Champagne (1928)

Thanks for the memories!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The acting in this movie is really good.

This film is a real mixed bag of sorts. The film follows a woman named Betty who is in love with her rich boyfriend. However, Betty also has a substantial amount of money and Betty's father believes that her boyfriend is a gold-digger. Betty takes her father's plane and goes after her boyfriend anyway who is on a ship heading to France. Betty attempts to get married to her boyfriend but they get in an argument and separate after they reach France. After getting back together Betty's father tells her that they have lost all of their money in the stock market which causes Betty's boyfriend to leave again. Will her boyfriend return or is he really a gold-digger? The story isn't very interesting when it comes down to it although I did enjoy the twist at the end of the film.As for the acting, it's actually pretty good. Betty Balfour plays Betty and does a stupendous job at it. She seems to fit into the role very naturally and does a good job at not exaggerating emotions like in most silent films. Gordon Harker plays Betty's father Mark and seems to do a good job at seeming unpleased with his daughter's decision. And finally Jean Bradin plays Betty's boyfriend and he also does a good job in the role. While the acting is good, it doesn't save the film.The special effects in the film are flawed and some of them seem obvious which isn't very good at all. However, the music is stupendous here and does a great job at creating emotions which you don't normally get from films of this time period. The camera angles and shots being used are truly ahead of their time which helps the film.Even though I praised many aspects of the film the plot just feels so basic and uninteresting plus the poor quality of the special effects really hurt the atmosphere and immersion of the film. So while it has many positives it also has many negatives which causes it to equal out to a very mediocre film. Score: 4/10

This is another mundane Hitchcock silent film, difficult to believe that he actually directed it. There is not a whole lot to this film except a lesson learned and, much like champagne itself, the characters are bubbly and provide a tickle or two. This might be as close as the fabled director would come to romantic comedy.Wall street champagne magnet Gordon Harker, a Hitch silent veteran, wants to teach his spoiled rich daughter Betty Balfour the age-old lesson that money does not grow on trees. She's completely out of control spending daddy's money with her lover (Jean Bradin) when Daddy Warbucks lowers the boom by telling her the champagne business is kaput. Some of the usual Hitch camera tricks keeps the plot interesting as the story moves from an ocean liner to Paris and back to the liner. It is fascinating to watch the photography and camera placements because at least one (the view through the bottom of a glass) would be reused by Hitchcock later in his career.Balfour is fine as the ditsy girl and she does show versatility going through a gamut of emotions. Harker, who would continue his career in talkies, is demonstrative to the nth degree and is this close to overacting. Ironically, this film shows a Wall Street millionaire looking at the stock market tables constantly in 1928, and the great stock market crash does happen for real the next year.If for nothing else than the twisty ending, this film does bear watching. That is, if you are not expecting a suspenseful Hitchcockian thriller. There are a few laughs, but the earth does not move, and we are left with a glimpse of a slice of life from 80 years ago.

There's not much to this film of Hitch's, a bit like champagne itself but not so mirth-inducing. Maybe you already know it but he went on make better films than this – many of 'em in fact, but notwithstanding that I still find this one an enjoyable watch.Spoilt little rich girl Betty Balfour is taught a salutary if convoluted lesson by her Wall Street father ably played by Gordon Harker on how to behave as befits the daughter of a millionaire. In this exercise he sorts out the problem of the genuineness of Betty's suitor too. Some of the sets were as flimsy as the plot (almost diaphanous!) but would have made do for the audience that would only see it the once, and some of the photography and ideas were excellent with some, like the view through the bottom of the glass re-used by Hitch years later. Gurning through a wide range of emotions Betty Balfour kept on Bouncing Back in the same manner as Squibs, her famous role, whilst Gordon Harker excelled at playing this type of role before he started parodying himself in the '30's and playing up his down to Earth voice and mannerisms. And even Claude Hulbert made a 3 second appearance on the club stairs in one of his first film roles. If nothing else, it's worth a watch for the sinister Hitchcockian twist at the very end.All told, not a great but an interesting film with a pleasant atmosphere, but because there's so few extant it's definitely a satisfying British silent film.

I'll be doing more of these user comments as I own the whole collection of Alfred Hitchcock. I just received "Under Capricorn" from Chapters and can now say I own all 53 movies. I will only comment on the ones that are not so popular.Anyways, Champagne hardly kept my interest as it was a silent film with not enough written dialog for the viewer to see. I saw a few humorous scenes and two intense scenes and that's all. They weren't very long and the story I felt was weak. There was the man, played by Theo Von Alten who looked through the champagne glass as was to introduce the story and really one of the few Hitchcock touches and it also ended with the man looking through the champagne glass to end the story.I wasn't sure if the man was going to rape/kill the girl, played by Betty Belfour which happened to be intense until she ran away. Also at the end where the man and the boy, played by Jean Bradin were fighting and the boy tried strangling the man. That was short lived as it was explained the man was hired by the father, played by Gordon Harker to prevent his daughter from eloping.The comedy scene was the drunkard not being affected by the waves below the ship but everyone else. Also, the girl seeing everyone else have a good time and wanted to join with her big smile and fast moving hips but her boy wouldn't let her. Also, when the father was reading the papers and smoking his cigar or pipe (I can't remember) he was hilarious I thought.The boy was always low key or pessimistic as he felt he was in control and wanted to arrange the wedding details. This always bothered the girl and always put tension between the girl and the boy. You can say it wasn't a match made in heaven.I only wish the dialog spoken in silence on the screen was displayed more in writing and we could have understood more of the story. Alfred Hitchcock said he believed "Champagne" was his worst movie and I tend to agree.