Review of Dames

Dames (1934)
7/10
Well done for what it is, but you've probably seen several other films just like it...
6 December 2010
From 1929 until the late 1930s, Hollywood made a ton of films that followed a very similar pattern. There was a thin story that was more an explanation and excuse for the HUGE production numbers to come. This plot almost always had to do with something that threatened to cancel the 'big show'. Despite many thinking Busby Berkeley only directed films like this or that all these films were Berkeley movies, they weren't. But the ones with the wildest production numbers so often did end up being his films--and he always seemed to try to outdo himself--resulting in some VERY crazy films! Seen today, people are often in shock at these numbers--with huge swimming pools, dozens and dozens of pretty dancing girls, sparklers, enormous sets and the like. But, even if you don't like them, you have to admit it took a lot of work and talent to direct and choreograph these peculiar films!

The thing that threatens to stop the show is a blue-nose (Hugh Herbert)---a moralist who threatens to pull financing from the show because it features, uh-oh,...dancing girls! While Herbert is best an acquired taste (one I have never managed to acquire), Guy Kibbee was his usual fun self. As for the singers and dancers, the very familiar Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are the leads. None of the story particularly excited me, but there were a few nice songs (such as "You Ought To Be in Pictures") and the production numbers were...well...crazy and complicated. None of this is in the least bit innovative or different from a couple dozen other films, but it is pleasant and well-made. While not nearly the quality of the better musicals like "Footlight Parade" or "42nd Street", if you like the genre this is a pleasant, if predictable, film.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed