Watch Dames For Free

Who payed the critics

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Brilliant and touching

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Bw lose one point. Wish it were color. Berkeley gain one point. He always did an excellent job. Keeler was a good dancer here, being at the front of a dance group who did not have obviously her superlative talents. Kibbee always a sweetheart, and blindsided by Joan Blondell.Hugh Herbert was the flustered gazillionaire wealthy relative. He was thorough in always reminding everyone to remain their upright moral selves. Dick Powell was his wonderful singing self, as always. The Hays Code was soon to obliterate the short, flimsy costumes as shown here. The legion of decency was both inside and outside this film.

From 1929 until the late 1930s, Hollywood made a ton of films that followed a very similar pattern. There was a thin story that was more an explanation and excuse for the HUGE production numbers to come. This plot almost always had to do with something that threatened to cancel the 'big show'. Despite many thinking Busby Berkeley only directed films like this or that all these films were Berkeley movies, they weren't. But the ones with the wildest production numbers so often did end up being his films--and he always seemed to try to outdo himself--resulting in some VERY crazy films! Seen today, people are often in shock at these numbers--with huge swimming pools, dozens and dozens of pretty dancing girls, sparklers, enormous sets and the like. But, even if you don't like them, you have to admit it took a lot of work and talent to direct and choreograph these peculiar films! The thing that threatens to stop the show is a blue-nose (Hugh Herbert)---a moralist who threatens to pull financing from the show because it features, uh-oh,...dancing girls! While Herbert is best an acquired taste (one I have never managed to acquire), Guy Kibbee was his usual fun self. As for the singers and dancers, the very familiar Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are the leads. None of the story particularly excited me, but there were a few nice songs (such as "You Ought To Be in Pictures") and the production numbers were...well...crazy and complicated. None of this is in the least bit innovative or different from a couple dozen other films, but it is pleasant and well-made. While not nearly the quality of the better musicals like "Footlight Parade" or "42nd Street", if you like the genre this is a pleasant, if predictable, film.

A wonderful musical comedy, fitting in well with 42nd Street, Golddiggers of 1933, Footlight Parade, and Golddiggers of 1935. Of the five, I would place this one tied for second, behind Golddiggers of 1933, equal to Footlight Parade, and just a hair better than 42nd Street. If you have seen none of them it would be good to start with this one. Then I would go to 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, saving the masterpiece Golddiggers of 33 for last. (Golddiggers of 1935 is quite a bit inferior.)The first strong point is the excellent comedic plot, better than that in 42nd Street, about the same as Footlght Parade. Guy Kibbe is wonderful as always, Hugh Herbert and Zasu Pitts are great. The three of them really steal the show, at least as far as acting and plot go. The jokes come quickly and can easily be missed. I would hazard a guess that some viewers will no longer get the joke in the name of Hugh Herbert's character, "Ezra Ounce." Joan Blondell is gorgeous and smart as always. Dick Powell is the same as in all the movies - which is absolutely fine! I love his voice. I find Ruby Keeler a delight to look at and watch. It's true, as others have commented, that she really doesn't do a heck of a lot in this one, though she is on screen quite a lot. Some people seem to love to put down her acting or dancing. OK, so she's not going to star in King Lear or Antigone. So what? Get over it! That's not the point. She is very appealing. Similarly, I like seeing her dance. She doesn't have to be as good as Cyd Charisse. Get over it!The real appeal of all five of the movies I've mentioned here, and the real star, is Busby Berkeley. It is amazing to read one or two of the reviews written here in the last decade by people who, I suppose, are rather young and set in their ways. How anyone with half a brain can watch this movie and not be absolutely blown away is unbelievable to me. Truly, such a person is blind. Maybe not in the sense of passing the eye test for a driver's license, but blind nonetheless. Surely Busby Berkeley was the most unexpected creative genius in the history of film.Let me echo something another poster has written. Though I was born long after the great depression ended, it was still a living reality in the minds of my parents, and something I absorbed somehow when growing up. Maybe a byproduct of the difficult economic times we are living through now will be a greater sensitivity on the part of some people to those times and the culture produced in those times. It does seem that some of the negative reviewers here need to broaden and deepen their appreciation, not just of movies, but of humanity.But I digress. This is a wonderful, fun, eye-popping movie, full of great songs and fantastic choreography. Enjoy.henry

This film defines "factory film-making" -- total paint by the numbers approach to musical film, with contempt for the intelligence of its audience. Let's wrack up the film's most obvious faults -- only one memorable song ("I Only Have Eyes for You") which unfortunately is played twice for a total of about 15 minutes so that you want to tear your hair out. Only one decent (I mean half-way decent) singer in Dick Powell. A poor script that doesn't allow the funny supporting players like Guy Kibbe to rise to the occasion.Everything about this movie was seemingly pulled together in great haste, so that various elements of the story that might have been fun just feel obligatory. Why does Ruby Keeler get angry at Dick Powell (I won't even bother to use the names of their characters.... Powell is "Jimmy", of course), and then decide to do the show anyway? Don't look to the film for any answers. It just seems to happen because that's what the audience expects to see in these films. I guess the formula was so set by this point that they felt they could use shorthand to express even what are supposedly the primary emotional moments in the story."Eyes for You" shows up so early, and so intimate, that it was easy for me to predict it would be used later for the extravaganza. In fact basically the structure of this movie is the first 2/3rds are a half-baked situational comedy about Guy Kibbe trying to inherit $10 million, and then the last 1/3rd is just a series of increasingly mind numbing musical sequences that have no relationship to the story or characters or to any idea. Geometrical shapes are used in stunning arrangements by Busby Berkeley -- my problem is that there is never any concept behind it. It's kind of neat to look at, but totally pointless. And the "Eyes" sequence with hundreds of images of Ruby Keeler is actually disturbing. I don't know how big of a fan you'd have to be of Ruby Keeler to watch that without feeling an urge to vomit or to run screaming out of the theater. Disembodied Ruby Keeler heads seem to lunge and lurch all about and then form their own geometric shapes, and at the end as it's supposed to be Powell's dream we should worry about his mental state. But of course, as usual there's also no attempt to show anything that could actually happen on a stage, despite the fact that the entire running length of the film prior to these sequences has been about Powell putting on a Broadway show everything we see is camera tricks that could never work on stage.In the film's most embarrassing skit, Powell's character plays some kind of showbiz bigwig who refuses to see George White and George Gershwin but readily allows a group of "dames" to enter his office and practically attack him. "Who knows the names of those composers?" he tells us, "Admit it, you pay to see the dames." This kind of cynical joke reveals everything about the mindset of the producers of this film, and explains why it's such a piece of garbage now compared to the better musicals of the 30s and 40s. First of all, the people behind this film would have been better off to hire somebody like Gershwin who could have provided some memorable music. Instead it's full of pointless sequences with hundreds of plump girls going through boring military routines in geometric shapes. Geez Mr. Powell, I sure do like that better than those lame musicals that actually have, you know, good music and decent stories.Lame, insulting to the intelligence, insulting to the taste, it's no wonder the steam ran out of these types of musical shows long before the big war broke up the party for good.