Beau Brummel (1924)
5/10
Gorgeous cinematography and sets can't make up for a very weak story
31 March 2008
For 1924, this is a truly exquisite looking film. You can tell that the fledgling studio, Warner, really pulled out all the stops to make this film a success--great sets, camera-work and even recruiting John Barrymore back from the stage to star in this film. However, despite all these positives, the overall effect isn't all that engaging--thanks to a very weak story that practically put me to sleep.

The problem with the story is that Beau Brummel is a very, very flawed man. At first, you see him as flawed but decent. Later in the film, he just seems like a jerk--allowing his way overblown ego to ultimately destroy him. In fact, this made the second half of the film much tougher going because it was hard to care about a man who simply didn't deserve it. Plus, so much of the film consisted of rather syrupy love scenes and Barrymore's acting was really over the top. While I love many of Barrymore's films, in this one he seemed a bit "hammy"--nothing like his later film roles.

Without a serious re-working of the film, this one turned out to be very pretty but ultimately as dull as the later Stewart Granger re-make. Pretty to look at but not very satisfying--it's like eating a meal entirely of unflavored rice cakes.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed