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.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I like a lot of the early '30s "pre-code" films but this was just drivel with poor dialog and some poor acting. I only watched it to see Loretta Young, who was a real beauty in her younger days.The dialog and some of things in here are so dated, so sappy and so overly-melodramatic with the lead character, played by Conrad Nagel, that it's almost laughable. What lawyer interrupts his closing speech to pick up a hankie from a woman in the audience, and then whisper something, kiss her hand and leave the courtroom? The guys nickname is "Beauty," and he sure is that! I wonder if audiences in the early '30s actually took this character and dialog seriously....or were they enamored to have "talkies."Well, at least Loretta looked super, and sounded like a normal person but how many could people today watch this and stick around long enough to see her? She doesn't appear until almost a half hour, which is almost half the movie!

To look at a movie from 1931 and say that it has over-the-top acting would be similar to some uncomplicated creature from the past looking at a modern movie and proclaiming too much sex and/or confusing action sequences. I'll place myself among the creatures of the past. Gilbert Parker's "The Right of Way" was performed on stage seven years before any of the movie releases. It comes off a little stagy, but didn't most of the early talkies?The movie took the usual liberties with a novel, changing a few things here and there - then squeezing it into sixty-five minutes. However, the feel of the book is intact. Nagel's handsome looks and seemingly over-the-top acting personify "Beauty" Steele.Though I cannot claim someone could have done this better, some of Nagel's best moments kept me riveted to the screen.Loretta Young played her part well, but I was more impressed with Fred Kohler's performance, next to Conrad Nagel's. I think that had it been a longer movie it would have been very fitting to dwell more on the friendship of this former snob and this lowly, almost hermit-like man (Jo in the movie). There were a few sub-plots that came together very nicely, and I would have liked to have seen a little more of the aftermath that the book explains nicely.There is much in here that is relevant to our modern society, as well as our very soul. There is much more in the book as well. The book is available freely online, but watch out for typos. I thought enough of the movie to buy a copy of the book, so that speaks for something.It's easy to see why people feel the acting is a little much, but hey! I like Calamity Jane.One nice thing about old movies is that you don't have scripts that play to the actors. Were a Tom Cruise (God forbid!) to be in this movie, I could imagine all sorts of personal asides and thinly veiled messages.Lastly, this movie made me a fan of Nagel, though most of the rest of his serious work was already behind him.Try to see a little more deeply into the monocle of Charles "Beauty" Steele and check out a wonderful romance book!

Frank Lloyd , an early Oscar winning director has one classic to his name the 1935 version of Mutiny on the Bounty. This one is deadly dull and sluggishly paced. It is quite different from the pre-codes we usually get from First National's sister company Warner Bros.Conrad Nagel is way over the top and the rest of the cast is not far behind. Nagel's movie star career didn't last too long and based on this movie you can see why. The only virtue is the luminous Loretta Young from whom everyone in this cast should have taken lessons. She is a natural.And her undeniable beauty and charisma enliven every scene. The plot has one of those Random Harvest amnesia twists that might have worked with better acting or less stodgy direction. Here you can see the gears turn all the time as the hokey plot lurches to its' fake religious conclusion.Skip this one.

I fell asleep whilst watching this utter load of bilge and so went and watched most of it again.Where does one start.The court scenes are laughable.After all how could a barrister walk out of court whilst a Judge sums up.If he misdirects then how is the barrister to know.However the most ridiculous moment comes when Nagel is told his true name having lost his memory,and because of this suddenly regains his memory.It all comes back to him in an instant!Other than Loretta Young it is clear that the actors do not have a clue how to act for the talkies.We have gestures and looks and abysmal attempts at accents.This is a film to avoid unless you want a cure for insomnia