biographical" movies where the famous person has an awful life all basically have the same plot and that is what makes them tedious. As a viewer, we are somehow supposed to relate to every man being an unfaithful husband and every wife as adoring her creepy husband. Although Jean Harlow does portray a disgruntled wife, her character is so out of place in this kind of "rich and famous" movie, the storyline trashes her as simply a low-class former chorus girl. After portrayals of too many negative roles, a viewer longs for some kind of respite from the downtrodden, negative story. Someone mentioned this movie is supposed to have some comedy in it, but I did not find anything comedic about this film. The attempted humor in some of the lines fell flat.
I cannot really get too excited about this film because the storyline was too negative in its outlook. The fine performances did not make up for the plodding storyline. I feel the storyline needed something more in order to give it a smidgen of entertainment value. Without this, it was just a travelogue about the downtrodden rich and famous and why we should not care about them. I could never sit through this movie a second time. It is not a classic by any means.