Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

samhill5215 Despite my low rating I must admit to really enjoying this creaky melodrama. The vote is because it's all very formulaic, stilted and stiff. Concepts of love and honor reflect Victorian morality which in itself was utterly unrealistic or even very real. I suspect that even today some people might be shocked to find a woman in a man's bedroom after hours and icily ask her to leave the house even though they were fully clothed but such mastodons were and luckily still are few and far between. But I digress. In the film it was necessary to spur our protagonists into yet another display of manly brotherhood and selflessness and to bring this sad example of bad movie-making to its not altogether unpredictable conclusion.So what's to like? How can one not enjoy Adolphe Menjou, the epitome of the suave knave, paired off with Laurence Olivier in his fourth film, both doing their best with the weak material to steal their common scenes. It was delicious! Both were magnificent, both were divine and it was so much fun to watch. Especially memorable are the scenes where Olivier describes the cut of coat collar with a swoop of his hand that is pure Sir Laurence. And lets not forget Lili Damita who made up for her utter lack of talent by sensuously gliding through her scenes in her tight fighting, low-cut dresses, seemingly barely able to keep herself from devouring her next male victim.Oh what a fun way to spend 68 minutes!

oceanchick Though I don't rate Friends and Lovers (1931) high based on my harsh rating scale, I give credit where it is due. Friends and Lovers is a perfect example of how I feel films should have been made in the early 30s---condensed. (This comment/review, however, will not be.) The film, including titles, is 68 minutes long, yet it tells an engaging cohesive story with several locations, people, costumes, events, passage of time and action without weighing it down with the fluff that movies were full of during that period. By fluff I include but am not limited to: extended reaction shots, excessive beauty shots, far off stares (see Greta's films), eyebrow movement shots (see Norma's films), mouth and lips parting shots (see Irene's films), unnecessary walking, unrelated dialog extending screen time for the stars, etc. Yes, this movie does have a few gratuitous fluffs but it doesn't tack on an entire hour showing them. The movie doesn't feel "glossy"; instead, somehow, it feels real.The studio was unstable bankrupt great depression era Selznick helmed RKO. Director Victor Schertzinger, who had been in film since the first moving frame, pulled poignant performances from his cast and provided the music. DP J. Roy Hunt strapped to RKO through all of its phases provided believable lighting for B/W film through many types of scenes both indoors and out, as well as smooth camera movement and action. Adolphe Menjou survived the silent years to give a decent performance as obsessed, possessed, ardently pining Geoff, Larry Olivier makes his stiff and subtle Hollywood debut in a fair size role as Ned, Lili Damita also from the silent era wasn't a blazing beauty or brilliant actress but she did her part allowing her accent and body to do the rest as Alva, Erich Von Stroheim though a little cheesy made being a sadistic and evil porcelain collector seem lucrative and fun as Victor, and Hugh Herbert as McNellis, trying not to trip over his on and off again accent, bounced through the film offering humor here and there to keep the viewer's emotions connected.Film making is all about taking the viewer in, cold from the street with their own world in their mind, connecting with their emotions and transporting them to another place and time, taking them on an emotional roller coaster ride until the film is through. If at any time the coaster slows or stops, the viewer has time to realize themselves again, even if only subconsciously, and the film has lost them. If picked up again, the viewer must start over emotionally with the story. Condensing this film down to 68 minutes keeps the viewer's attention the entire time. The overall ride may be short, the sets may be cheap, the acting may not be the best, the plot may be thin, the music may be shallow, the dialog may be simple, but tell a story that efficiently and the viewer doesn't notice while watching. Should the viewer notice, it's not considered long because the next sequence is already speeding along with fresh new things for the brain to process. Plot of the film is simple on the surface though it has a few morality testing twists and turns. For what they had to work with, the plot was kept clean and cohesive, the shots were tight, the camera action was appropriate, the cinematography and lighting was believable, the sets weren't spectacular but scenes didn't last long enough to pick them apart, the tension was there, the emotion was heavy, the beauty was shown, the dialog was believable and the actors sizzled. So much happens at a comfortable pace that I never once got bored or thought about anything else other than the film. I ignored a ringing phone. I ignored portable electronics. The film was paced so well that I didn't want to look away. I was completely surprised by how enjoyable the film was to watch, unlike so many pre-code early 30s films I have suffered through. (I'm an elitist film snob, so I will watch a terrible film just so I can say w/o any doubt I hated it.) If there is so much fluff in a film that I sit there and start counting how many steps the actress is making across every single room, on every single street, up every single stair and then start counting their stares, far off looks, exaggerated baby spot lit soft shots, and on top of it listen to senseless dialog that does nothing to forward the plot but included just so that the actress/actor is getting a certain percentage of screen time, I feel I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic rather than sit through the rest of the film. For me to sit through an entire early 30s film without moving or thinking of anything else means the film is very special in some way. In retrospect, I wonder: the novelty of the talking pictures was new, but it does make me wonder if viewers really loved the long lingering shots of the starlets or if they tolerated them. Did they expect them because they were paying money to be visually entertained? Does length equal value? According to rumor, the film lost $260k at the box office, though IMDBpro, AFI, or BFI don't offer any budget or salary info. Perhaps Friends and Lovers was shot with the same early 30s heavy fluff monkey on its back but given to a gifted editor that said NO to fluff. Regardless, this is a very rare 68 minutes that I was happy watching a pre-code film, and for anyone like me who barely tolerates movies of the early 30s because of the unnecessary fluff, give this one a watch. It's not the best film in the world, but 68 minutes isn't long in comparison to 2 hours of Norma's eyebrows going up and down.

