GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

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.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 1 September 1928 by William Randolph Hearst's Cosmopolitan Productions. Released through Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. New York opening at the Capitol: 7 October 1928. U.S. release: 1 September 1928. 9 reels. 7,652 feet. 85 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Diana Medford, a vivacious, high-spirited girl, falls in love with a young, handsome millionaire. Unfortunately, she has competition. COMMENT: Oddly, this one is a triumph for Anita Page. She just creams the rest of the cast. True, Joan Crawford is absolutely delightful as the dancing Diana, but acting-wise she has little to do other than look vampish or soulful. Miss Page has by far the showiest role and she makes the most of it. Wise girl! She had another great opportunity to show what she was made of in Broadway Melody, but then she fell foul of Hollywood politics and was pushed aside. Dorothy Sebastian also registers strongly here as the appealing Beatrice, but the men are a complete wash-out. The worst are surly Asther, overly exuberant Nugent and two-expressions Brown (smile on, smile off). Production values, fortunately, are agreeably lavish. As with Our Blushing Brides, the DVD is currently only available from Warner. A silent film, the movie was originally issued with a continuous music sound track and occasional sound effects.

Antonius Block The movie that launched Joan Crawford's career, and which so nicely captured some of the spirit of the flappers in the late 1920's. The scenes of her cutting loose with the Charleston amidst art deco furnishings are certainly the highlight. The plot itself is a pretty thin morality tale. Crawford and Anita Page pursue the same newly minted millionaire, who confuses who is "the pure one" and of course gets it wrong. Perhaps it's understandable, since there is a lot of dancing, legs, and playful kissing of guy friends to go around. There is an undercurrent of the double standard common for the time (how interesting this was made in the same year Woolf gave her 'A Room of One's Own' speeches); Dorothy Sebastian plays another character who must live down her past, and convince her husband to forgive her for it. The movie is silent and not in the greatest shape anymore, but that might have added a little to its charm. It's also interesting to see the short hairstyles, cloche hats, and the dialog:Offering a drink: "Li'l hot baby want a cool li'l sip?"After a big kiss: "What a service station *you* turned out to be!"By the shoreline, to a pretty song; ah youth: "It's such a pleasant thing – just to be alive!" "You want to taste all of life – don't you?" "Yes – all! I want to hold out my hands and catch it – like the sunlight."

JimTK Silent drama, released with a synchronized soundtrack that included music — including a few songs — and sound effects. J. Crawford stars as a flapper who deep down had a good heart, whereas A. Page is a conniving, hypocritical gold-digger who poses as a virtuous girl. While both compete for the love of wealthy Mack Brown (long before his western days). A third character (Dorothy Sebastian) is a virtuous 'aurea mediocritas', a girl who had a dark past but found redemption through repentance and honesty about her earlier life toward her new fiancé. The conclusion is not unlike the pattern that would later be established in Production-Code days: the adulteress dies so that the good girl can marry the man — and the final title makes clear that a decent two-year interval was observed. The plot is thus simplistic and formulaic, but it was very well handled by director and cast. By 1928 silent films had developed their art and language to such a refinement that even average productions like this are rich in expression and highly interesting to see. Cast is tops and J. Crawford already displays a captivating screen personality; the very first shot in the picture is a close-up on her legs doing her famous Charleston.

ConDeuce If you have ever stumbled onto one of Joan Crawford's films from the 1950's such as Queen Bee or Sudden Fear, what you see is the caricature of Crawford that she herself seemed to endorse: tough, ballsy and no nonsense. She's inhumane, unreal and kind of scary. You have to wonder where this woman came from and why she is considered a Star. Check out "Our Dancing Daughters" to find out why. At the very least it showcases an appeal that Crawford had that was completely gone by 50s. In it she plays Diana Medford, a rich society girl who is also a great dancer. The plot is simply about a cat fight between Crawford and Anita Page over the rich Ben Blaine (Johnny Mack Brown). Page disparages Crawford to Ben and ends up married to him but Ben never stops loving Diana. Thanks to a melodramatic ending (complete with a drunken confrontation and a fall down a stairs), Diana and Ben end up together (or so it is inferred). So plot wise, there's not much to it and for a lot of people, the film won't hold much appeal outside of seeing what Crawford was like very early in her career. I'm interested by the films of stars that "made" them famous. Too often the films that stars are remembered for aren't really the ones that show their appeal. Take Clark Gable. He's mostly remembered for "Gone With the Wind" but is he really that good in it? I don't think so. He's much better in "Red Dust" and "It Happened One Night". Those are the films where is appeal is very clear. For a somewhat more contemporary view, take someone like Tom Hanks. What is he known for today? "Forrest Gump"? What made Hanks initially appealing to audiences were his comedies like "The Money Pit" or "Turner & Hooch"" and "Splash". Getting back to Crawford and "Our Dancing Daughters" it's this early appealing side of Crawford that is so interesting. She's very attractive here. Not beautiful but very pretty and that's an important distinction: Crawford connected with her female fans (and supposedly her fan mail greatly increased after this movie) because she was accessible, not an aloof, above it all beauty like Garbo. You genuinely feel for her as the movie progresses and then there's a protectiveness that develops in the viewer. At the end, when she "triumphs", you feel like the order of things has been restored. These feelings are due entirely to Crawford. What is fascinating is how completely opposite her later films are. Some of them are grotesques and others just feel clueless like Crawford was trying anything to bring back success. Crawford was good in "Mildred Pierce" but after that each of her films became more strained and some (like "Torch Song") were truly odd and campy. Crawford's legacy would have been completely different had she simply faded away like so many stars of the late 20s and 30s did. Perhaps most are forgotten (does anyone outside of film buffs really talk about Norma Shearer?) but is being remembered now as a grotesque, campy figure any better than being forgotten?