Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

MissSimonetta There's no denying the creakiness of The Broadway Melody (1929). Best known as the first sound film to win Best Picture, TBM inspired a series of spiritual successors into the early 1940s. So is it any good? Ehh...Many have defended the film from naysayers by telling us it was made early in the sound period and thus we should be kind to its less than well-aged qualities. As someone who delights in film history, of course I agree that some concessions should be taken, but there are much better sound films from this period which better showcased the new technology.There's also the issue of the plot, which is just uncomfortable. We have two sisters fresh off the vaudeville circuit who wish to transition to the big time on Broadway. One is engaged to a show biz man who proceeds to pursue the other sister during said engagement. He is never presented as the creep he is and for some reason, he is given a happy ending with the other sister. It could have been handled much better and by that I mean it could have been written in such a way that the fiancée could have come across as conflicted and not gleefully sleazy.The musical numbers are okay, but the choreography is lacking compared to something like Paul Fejos's Broadway (1930). Overall history geeks like me will be fascinated by the movie as an early sound film, but everyone else will more than likely be bored by the trite melodrama, dull musical numbers, and flat characterizations.

jjnxn-1 Keeping in mind that the film is 80 years old and was made just when sound was new its interesting to see considering that it won best picture the year it came out. You can still feel the studios adjusting to the new medium since at several scene breaks they still use title cards, the sound is often uneven, the acting techniques antiquated and the plot older than the hills. With all that taken under advisement the picture is still worth viewing to see for the archetypes that it established and of course being a pre-code it has a racier content than would have been allowed even five years later. Famed songwriter Nacio Herb Brown, Singin in the Rain, Good Morning etc., is featured in the cast next to his future wife, albeit briefly, Anita Page. More of an fascinating artifact than a truly great film it's still worth watching at least once.

mikegordan This is yet another Best Picture winner that would come to define Oscar as being style-over-substance, except the Musical Genre's no longer as popular as it once was (okay, Chicago did win, but that's for another review). This, however, is an interesting piece.For starters, during the eligibility period of the 2nd Academy Awards (late 1928-mid 1929) was a period in time where Hollywood was transitioning from silent to talkies. Thanks to some advancements in technology, we got the speakers, the recorders, and sound stages, many of which due to Broadway. And speaking of Broadway, what better way to show off the talkie trend than to give us a Broadway-like musical? Only Broadway Melody went a step further and even introduced Technicolor for the very first time in cinematic history (though only in a limited number of musical sequences, many of which didn't survive).So where does this film fall? Well, for the time, it certainly had a lot more to brag about for its accomplishments than most talkies did. But like a ton of other films from that time period that made the technological leap, it suffers from several of the faults that Hollywood was just not accustomed to at the time. The acting became uncomfortably awkward, the Technicolor looked really grainy and hideous-looking, the sound quality was very poor, and it simply became a lavish luxury.The story and the characters are completely forgettable as well. I just saw this movie on NetFlix, and I can't remember a thing about anybody or anything that went on. This is a primary example of giving us a half-baked story with cardboard cutouts as a means to showing off its technological advancements.So yeah, while its history is interesting, the movie itself is just an embarrassing bore. A lot of people may defend this film by saying that it simply didn't age well, and to "try viewing it from when it first came out," but this excuse simply isn't going to fly. Maybe if the story and characters were engaging, even with the embarrassing performances and dated technology, I may cut the film some slack. But the intent of the Oscars that year speaks for itself; Best Picture was the only Oscar it won that year, and it won for the spectacle alone. Even if that was because there were only 7 categories, the Oscar ceremony in subsequent years (with only 2 exceptions) will prove that there's no excuse for its lack of quality.It may not be the worst film to win Best Picture, but again, I can only recommend this film to those that are interested in learning of the Academy's humble roots. If you don't care about Oscar, then I'd seriously skip it. I will give it a generous--yet deserving, 4 out of 10.

Louis Orren "The Broadway Melody" certainly has the obvious handicap to holding up; in that, it's 82 year old; but it still is a worthwhile view for lovers of either film, theater, music, or particularly musical theater. I, being passionate about all of those would be an ideal candidate to watch it. Thus with my appreciation for nostalgia no matter how ancient it may become, should be a prime target for this film today if there are any targets for it. Nevertheless, even as a nostalgic piece, the film still makes it off of others issues besides its writing. The plot is nothing stellar, the characters work well into the plot but aren't incredibly complex, and some of the outcomes can feel too contrived. Even for 1929, the film makes it off of novel breakthroughs for its time such as its catch music and its appropriate integration of music into the story.If the "Broadway Melody" deserves credit for nothing else, it deserves credit for bringing musical theater genre to film. It is even mildly disputable as to whether everyone would consider it a musical today or not. It naturally implements songs into the story, but the use of songs lacks the escapist element necessary to a true musical. Christopher Walken describes Gene Kelly as a master of performance who sang when he didn't feel words were strong enough spoken, and danced when words were meaningless. The songs in this film are all during scenes in which they show the film is about is being performed or when the writer of the songs is presenting his songs to someone openly. There are certainly no musical numbers that play on the obvious plot hole musical theater should lend itself to, leaving audience members asking how every person surrounding knows how to perfect perform in sync with each other. Most of the songs are solo songs anyway, with brief duet, trio, or chorus moments perhaps. It is basically a musical to the same extent that "The Great Ziegfeld" is or to the extent that "Topsy Turvy" is an operetta. Regardless of the implementation however, that songs illustrate the characters and pace the film nicely. The songs don't necessarily expand the plot the way musicals' songs generally should, but they do elevate characters' revelations at points, especially Eddie's lament to Queenie. Perhaps however, it was to the film's credit that it didn't immediately switch to true escapism when the movie was made. Musical theater escapism is always very tricky in cinema. Creating an atmosphere in which the audience really feels like the characters are singing and thus the viewers can feel attached to the moment is quite difficult in the more realistic setting film frequently calls for. Such handicaps have especially been prominent with film occasional exceptions such as Chicago in recent years, but the live-action musical theater scene has not been a too marketable since the 1960's in light of such difficulties."Broadway Melody" does not have a bad plot, but it does not have a particular novel one either. The plot allows conceivable conflict, but works little at all more your generic hallmark writing ploy. Film may have been still fairly new in 1929, but theater sure was not. The plot does not have the excuse of its outdated platitudes. Hank and Queenie Mahoney are sisters who have been doing a successful vaudeville duo act for a while now until Hank's boyfriend Eddie Kearns writes them both into his new show, "The Broadway Melody", getting them the chance to become stars in the big apple itself. As it turns out however, the real woman Eddie is in love with is Queenie, not Hank especially as Queenie becomes a bigger and bigger star on the stage. As Queenie becomes successful enough, a sleazy agent name Jack Wariner makes a pass at her, evidently using her to promote himself. While Queenie knows he's using her, she can't bring herself to express her true feelings for Eddie and cause conflict between herself and her sister. The outcome is nothing stellar; in fact, there are some details I will not spoil the movie and reveal, but that make the outcome less than masterful.This film is entertaining with enough going for it to fill 100 minutes of your life. The songs are catchy, the characters are likable, and the cast gives appropriate treatment to each conflict and resolution. The writing is nothing to shout about all though. The script is essentially an excuse to implement Nacio Herb Brown and Arthur Freed's numbers. To the extent that it brought musical theater to cinema and broadened the potential of sound, it is a valiant effort to film history. It is thus, worth seeing for lovers of film or musical theater if not for the sake of marvelous entertainment, that sheer indulgence at the very least.