MartinHafer Before the Production Code was strengthened and finally enforced starting in 1934, there were quite a few films that would surprise modern audiences with their colorful language, adult themes and wicked behavior. When I first started watching Pre-Code films, I was shocked with the nudity and discussion of topics such as abortion and adultery. Early into the film, it's obvious that FRIENDS AND LOVERS came out during this more open era. This is not only because of the rather sordid plot but because they show a lot of the leading lady as she showers and dresses--a scene that wasn't necessary to the film but just added a bit of cheesecake.Erich von Stroheim plays an odd role in this film. He is a cuckold of a husband BUT he likes when his wife commits adultery. That's because his routine is to then shake down the men--demanding payment for defiling his wife!! In a way, he's much more like a pimp than anything else--and far from the jealous husband or lover he often played in other films (such as THE GREAT GABBO and BLIND HUSBANDS). The wife is played by Lili Damita and you may remember her as the wife of Errol Flynn. As for the lovers, two are played by Adolphe Menjou and a very young Laurence Olivier--who, for a while, are having their way with Damita. This is complicated, as they are friends and are serving together in the military (though having the very American Menjou and the very British Olivier in the same army did seem like odd casting).When the two men realize that they are sharing DNA with Damita, they immediately are at each other's throats. Commanding officer Menjou sends Olivier off on a dangerous mission, but later realizes how horrible this is and gives chase--trying to catch up with the men sent out on maneuvers. Fortunately, Olivier is saved by Menjou and the two men seem reconciled.At the same time, von Stroheim and Damita have a horrible fight and von Stroheim is killed by a servant who does it to save her life. The men don't realize it, though, as they have both agreed to give her up and burn the letter she sends to tell them what happened to her husband.Time passes and Olivier and Menjou both attend a dinner party. Take a wild guess who is there--yes, in the movie world, this would be Damita. Both men vow that their love for each other will not allow them to have anything to do with her. Naturally, though, the audience knows that this won't lead to something good! Unfortunately, after such an excellent buildup, the final 15 minutes of the film just don't manage to work. Up until then, I'd have given the film a 7, but with the soggy and unbelievable conclusion, it earns a 6--barely.

lianfarrer This film gets off to a great, weird, very racy Pre-Code start. In the first couple of minutes we are introduced to an adulterous young wife (Lili Damita) and her slimy, sadistic, blackmailing husband (Erich von Stroheim). You can't take your eyes off von Stroheim; his over-the-top performance is not exactly what you'd call great acting, but it gives the film its only real juice. Once he's—literally—out of the picture, we're left with a static, conventional, and uncompelling love triangle.Others have already commented on Miss Damita's strengths (beauty and sex appeal) and weaknesses (no real acting ability), which I believe is a fair assessment of her contributions. Despite her physical charms, I found it difficult to believe that men would be driven to extremes of jealousy over her... which seriously undermines the main premise of the story. And when she chooses Adolphe Menjou over Laurence Olivier... well, that's REALLY straining the bounds of credibility! Speaking of hard to believe, there's Hugh Herbert, making a pathetically inept attempt at a Scottish accent. (He went on to become a repeat offender, once again inflicting his bogus burr as Detective John McTavish in 1934's EASY TO LOVE). Herbert's recurring "business" about the women in his life gets very tiresome very quickly.The biggest liability in the film is Adolphe Menjou, woefully miscast as the man who wins Damita's heart over all her other lovers, including a very young, very handsome Laurence Olivier. Scrawny, pinch-faced Menjou was over forty at the time (he looks even older); ludicrously, he is repeatedly referred to by various characters as "young man." It's obvious that the part was written for a younger, sexier actor. Had they cast someone more appropriate, the story would have had a lot more sizzle.Though I rated the film only four stars, I'd recommend it to die-hard film buffs. Besides von Stroheim's memorable characterization, it's got a nuanced performance by the young Olivier, the lovely Miss Damita (and her equally lovely wardrobe), and some appealingly quirky scenes and performances. It's not great art, but it's good entertainment.