Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

marcslope Dull, primitive early talkie from a Frederick Lonsdale stage success. The camera's nailed to the floor, the sound's iffy, and the performances and attitudes aren't just from another era, they're from another planet. Ruth Chatterton, never saying "terribly" when "teddibly" will do, is the stage actress (she does a musical scene, and if that's not her voice, it's a good double) who's looked down on by the family of the Brit gentleman (Ralph Forbes, boring) who wants to marry her. So she conveniently falls in love with his pal Basil Rathbone, also uninteresting, and the matter gets sorted out in clipped accents. Ruth's supposed to be self-sacrificing and appealing but she's haughty and supercilious, and the pacing's glacial. You don't care about these upper-class twits, and it's a relief when it's all ironed out. Marginally compelling as an example of movies learning to talk, but it's really, really stagebound, and director Sidney Franklin lingers over every stilted word as if it were Scripture.

Michael_Elliott The Lady of Scandal (1930)** (out of 4) This early talkie features Ruth Chatterton playing Elsie Hilary, a British actress who is engaged to a man from a snobbish rich family. Everyone in the family objects to her "nature" except for Edward (Basil Rathbone) who finds himself falling for her. THE LADY OF SCANDAL remains somewhat watchable due to its fun leads but the sad reality is that this is just another early talkie with way too much talking. You know, I truly understand that in the early days of sound people wanted to hear people talk. I do wonder what they truly felt about these movies back then but when you view them today you pretty much just shake your head because of all the dialogue. I mean, to simply tell someone who want to go out and eat takes about ten pages of dialogue because everything just gets so drawn out. This non-stop talking is what really damages this film and keeps it from being more entertaining. What does keep the film at least watchable is the performance of Chatterton who comes across incredibly delightful. She comes out doing a chorus dance and singing a song, which was pretty funny and I liked the way she handled each of the family members who are against her. I've often been very critical of Rathbone's early work but I was shocked to see that he too was rather good here. The supporting cast of character do fine work as well with each of them fitting their roles. Of course, even with all the dialogue the writers weren't able to come up with a way to keep the viewers on the edge of their seats. There's never a bit of suspense as to what's going to happen and the ending is something you'll see coming from a mile away.

blanche-2 I watched this film, Lady of Scandal, because I had never seen Ruth Chatterton in a film, and I'm very glad I saw it. There was very witty dialogue, some funny scenes, and some tender moments peppered throughout this movie, which was based on a play. The beginning was a riot, as Chatterton, while performing on stage, dances herself over to the wings and hands her fiancée a letter from his family. "Your family is horrid!" she exclaims while doing her high kicks. The dialogue between Chatterton's prospective parents-in-law is especially funny.It's fascinating to see Basil Rathbone in his pre-Sherlock Holmes days. He was Margaret Mitchell's idea of Rhett Butler, she told a reporter, and it's perhaps a little bit easier to see why in these early films. But it's obvious that when Mitchell wrote her famous book, she envisioned her characters somewhat differently and from another perspective. Rathbone could have been a dashing southern gentleman but the ruggedness and sexiness would have been lost.Chatterton was a charming performer with a wide range, as exhibited in this film. She could do the theatrical diva, as well as comedy and pathos. I look forward to seeing more of her films.

drednm Interesting drawing room comedy from Frederick Lonsdale (On Approval) casts Ruth Chatterton as a stage star engaged to dull Ralph Forbes. It's announced in the papers that they are to marry so he brings her home to meet the relatives who are outraged at having an actress invade their stuffy manor house.Forbes' father (Herbert Bunston) decides that he will allow it if she quits the stage and stays engaged for 6 months. Three weeks later she cannot abide the oaf and has fallen for Basil Rathbone. She's also brought LIFE into the house in the forms of music, tennis, and "gullet washers" (cocktails).Chatterton was a charming actress of early talkies and is best remembered as a silly wife in the wonderful Dodsworth. She's terrific here and opens and closes the film with a song-and-dance stage number. Rathbone is OK as the love interest. Others in the cast include Nance O'Neill, Effie Ellsler, Cyril Chadwick, Mackenzie Ward, the oddly named Moon Carroll, Edgar Norton (butler again), Robert Bolder as Chatterton's father, and Frederick Kerr, who steals the film as the old crab who discovers the joys of gullet washers.The immense set is quite good as is the writing. As with most of Lonsdale's plays, there is a serious undertone. But Chatterton is always very good, and the rapport between Kerr and O'Neill is hilarious. Forbes may well have been the most boring actor in films.