Exhibitors Herald (1926)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

EXHIBITORS HERALD 41 but they are weak for us. at least. Five reels. (S. T., Parker, S. D.) When you read Carl’s effusions in this magazine, and then take a beating as we did on this program Western, it makes you wonder if there should not be a campaign for truth in advertising pat on. This picture had neither story, direction or anything else. It was a house clearer. They cleared out until we did not have to run the second show beyond the second reel. Very, very poor and the reason why they are not going to the movies as they were, they come in on a poor picture and from then on they are shy and it takes double the effort to get them back. Many of them you never see again. No excuse for so poor a production ever getting beyond the cutting room. Absolutely none, except for the exchange to get the money. (Columbia, Columbia City, Ind.) PACE THAT THRILLS, THE, FN, Ben Lyon, Mery Astor, TuOy Marshall, Thomas Holding, Fritzi Brunette, 6,911.— A rattling good play, true to its title. A lot of fast action and good clean sport appeal. (Elite-Kozy, Metropolis, III.) In spite of ^1 that I have heard about this one. and what I thought about it myself, it sure pleased those who saw it and the second day was better than the first. What more could you ask? (Regent, Eureka, Kan.) Was certainly disappointed with this picture. Excellent title and paper and very good trailer excited much interest in it and drew good attendance, but the picture is lacking — very draggy. No kick. Looked like misfire in direction to me. I^on not much in this. A good bet gone wrong somewhere. Moral: Watch your step when you play it and don’t promise any knockout. (Star, Menard, Tex.) A picture that pleased the kids only. Will probably go over on a double feature bill. (Atlantic. Atlantic. Mass.) To my notion it is no good and no one else liked it and, as to the box office nothing doing. (Liberty, Pasco, Wash.) Do not know where the thrilling part comes in. Shelf worn story that would have been O. K. fifteen years ago. Action draggy and no sus pense because everything can be accurately anticipated by anyone with the mentality of a tenyear-old child. (Odeon, Chandler, Okla.) First National has mighty good pictures but this is a lemon of the first water. Not an ounce of entertainment. No connection of a story or to the above title. (Princess, Guttenberg, Iowa.) People were disappointed in this one for the reason that they expected something spicy, but they were agreeably disappointed because they liked it anyway. Turned out to be a clean picture, which is what our gang wants. (New Geneseo, Geneseo, m.) If you want to disgust your patrons, above all don’t pass up this wonderful piece of junk. Our patrons walked out on this. First National have a lot of nerve to wish this on exhibitors. (Bugg, Chicago, HI.) I have seen a lot of bad reports on this one, but I can’t see where it is so bad. I have paid double the price for some not half so good. (K. P., La Rue, O.) One of the worst 1 have ever played. Absolutely rotten from the first to the last reel. Lots of walkouts on this show and what few did remain only stayed to bawl me out when they did come out. If you run this one, advertise that it is rotten, the worst kind, and maybe they will want to see just how rotten it is. (Dixie, Russellville, Ky.) Without exaggeration, this is as near nothing as I have run for many months. All the action in it could have been (and was) put in half a reel. The gag man on the lot must have selected that title, for it sure was a joke. Second night a total loss, with no insurance. (Trags, Neillsville, Wis.) There is nothing to credit in this one. There is nothing begun and nothing finished. Don't buy it at any price. It is absolutely impossible. I could not tell you why First National ever put a picture like this out. (Cozy, Winchester, Ind.) Pretty good program picture. Lots of action but too much repeating talk. Seems it was awful draggy, even with all the thrills in it. Too light s^ry for my Sunday crowd. All right on an off night but my folks want to see a real Sunday show