CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.8/10
1.2 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaNot-so-smart chatterbox Dulcy Parker does and says all the wrong things, but they right themselves to prove she's not so dumb after all.Not-so-smart chatterbox Dulcy Parker does and says all the wrong things, but they right themselves to prove she's not so dumb after all.Not-so-smart chatterbox Dulcy Parker does and says all the wrong things, but they right themselves to prove she's not so dumb after all.
- Premios
- 3 premios ganados en total
Sidney Bracey
- Photographer
- (sin créditos)
Jay Eaton
- Photographer's Helper
- (sin créditos)
Ruby Lafayette
- Grandma
- (sin créditos)
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe original Broadway production of and source for the screen play "Dulcy" by George S. Kaufman and Marc Connelly opened at the Frazee Theatre on August 13, 1921 and ran for 241 performances. The play had been made into a film once before as Dulcy in a 1923 silent version starring Constance Talmadge in the title role.
- Versiones alternativasMGM also released a silent version of this film.
- ConexionesFeatured in Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies (2001)
- Bandas sonorasSingin' in the Rain
Music by Nacio Herb Brown
Lyrics by Arthur Freed
Played briefly on the piano by Donald Ogden Stewart
Opinión destacada
There is absolutely no bias against early talkies, despite giving a low rating and negative review to 'Not so Dumb'. The title alone gave the feeling of not to expect much, so expectations were not exactly high. There is also no bias against Marion Davies, who was a natural in comedy, or against King Vidor, responsible for silent film greats 'The Big Parade' and 'The Crowd' (high recommendations if you haven't seen them already).
'Not So Dumb' just doesn't work and redeeming qualities are sadly few. There are far better Davies vehicles, more her early work than later, of which 'Not So Dumb' is very much a lesser one and doesn't show her in a good light. And it is for me definitely among Vidor's worst, not a patch on the best of his silents and he even did better later. Neither of them are well served and neither of them, after solid careers in silents, seemed comfortable here with the still in infancy talkie film medium.
What redeems 'Not So Dumb' a little is the supporting cast, all doing very well with what they're given. Amusing George Davis comes off best.
Did like the costumes and sets which were quite elegant.
A word that can't be used describing the rest of the production values sadly. Most of 'Not So Dumb' looks cheap, with very static camerawork that is very restricted and never opens up or feels cinematic and editing that lacks cohesion. Davies' comedic chops are not in sight in a very strident and over-compensated performance that has no subtlety whatsoever. Making her character incredibly irritating. Vidor's direction is very ill at ease and like he didn't know what he was doing.
Furthermore, the sound is very distorted which makes some of the dialogue hard to hear. Not that it was worth hearing anyway, with it being so stilted and unintentionally camp. The story would have been out of date and old-fashioned at the time and creaks badly now, it is slight and when there is a story discernible it is neither interesting or natural. The length is not long but the dullness of the pacing and lack of interest or connection with the story makes it feel longer than it actually is.
On the whole, pretty weak failure and to be for completest sake pretty much only. 3/10
'Not So Dumb' just doesn't work and redeeming qualities are sadly few. There are far better Davies vehicles, more her early work than later, of which 'Not So Dumb' is very much a lesser one and doesn't show her in a good light. And it is for me definitely among Vidor's worst, not a patch on the best of his silents and he even did better later. Neither of them are well served and neither of them, after solid careers in silents, seemed comfortable here with the still in infancy talkie film medium.
What redeems 'Not So Dumb' a little is the supporting cast, all doing very well with what they're given. Amusing George Davis comes off best.
Did like the costumes and sets which were quite elegant.
A word that can't be used describing the rest of the production values sadly. Most of 'Not So Dumb' looks cheap, with very static camerawork that is very restricted and never opens up or feels cinematic and editing that lacks cohesion. Davies' comedic chops are not in sight in a very strident and over-compensated performance that has no subtlety whatsoever. Making her character incredibly irritating. Vidor's direction is very ill at ease and like he didn't know what he was doing.
Furthermore, the sound is very distorted which makes some of the dialogue hard to hear. Not that it was worth hearing anyway, with it being so stilted and unintentionally camp. The story would have been out of date and old-fashioned at the time and creaks badly now, it is slight and when there is a story discernible it is neither interesting or natural. The length is not long but the dullness of the pacing and lack of interest or connection with the story makes it feel longer than it actually is.
On the whole, pretty weak failure and to be for completest sake pretty much only. 3/10
- TheLittleSongbird
- 28 abr 2020
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Dulcy
- Locaciones de filmación
- Pasadena, California, Estados Unidos(opening driving scenes)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 16 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the French language plot outline for Not So Dumb (1930)?
Responda