Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

mark.waltz Oh how the reel creeks in this tedious melodrama that starts off ridiculously and slides down into the muck of a total yawn-fest. Knowing that his wife killed an admirer accidentally in self defense, the husband spends 15 years in prison while she turns into a bitter, controlling shrew of a mother for their child. When he is granted parole, the husband moves in as the eternal guest, becomes supportive to his daughter (unaware of his identity), and tries to brighten up her life, even though she is involved with an alleged scoundrel that her mother does not approve of. Snail paced direction by Phil Rosen and dialog delivery is the nail in this squeaky coffin that features weak acting, an unbelievable plot line and poor, slow editing. Silent star Henry B. Walthall looks like a walking corpse as the long-suffering husband, and handsome Ricardo Cortez seems embarrassed by the whole thing while playing the young love interest. A melodramatic plot twist comes out of nowhere to attempt to liven things up, but by that time, it is too little, too late. Yes, this is a very early talkie, so some creakiness is expected, but this just never crosses the line into anything memorable.

bkoganbing Some rather stilted acting characterizes this melodrama about a man who confessed to a murder his wife did and got life in prison for it. Henry B. Walthall who played a lot of noble and self sacrificing characters on the silent screen and in talkies was at the top of his game in both those categories. The title of the film is a misnomer because there are no ghostly apparitions here, simply Walthall hanging around his family under an alias. But his daughter Nancy Welford bonds with him and can't explain the connection she feels.Walthall was an inventor and his patents were assigned over to his wife Grace Valentine which has made her a most wealthy society dame. She wants a title for Welford to marry and there's some silly English earl played by Rolfe Sedan hanging around probably looking to give some woman his title for her money. That's not what Welford wants, she wants to marry earnest young Ricardo Cortez. But Valentine threatens to ruin him if he marries her.Into this mess walks Walthall back into their lives, given parole after 15 years. He's traveling incognito at first as the daughter has been given a whole different story about a father who died in the late World War. I won't go any farther except that in the end both the women come to a radical reassessment about things. And Walthall once again thinks of others.I doubt we'll ever see a remake of this old fashioned story. The Phantom Of The House was written for a different with different tastes in literature and different ideas about what constitutes a hero. Also it is plain the players were getting used to sound and both Walthall and Cortez did much better work in sound very shortly.It's a real museum piece of a film.

edalweber Not a bad effort for its era. People seeing the audience reaction in "Singin' In the Rain" are seeing an anachronism.That would be the reaction of a 1950 audience used to perfected talking pictures.But for audiences accustomed to silent movies,even imperfect sound was marvelous,making complicated plots like this far more practical than with silents. As others said, Henry Walthall and Ricardo Cortez give very professional performances. The film of course is "stagy", partly due to the limitations of sound equipment at the time but more due to the type of story it was.Even later efforts like"The Mask of Demetrius" were just about as stagy because of the nature of the plot. For one thing, this and other movies allow us to see basically what a stage melodrama of the period was like,something almost impossible to completely duplicate today,because todays actors simply didn't grow up in that old tradition. Still, the sets are very interesting, and it is somewhat filmic, allowing scenes and shots such as closeups that stage can't provide, so it is better than merely a filmed stage play. All in all a rather interesting movie.

MartinHafer THE PHANTOM IN THE HOUSE is a very, very old fashioned film--the sort of film that was common back in 1929 when studios first began making talking pictures. So, I cut it a lot of slack. However, when seen today, it really comes off very, very poorly.One of the first problems you'll probably notice is the sound track. The voices and lip movements are way out of sync on the DVD from Alpha Video and I assume all existing copies have that problem. One reason it was common in early sound films was that initially the sound was NOT included on the film strip but came on an accompanying record. Invariably, the record and film not be matched up perfectly--and this film is no exception. Additionally, like all such early films there is very little incidental music and sound effects--making for a strangely quiet film. By the early 1930s, this problem was eliminated, but the only way they knew to add music was to literally have a small orchestra stationed just off camera! h These were not the major problems in the film--just two you'll no doubt notice. However, a few more serious problems did impact how much I liked the film. The dialog was generally bad and the acting quite wooden, though there were some exceptions. Ricardo Cortez and Henry Walthall were professionals who already looked comfortable in front of the camera. This is especially true of Walthall who had been on stage quite a bit during his long career. The rest of the cast were not so skilled and it showed.Still, these were not the most serious problem in the film. The biggest single problem is the plot. It was hardly believable and the way some of the people acted was ridiculous. For example, when the film began, Walthall and his wife are in the room with a dead man--a man the wife had just killed. Walthall THOUGHT she'd been having an affair yet HE claimed it was him who killed the man! It was clearly self-defense--so why did he say he did it?! He spent 15 years in prison for something he did not commit AND he thought his wife was guilty! This made no sense. Additionally, while he was in prison protecting his wife, he was also sending patents for inventions to her and she became wealthy. When he was paroled, she wanted nothing to do with him!! Think about it--he saved her and provided for her so well that she now was quite rich YET she wanted him to just disappear! This, too, made no sense.Overall, the sound issues and dialog can be forgiven--after all, that the was the norm for 1929. But a clichéd and silly plot cannot--so I can't recommend you see this soapy film.