Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Tad Pole . . . whose main claim to fame seems to be that she was not THE Betty Jane Graham of COVER GIRL (1944). In fact, 1944 marked the final year of the ORIGINAL "Little Miss Vitaphone's" film career as a minor, which ran from when she was 4 years old in 1927 through her "big break" in the Vitaphone Family in the Warner Brother's puff piece, AN INTIMATE DINNER IN CELEBRATION OF WARNER BROS. SILVER JUBILEE (1930--which was certainly NOT intimate, nor a dinner that looked as appetizing as sliders from White Castle) to the role of "Autograph Seeker" in BR0ADWAY RHYTHM (1944). How is it that Betty Jane Graham Number One had a hiatus of 22 years (!!) following her minor acting career, only to have her major acting body of work consist solely of coming out of retirement to play the "bit part" in John Wayne's EL DORADO (1966), before she succumbed to mortality two weeks shy of her 75th birthday in 1998? Though I haven't seen most of her other 45 minor film roles, she seems such a presence rattling off the names of everyone from Warners Brothers stars Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler to the scrub lady and team videographer (oops!--I'm confusing this with the endless reading of the roster on opening day in a baseball park--sorry) that it seems life's promises were somehow snuffed out for Betty Jane Graham Number One by the improbable emergence of a Betty Jane Graham Number Two the exact year that One reached her majority.

tavm A Silver Jubilee would imply 25th anniversary and this was made in 1930 but Warner Bros. Pictures wasn't incorporated until 1923. How can that be? Well, according to many of the comments here, the actual brothers Warner started in the movie business when they rented a movie theatre in 1905. Okay! Anyway, it's a formal party with many of the studio's stars in attendance, well, except for George Arliss, John Barrymore, or Richard Bartheness. What, no Al Jolson, the one who put Warners on the map with The Jazz Singer? And it puzzles me why this was on TJS DVD when he's not even mentioned. Oh, and the little girl introing the stars is playing Miss Vitaphone, the sound process that also helped put the studio on the map. One more thing, among the songwriters at the tables are Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II but they're both with their then-partners of Lorenz Hart and Sigmund Romberg, respectively. In summary, An Intimate Dinner in Celebration of Warner Bros. Jubilee was an interesting curio and nothing more.

MartinHafer I am not a huge fan of short films from the 20s and 30s unless they are comedies. However, when I saw this on TCM, I still watched it because I was excited about seeing a film that was essentially a commercial extolling the wonders of Warner Brothers. That's because I wanted to see their stars and see how they looked when they were young. Well, unfortunately, I noticed that in 1930, they had very few stars anyone would recognize today. I am really good at film trivia and there were several I simply didn't recognize and many who I did recognize but knew them only as small-time actors. Plus, three of their biggest stars weren't in this short and they simply showed photos of them and inserted fake letters from them to the audience. Not having John Barrymore, George Arliss and Richard Barthelmess was a real disappointment and the audience had to be content to watch a few small-time actors (with the exceptions of Loretta Young, Walter Huston and a couple lesser stars, who were in the film). The film's structure was also something I myself didn't like--having the film star a small child called "Miss Vitaphone". Yes, I understood the significance--Vitaphone was the new unit from Warners responsible for sound pictures. But, I'm not much of a fan of precocious children.All-in-all, this is a curio and that is all--and not a very interesting one at that.

boblipton This short subject, nominally in celebration of Warner Brothers' silver jubilee -- the only thing I can think of is that they may have opened their first theater in 1905; they didn't go into production for another dozen years -- is an excellent primer for putting faces to names. If you are a fan of old movies, you have seen these actors, but you may not be able to link the faces with the names.Besides the players, various composers and lyricists are shown. It is amusing, given what happened later, to see Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein II -- but they are seated next to, respectively, Lorenz Hart and Sigmund Romberg.This is not, otherwise, an interesting short subject --the moviegoer was intended to be overwhelmed by the sight of so much talent and probably was. Now it is simply a historical artifact.