Alicia I love this movie so much

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Musashi94 The absolute nadir of Hitchcock's career, with the director himself dismissing it as the worst film he ever made during his interview with François Truffaut. Hitchcock stated the film was "An excuse to do a picture with the title 'Champagne'..." and (if true) it explains a lot about this train wreck. It seems like the original idea for Champagne was to churn out a Betty Balfour vehicle with some racy comedic elements with the rest of the film to be constructed around that rather thin premise.The plot, such as it is, is rather pointless: a profligate heiress is forced to get a job in a nightclub after her father goes bankrupt. This leads to some irritating romantic melodrama, as this rather innocuous job is apparently scandalous, outraging the heiress' fiancé. It truly is a paper thin plot with almost no real dramatic stakes or conflict that does nothing more than to serve as an excuse to film some nightclub set-pieces. This is a rather rickety foundation to build a film on, especially when you hand it to a director like Hitchcock who's still early on in his career and was never very good at directing straight-up comedy as Mr. & Mrs. Smith would prove 13 years later.As a result, the direction is pretty uninspired for the most part. Hitchcock throws a few gimmicks in now and again, such as filming through a large mock up of a champagne glass, but he appears to be about as bored as the viewers likely are. The film falters in terms of acting as well. Although I only have this film to go on, Betty Balfour doesn't have much in the way of charisma or comic timing and I can see why she never became a star outside of Britain. Jean Brandin is also pretty stiff and unconvincing as her fiancé. The film's chief problem however, is the comedy, which is outdated and painfully devoid of humor aside from the unintentional variety that stems from a bunch of extras trying to act drunk. By all means, this is a film only for Hitchcock fanatics and even they should proceed with caution.

bbmtwist Of the six (out of surviving 8) silent films of Hitchcock that I have seen, this is the worst. It is dull, dull, dull, practically plot-less, and a crashing bore.It would seem Hitch did not do well with early films in which the protagonist was a woman. In THE PLEASURE GARDEN and EASY VIRTUE, both centered around women, I found equally uninteresting plots, plodding and repetitive scenes, and little of interest in either the performances or the narrative. His best so far have been the back-to-back films with Ivor Novello, THE LODGER and DOWNHILL.Balfour in the lead has no acting talent it would seem. Her one expression is an inane smile. Jean Bradin as the boyfriend is good-looking, but also has one expression, a frown. The father, played by Gordon Harker, likewise has one expression, anger. The most interesting character is the stranger, played by Ferdinand Van Alten, who remains enigmatic throughout, popping up now and then, for no apparent reason (until the denouement). He so resembles David Suchet, we assume he is Poirot on a holiday and expecting any one of the leads to be murdered at any moment.Would that that had happened. They all deserved it for their dullness, and at least it would have been more of a Hitchcockian development plot-wise.There are the usual handful of clever cinematic and editing effects Hitch likes to employ: the close-up of the champagne cork popping; the view of a room through the upturned glass of champagne (in fact several individual points of view of scenes); the theft of the jewelry case – a tracking shot at below waist level; the dissolve of the expensive bed sheet to an everyday cotton table cloth; dancers going from live action to a still photo with pull back to display it in a store window, etc.These are only for Hitchcock devotees. As a film, it is very weak and ponderous and for a comedy, not a laugh in it. Unless you are a fan of the director, I would avoid it.

