Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

MartinHafer In the early days of sound, some Hollywood studios made giant song and dance spectaculars to showcase all their actors in this new medium. The most famous was MGM's "Hollywood Review of 1929". "The Show of Shows" is Warner Brothers entry into this very short-lived genre...and thankfully this sort of film was soon out of style. I say thankfully because these films were pretty awful. Now they ARE of great interest to film historians, but seeing and hearing actors doing bizarre acts of dubious quality is hard to endure at times-- especially because a lot of non-singers were inexplicably forced to sing. In the case of "The Show of Shows" it's made worse because the folks arranging the songs and directing the pieces were apparently insane--and often choruses were was out of sync and sounded very amateurish. And imagine starting this program with a precision drill team dancing up and down a huge flight of steps. What's THAT all about?!So is this worth seeing? Well, no...unless you are either very drunk, have very low standards or simply are curious. But at over two hours, the curiosity wears very, very thin. Among the notables you will recognize (and most you won't) are John Barrymore, Mary Astor, Myrna Loy and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.--but a huge number of these stars are folks whose careers were about to turn very sour. With the advent of sound, popular comics like Lloyd Hamilton, Lupino Land and Ben Turpin would soon have trouble finding work and the film is filled with has-beens. I am very familiar with the stars of this era, but would STILL love it if someone could add captions to this film so you realize who you are watching! Overall, I'd say that this film is tough to endure, long-winded and terrible. And those are only the good qualities.

fredcdobbs5 As other posters have noted, this is really a difficult film to rate. Judging it by modern standards it's awful--overblown, creaky, flat and primitive--but judging it by 1929 standards I can see where audiences must have bowled over by it. They could see their favorite stars--mostly from the silent days--like they had never seen them before, playing themselves and, in many cases, doing things they had never done, such as singing, dancing and comedy routines. Overall, though, it's poorly staged by director John G. Adolfi, who was not one of Warners' top-rank directors and was known for making "serious" melodramas; why Warners picked him to direct this big, splashy, musical comedy revue is incomprehensible. Whatever the reason, he seems to have functioned more as a traffic cop than a director.Some of the musical numbers are fair to middling, but others are just flat-out embarrassing. Probably the worst routine in the picture is the "Rifle Execution" skit. It's supposed to be funny, but it doesn't even rise to the level of a bad Benny Hill routine. It's utterly, completely and totally unfunny, with nary a laugh, chuckle, smirk or even a titter and is further hampered by the irritating Frank Fay trying to upstage everybody, and failing miserably. It's also in incredibly bad taste; there's nothing funny about a man placed in front of a wall with his hands tied behind his back about to be executed by a firing squad--and at the end of the "skit" he actually is! Unbelievable.The opening number, with 100 or so showgirls doing precision dancing on a huge staircase a la Busby Berkeley, is actually impressive, however; the very intricate routine is shot in one long take and comes off without a hitch. It's pretty much downhill after that, though, except for Winnie Lightner's two musical numbers, which are infectious and enjoyable. Most of the "comedy" routines performed by stars not known for comedy--and even some who are--come across as forced, flat and, even worse, unfunny. Probably the worst "performance", however, is by emcee Frank Fay, a Broadway star of the era. He comes across as an obnoxious ham, his feeble attempts at singing and comic patter are annoying, and his introductions to each of the featured numbers are clumsy, inept and overlong. As an emcee, he is an abysmal flop. Why he was considered a star isn't readily apparent at all.This film is much more valuable as an historical document than as entertainment, which it barely achieves. Many of the stars--70+ of them--I had heard of before but had never seen them in anything (e.g., Lloyd Hamilton, Winnie Lightner, Bea Lillie and Alice Day), so it was at least interesting to finally see them in action, as it were. A young but recognizable Loretta Young and her sister Sally Blane perform in a very strange number that features teams of well-known sisters dressed as "Dutch maids" singing and dancing in a "Ziegfeld Girls" type of big splashy routine. The number also features a young and unrecognizable Ann Sothern, when she was using her real name of Harriet Lake, with her sister Bonnie Lake.The film is a very mixed bag--everybody from John Barrymore to Rin-Tin-Tin puts in an appearance--and difficult to slog through at times, only occasionally rising above mediocrity. Worth a look once for its historical significance, but that's about it.

eocostello One of a handful of "revue" films from the early sound era, this film mixes musical numbers and comedy routines, a la vaudeville. Some items don't really work, in particular Frank Fay's role as emcee, and the finale, which is rather loosely structured. On the other hand, Winnie Lightner does two terrific turns, especially with "Singin' in the Bathtub," which is put over with punch. Some versions have the "Li-Po-Li" segment in 2-strip Technicolor, which gives the routine unusual sheen and polish, playing off the strengths of the system, especially in the use of turquoises and reds.Generally superior, I think, to MGM's "Hollywood Revue of 1929," and worth watching if you can

doc-55 It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for "film buffs" especially interested in the silent to sound transition