Watch Behind That Curtain For Free

Perfectly adorable

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

"Behind That Curtain" is notable in that it was the first appearance of Charlie Chan at Fox who would go on to produce the long running series of Chan films between 1931 and 1942. It's rather dated but is not as bad a film as some would have you believe.The story is adapted from an Earl Derr Beggars novel about murder, love and deceit among the well to do. Sir George Mannering (Claude King) has hired investigator Hilary Galt (Edgar Norton) to dig up dirt on his niece's Eve's (Lois Moran) intended Eric Durand (Philip Strange). Explorer Colonel John Beetham (Warner Baxter) has concerns, that are never explained, over Galt's findings. Against her uncle's wishes Eve marries Durand. Then Mannering learns that Galt has been murdered and his files stolen.A pair of Chinese slippers are found on the body which implicates Beetham in the murder. Mannering disowns Eve and the couple go off to India to live. Eric Durand's occupation by the way, is never revealed. Anyway, Durand turns out to be a woman chasing rat, among other things and is caught by Eve fooling around with the house servant Nuna (Mercedes DeValacco).Beetham meanwhile has embarked on an expedition in India and runs into a distraught Eve in the market place. Eve tells him of her troubles and eventually leaves Durand over his affair and a mysterious letter that she has received. She joins Beetham's expedition and over a four month period the two fall madly in love. Beetham you see, has been carrying a torch for Eve lo these many months.Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce (Gilbert Emery) meanwhile has taken up the chase in the murder investigation. Eve guarding a deadly secret, flees the camp and disappears. Fast forward a year and Eve turns up in San Francisco still on the run. Both Durand, and Sir Frederick have followed her there. Purely coincidentally, Beetham turns up to deliver a lecture. Sir Frederick working with Chinese Inspector Charlie Chan (E.L. Park) set a trap to capture the murderer and...................Although this is supposed to be a Charlie Chan mystery, he doesn't show up until near the end of the film. The detective work in this story is handled for the most part by Sir Frederick. Chan is portrayed by Asian actor E. L. Park who was a bald middle aged gentleman who has little to contribute to the overall story.Boris Karloff in his first sound film, plays Baxrer's Indian manservant. He would appear in another Chan film, "Charlie Chan at the Opera" in 1936.

Irving Cummings gets the job of directing this murder mystery involving Earl Derr Biggers' Charlie Chan. Fans of the unflappable detective will be disappointed that Chan, played by E.L. Park, is merely an adviser to a veteran Scotland Yard inspector(Gilbert Emery) and only appears in several scenes. The story begins with a murder in London and the only clue is a pair of Chinese slippers. The investigation moves to Persia then India and ends in San Francisco. The prime suspect is an adventurer(Warner Baxter), who is hiding his long-time friend and heiress(Lois Moran)from her gold digger and womanizing husband(Philip Strange). This movie offers nothing out of the ordinary for this time period; but of note is the introduction of Boris Karloff, who has a very small part as a Sudanese manservant.

This is a globe-hopping film that begins in England, then moves to India, Iran and finally San Francisco. The story involves a sociopathic murderer who kills someone and then marries a nice girl. Once married, he treats her like dirt and cheats on her. She puts up with it until she discovers that he was a murderer. Then most of the film consists of her trying desperately to avoid him as well as scandal if the secret were be revealed.This is the earliest Charlie Chan film known to be in existence and it is absolutely nothing like the later films--nothing. Apart from the name "Charlie Chan", there is no similarities to the later exceptional series.Back in 1929, films were often a bit stilted and overly melodramatic. Because the studios weren't used to using sound, the actors tended to remain very stationary (due to poor sound equipment) and the dialog sounded more like plays than movies. I accept this and tend to rate these early talkies with this in mind. However, even keeping this in mind, BEHIND THAT CURTAIN is still a dreadful film--even for 1929. The main problem is not how constricted the actors were due to the sound equipment but how gosh-darn awful the dialog was. In fact, I would have to say that the love scene in the desert might just be the absolute worst love scene I have ever seen and heard--it was THAT overly melodramatic and stagy as well as laughable. I truly believe that most high school actors could do a better job today. In addition to horrible dialog, the movie suffered from being way too slow--and the first half in particular crawled at a snail's pace. Later, despite the horrid dialog and acting the film did pick up a bit--but certainly not enough to make it even passable entertainment! I think the biggest problem is that the film clearly shows those involved with the movie weren't used to talking pictures. However, my complaints weren't just about the wretched dialog and pacing, but also the acting and direction. For example, the film starred Warner Baxter who was an exceptional actor. He was famous not just during the silent era but in sound pictures like the Crime Doctor series and such excellent films as PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND and KIDNAPPED. I loved how he played such realistic and likable "everyman" characters, but here in BEHIND THAT CURTAIN he was a simpering idiot who overdid the love scenes--making him one of the biggest liabilities in the film. The female lead, Lois Moran was perhaps even worse. The only actor who came off well (very well, actually), was Gilbert Emery as the Scotland Yard inspector.One reviewer pointed out that the only good element was the cinematography, though I would differ. While it was exceptional seeing the sound outdoor shots of the caravan (for 1929 getting this right was VERY tough), all too often the camera was static. At one point it was even laughable, as the scene began with just the tops of the characters' heads showing--like the camera should have been several feet lower. This was because the couple were about to stand and instead of moving the camera or using a cut, they just left the camera on and created a very awkward and sloppy scene.Now as for Charlie Chan, he was only a bit player who appeared in a very limited capacity in the last 12 minutes of the movie. Surprisingly, he was actually played by an Asian--something you'd never see in the 30s-50s. However, this isn't all positive as E.L. Park had the charisma and charm of a bag of lint. They simply gave this actor nothing to do--making him just a glorified errand boy for Emery. Also, Chan oddly was NOT a Hawaiian-based detective--instead serving in Chinatown in San Francisco. Also, Mr. Park didn't look as Chinese as Warner Oland (who was a Swede)--looking more like a native Hawaiian (though with a Korean name). Chan was supposed to be a Hawaiian but of Chinese descent. Because of these inconsistencies and a thankless part, the "Chanophiles" out there will no doubt find all this very disappointing.In conclusion, the plot wasn't bad but due to horrid acting, dialog and direction this is one supposedly lost film that might just as well as have remained lost!Also, in a small role is Boris Karloff. While it's not a huge role, this excellent actor acquitted himself well in the role of a devoted servant. It was nice to see him in a pre-Frankenstein role.

This 1929 film is included on Charlie Chan Volume 3 as part of the complete history of Chan's character at Fox. For that reason it is good to have it. Viewing it, however, is another matter entirely. It is a great example of a bad early talkie in almost every category except cinematography. Fox used sound-on-film versus vitaphone, thus their early talkies don't have that static claustrophobic quality other 1928 and 1929 talkies have.However the dialogue in many ways is held over from the silents as is the acting. At one point Warner Baxter is declaring his love to the leading lady by repeating "I love you! I love you! I love you". In the words of Singin' in the Rain, did someone get paid to write this dialogue? The overacting is unbelievable and the speech is tortuously slow.The point of interest for most of us watching this film, the first appearance of Charlie Chan in a Fox film, doesn't take up much screen time. He appears near the beginning to identify a crucial piece of evidence and for a few minutes during the end. The murderer is identified almost at the beginning of the film and most of the time is taken up by a poorly acted love triangle tale. This is not the first appearance of Warner Oland in the title role, though. That doesn't occur for another two years. This film is only for hardcore Charlie Chan fans the same way that "An Old Spanish Custom" is for Buster Keaton fans.