Champagne (1928)

You won't be disappointed!

Perfect cast and a good story

Good movie but grossly overrated

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Betty Balfour plays "The Girl" who is a fun-loving, sorta dingy, party girl in this lighthearted romantic comedy. She's pretty, bubbly & sparkles like "Champagne". Appropriate title for this film.The Girl goes off on and parties on her father's money and he is going to teach her a lesson by telling her he's broke - the stock market fell. Now she will find a way to go on herself.Not much to this film. I'm finding it more of a snore-fest than I am interested in watching it - it's cute but not my style. That's not to say that others won't like it because there is an audience for these types of films - I'm just not one of them.The one early, silent romantic comedy I enjoyed from Hitchcock was Easy Virtue 1928 (it deals with the once taboo subject of divorce).3/10

It is a shame because when it comes to my personal favourite directors Alfred Hitchcock is #1. He has had some disappointments, but most of his films range from very good to masterpiece and even his weakest films are far from irredeemable. Along with Juno and the Paycock, Number 17 and Jamaica Inn, Champagne is one of his lesser films. There is definitely some interest value, the music is wonderful, the sets are attractive, Betty Balfour is very charming and quirky, the scene with the drunk is very funny and especially good is the camera work which is very inspired and still looks good. Particularly good is the shot from the glass, a sign of Hitchock's visual mastery coming through early. The club scene was a mixed bag, it looks stunning but just drags on forever. Hitchcock doesn't direct incompetently, there are moments but there was the sense that he wasn't very interested in the project and that he wasn't in his comfort zone, not enough of his style came through. Apart from Balfour, the acting is very theatrical particularly from Gordon Harker, while to call Jean Bardin bland is an insult to the word bland. There isn't a single character to root for, they are not very likable, being over-theatrical and airhead-like, and it is the case of being underwritten and overacted. The script didn't come across as that funny, consisting of silly and sometimes drawn-out situations and little of it genuinely sparkles, some of it even comes across as dated. There have definitely been worse special effects but they were inconsistent in quality, some are okay others were hokey. But the story was the biggest let-down, it was tediously paced and there was nowhere near enough to sustain the length(maybe the reason for why a few scenes felt dragged out, to fill in what little there is of the story). In short it just wasn't memorable, to sum it up in one world it would be dispensable. Overall, not completely flat but lacks sparkle outside of the visuals, music and Balfour's performance. Well, the twist ending was nice but came too late to make us properly care. 4/10 Bethany Cox

There's not much to this film of Hitch's, a bit like champagne itself but not so mirth-inducing. Maybe you already know it but he went on make better films than this – many of 'em in fact, but notwithstanding that I still find this one an enjoyable watch.Spoilt little rich girl Betty Balfour is taught a salutary if convoluted lesson by her Wall Street father ably played by Gordon Harker on how to behave as befits the daughter of a millionaire. In this exercise he sorts out the problem of the genuineness of Betty's suitor too. Some of the sets were as flimsy as the plot (almost diaphanous!) but would have made do for the audience that would only see it the once, and some of the photography and ideas were excellent with some, like the view through the bottom of the glass re-used by Hitch years later. Gurning through a wide range of emotions Betty Balfour kept on Bouncing Back in the same manner as Squibs, her famous role, whilst Gordon Harker excelled at playing this type of role before he started parodying himself in the '30's and playing up his down to Earth voice and mannerisms. And even Claude Hulbert made a 3 second appearance on the club stairs in one of his first film roles. If nothing else, it's worth a watch for the sinister Hitchcockian twist at the very end.All told, not a great but an interesting film with a pleasant atmosphere, but because there's so few extant it's definitely a satisfying British silent film.

Although the film shows plenty of evidence of being made by the Master, most viewers will probably find it light compared to the 'more substantial' 'serious' films. But Hitchcock's metier is cinema, not suspense, and Champagne contains some choice examples of how Hitch thought cinematically in a way that no other director has done. A case in point is the magnificent visual joke towards the end of the film, when our heroes are aboard an ocean liner. From time to time they are bothered by a drunk who staggers into them and other passengers. However, before long, the ship hits a storm and sways around like a cork, causing everyone to stagger from wall to wall... except the drunk... On a more profound thematic level, this is one of the earliest Hitchcockian essays on the necessity of lying in one's bed if one has made it (cf The Birds). Incidentally, it's just occurred to me how much the Betty Balfour character in this prefaces those of Grace Kelly in Rear Window and Melanie Daniels in The Birds.