A different way of telling a story

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The snap, crackle and pop you are hearing isn't your cereal bowl. It's the soundtrack of this nearly 90 year old film that is trying really fast to capture the magic of the Broadway play "The Front Page". The only thing it really offers is a glimpse into the early days of sound films and early appearances of future stars Robert Armstrong ("King Kong") and 30's superstar Carole Lombard, here without that unique "e" at the end of her first name. This deals with the daily goings on at an oddly run news room where there seems to be more drinking going on and playing around than actual journalism. Static camera work can't help a lot of pre-code dialog, much of it recited by an initially funny butch newspaper woman who is told by the editor not to be so "gay". After a while, this obvious novice becomes a real pest. Lombard really gets nothing juicy to work with as Armstrong's divorce seeking wife, while he really overacts.

A crime comedy drama with R. Armstrong and Carol Lombard (before a 3rd vowel was added), she has more of a supporting part, which she plays in her dignified way, a bit otherworldly, spectral, very classy, her generic character in her early sound movies, a distinguished young woman; she also seemed determined on her ascending way to stardom. The supporting cast is very good.The life at a newspaper headquarter is shown as cool, but isn't glamorized. The age was more stoic, and the life's hardships are confessed, admitted, allowed, expressed; the sets show a dirty editorial office, with the throng, garbage and untidiness, and the threat of unemployment. The leading actor plays a reporter fond of his profession and of drinking.Armstrong, a very believable leading player, could be a dynamo, even as a drained journalist. I know that his reputation paled, faded afterward, which is unfair. He was credible in each leading role he has made.The movie, co-written by DeLeon, is exciting and refreshing. The _subjacent play seems good.

Big News casts Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard as a pair of reporters married to each other but working for rival papers. If you expect to see the gifted comic Lombard from such future classics as My Man Godfrey and Twentieth Century Big News will disappoint you greatly. This one is strictly the show for Armstrong.Armstrong drives his editor Charles Sellon to distraction with his drinking and carousing and it certainly is wearing on his marriage to Lombard. But as he says speakeasies are great place to pick up stories and Armstrong has been successful.A particular speakeasy owner Sam Hardy is the leader of a narcotics ring in their town and Armstrong has the goods on him. Hardy tries something stupid, he goes to the newspaper office and murders the editor and frames Armstrong for the crime. But naturally our intrepid reporter is too smart for Hardy.Big News is little more than a photographed stage play and the original play was no world beater either. It never holds your interest in the way such other films like Detective Story, Dead End, Rope, or Rear Window do that are all almost exclusively on one set.Big News is directed by Greogry LaCava who also did My Man Godfrey. Whatever he brought out in Lombard for that film stayed buried here. In fairness to Carole, she was not given much to work with.Still it's 1929 and movies were learning to talk. Films like Big News show how much was left to learn.

Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard star in this early talky about the newspaper business. Armstrong plays an obnoxious drunk who, inexplicably, Lombard loves. He constantly shoots off his mouth and you wonder why the paper puts up with him. By the end of the film, however, he's redeemed himself and shows that he's a darn find newspaper man.The film is odd in the way it portrays Armstrong as a relatively high-functioning and lovable alcoholic. In some ways, it seems to excuse his addiction and presents a very odd and convoluted message. It's also odd in that one of the characters seems to be that of a very manly lesbian. Both are things you never would have seen in a Hollywood film once the toughened Production Code was enacted in mid-1934--when alcoholism needed to be punished and lesbians needed to vanish.So is the film any good? Well, in spots it's quite good and in others it lets the viewer down. A few of the performances are poor (such as when the murder is discovered near the end of the film) but the overall plot is engaging and worth seeing. But, for 1929, it's actually quite good--had it been made a year or two later, I would have given it a slightly lower score.For folks like me who simply watch too many movies, it also was a thrill to see Tom Kennedy play a SMART policeman—as he almost always played very stupid ones!