Igenlode Wordsmith The recent BFI restoration of the Hitchcock silents brought to light the unhappy truth that the negative of "Champagne" held in the National Archive -- which on research proved to be the ultimate source of every other surviving print around the world -- is explicitly labelled as the studio's 'second negative', in other words a substandard back-up copy assembled from the shots that weren't quite good enough for the distribution print. The digitally restored version looks good, and some improvements have been made where shots were obviously spliced out of sequence, but since we now know that there are specific problems in this negative with poor editing/pacing (e.g. shots being held a little too long) and the use of reaction shots that didn't originally make the grade, it's hard to be sure how many of the film's issues are due to this fact and how many to an actually weak storyline. Given that the major problems are the complaint that the film seems to drag and that characters' reactions just don't seem to make sense, I'm afraid that "Champagne" as originally released may well have been substantially superior to the only version that we will ever be able to see :-( This was apparently a case of a film where the title and star were decided upon in advance, and then a scenario had to be constructed around them! Hitchcock's original plan was for a rags-to-riches-to rags plot (as opposed to the riches-to-rags-to-riches version ultimately used) in which a girl working at a rural champagne plant would go up to Paris and see for herself how the drink fuelled dissipated night-life, only to return disgusted to her poor but honest job. However, it was felt that the great British public would much prefer to see glamour celebrated on the screen rather than have their illusions popped -- cinema was an escapist medium for those whose life was hard -- and so a completely different scenario was developed. (It is interesting to wonder, however, how much of the cabaret sequence derives from this original concept.)Like most of Hitchcock's early films, this is not a typical "Hitchcock" production -- the director was expected to do his job as paid by the studio rather than provide his own material -- and is of interest to those who enjoy films of the era rather than to those who are looking for traces of "The Master of Suspense". Betty Balfour is the quintessential Twenties Girl here: wilful and bubbly with a Cupid's-bow pout, cropped curls and the ambition to dictate her own life rather than acquiesce to the plans of the male half of the population. The plot is thin and in places rather contrived, but as this is by no means rare in comedies of the period (or later ones...) I think the problem is with the handling of the material rather than with the storyline per se.The beginning is good (I particularly liked the description of the young man as a 'cake-hound'. a wonderfully period insult), and the wordless comedy of sea-sickness is very well handled without being merely crude: I love the way the Boy veers between outraged determination to confront his supposed rival and qualms from his uncertain stomach. The concept of forcing the spoilt flapper to fend for herself (echoing Buster Keaton's hapless couple on board the "Navigator") is obviously intended as a major comedy hook for the plot, although it's not played intensively for laughs. I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen a director actually get comic business out of the actual process of cooking (as opposed to simply miming that the rock-cakes are rock-hard) and did wonder if it reflected an impressive degree of domestication on Mr Hitchcock's (or Mr Stannard's) part!The main problem with the film is I think the cabaret sequence, and I do wonder if this is a left-over from the original scenario. Instead of developing the comedy inherent in a girl who 'makes a mess of everything she gets her hands on' (including the back of her lover's jacket...!) looking for a job, we are plunged into what turns out to be a rather confusing and portentous sequence of events, as her 'job' at the cabaret seems to get forgotten in favour of sexual innuendo: the prostitutes, the lesbians, the would-be rapist... The plot becomes muddled (not helped by what turns out to be an interpolated dream/nightmare sequence) and ends up with the girl running off to throw herself on the mercy of a man she has previously -- and soon again subsequently -- seemed to be afraid of. Considered dispassionately, much of this section seems to be a digression that neither develops the comedy nor furthers the plot mechanics (although it is probably the most 'Hitchcockian' part of the picture!)Having contorted the characters into the required situation to create the final comic set-up -- the showdown of mistaken intentions on board the returning liner -- the film concludes fairly happily with some genuine laughter through unforced farce. The acting is by and large good -- save for those moments when it is simply totally confusing! -- and the basic plot is a promising set-up for a typical light comedy of the period, complete with showy costumes for the leading lady and a hint of slapstick. The pacing is just a bit off; and, knowing what we now know, I do wonder if there is missing material -- intertitles, for instance! -- or even excess shots where alternate takes/ideas were *both* included in the compiled negative for a decision at some future point...

Steffi_P Champagne was among the last of Hitchcock's silents, and made at a period when Hollywood was already turning fast towards the talkies. Perhaps because of this, the young and naive Hitchcock appears to be cramming in as much visual technique as possible.Right from his first picture, Hitchcock had loved the point-of-view shot. Champagne makes heavy use of what I call "extreme" point-of-view shots – that is, ones which really draw your attention to the fact that we are seeing a character's-eye-view, for example where we see the actor's hands in front of us, or the camera moves as the character walks. To this end Hitchcock even had giant props built to wave in front of the lens. There are also copious other techniques which aim to literalise the experience of the characters – for example shaking the camera around when the ship is rocking. Although the later Hitchcock would sometimes use such tricks (far more subtly) to draw the audience into the character's world, here and now it's just a bit of overt stylisation that in no way enhances the film.Trickery for trickery's sake is often worse than useless. When Betty Balfour is told her father has lost his fortune, there is a superimposition of a room spinning. If Balfour is good enough, she could convey what is going on inside her character's head. I think I speak for most audience members when I say I would rather look at a good acting performance than a post-production special effect.It's a pity Hitch felt he needed to dress up his shots so much, because even at this early stage he had good timing for basic point-of-view and reaction shots, allowing him to smoothly reveal intentions and opinions. His basic film grammar is good enough to keep down the number of intertitles. By the way, the difference between a picture like this and those made around the same time in the US (which tend to be very wordy) is not that the Hollywood directors were bad at visual storytelling, it's that their pictures were often full of unnecessary title cards, whereas in Europe the goal was generally to keep them to a minimum.It's a mercy too that the acting in Champagne tends to be fairly naturalistic, the only touches of theatricality being for the sake of comedy. None of them is exceptional, but none of them is really bad either. I'm not quite convinced though by Gordon Harker as a millionaire, but perhaps this is because I'm so used to seeing him playing earthy working class types.All else I have to say about Champagne is that it is just a bit dull – a comedy drama that is not enough of one thing or the other. A reasonable plot, a handful of good gags, but ultimately lifeless. At this point Hitchcock was really just saying, through his camera, "Look at me! I'm the director! Look what I can do!" when he should have been turning all those audience-involving techniques into gripping entertainment - as he later would.