with heart touching scenes and human appeal. Too many would-be actors in this one. (Royal, Kimball, S. D.) Misnamed. But a good program offering. Business fair. (Grand, Ranier, Ore.) PARISIAN NIGHTS. FBO, Lou Tcllagen. Hammerstoin. Gaston Glass, Renee Adorcc, .278. A good picture that pleased average busless. (Odeon, Chandler, Okla.) Acclaimed good y patrons, and from an artistic standpoint same 9 splendid. This is not a small town picture, owever. Will please better class of fans and the 0 ers will not complain. Go ahead and book it. F. B. O. will treat you right. (Palace, Mt. Pleasant, Tex.) This picture pleased a big crowd. It seemed to be just what they wanted. (Electric, Chillicothe. Mo.) Good, different. Showing things one don’t often see. Therefore, interesting. Clever acting. A little rough in spots. Personally I liked it. (Community, David City, Neb.) PEACOCK FEATHERS, U, Jacqueline Logan, Cullen Landis, Ward Crane, George Fawcett, 6,747. — ^Very good production by Universal, but I don’t know what is wrong that I can’t satisfy them. Don't make any difference what I play, good or bad. Someone will kick all the time, so just have to forget the knocks and spread the good comments. (Royal, Kimball, D.) Not a big special but a nice little picture which pleased all the women and most of the men. Some comedy touches which help put it over. Film was good. (Hammond, Hammond, Wis.) A very good program offering but a poor title. Business light. Seven reels. (Grand, Rainier, Ore.) Another good Universal Jewel. I have now played eight of the Second White List, and the box office receipts show better than any eight pictures that I have run out of Paramount’s block. Seven reels. (Cozy, Fayette, la.) Fairly good program picture. Seven reels. (Lily, Buffalo, N. Y.) PEOPLE VS. NANCY PRESTON, THE, PDC, Marguerite dc la Mottc, John Bowers, Frankie Dario, David Butler. Gertrude Short, Ray Gallagher, Jackie Saunders, 7. — This one was a good one. Well acted but no good for a small town. We get too much of the same in real life. The people of today do not care for that kind. We sure lose money on these kind of shows. Why the producer puts out this kind I cannot understand. Why put such on and make us take them and pay a good price for same ? The sooner the producer wakes up to the fact that the public don’t want them the better. (Amuse, ^rt, Mich.) Poor title. Poor direction. Poor story. Poor acting. Poor business. Poor advertising matter. In other words, it’s a miss. (Highland, Guthrie, Okla.) A crackerjack of a mystery pio ture, but did not draw here. Plenty of opposition. I. O. O. F. banquet and basket ball game. Producers have a good program thb year. Seven reels. (Polo, Polo, 111.) PERCY, P, Charles Ray, Barbara Bedford, Betty Blythe, Charlie Murray, Joseph Kllgonr, Louise Dresser, Victor McLaglcn, 6. — An excellent Ray vehicle, although Murray as Holy Joe almost steals the show. It has good comedy and action in it. It should please on a Saturday night. We did extra advertising on this, but it did not pay for itself. Too many counter attractions. ("Y” Nazareth, Pa.) Good film. This was a fair picture with Charlie Murray, Louise Dresser, Barbara Bedford and Betty Blythe in support of Ray. It's rather a slow picture until the last reel. However, we couldn’t advise anyone to book it, as there are lots better, and the film of this was so dark that there was only about one-third of the picture which we could see. (Rialto, Sharon, Wis.) The kind Charles used to make. This one had lots of action and some good acting, too, and it pleased, and that’s the main point. (Halfway. Halfway, Mich.) Darned if Charlie Ray didn't come back in a good one. I haven’t yet been able to get over the effects of “The Girl I Loved” and this was a welcome surprise. Good bet for small town. Six reels. (Harris, Bancroft, Idaho.) PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, THE, U, Lon Chaney, Mary Philbln, Norman Kerry, Arthur Edmund Carewc, 8,464. — Quite a novelty. Will go over and satisfy the average fan. Made a nice little sum after paying a good price for the picture. Play it, you won't regret it. (Strand. Atmore, Ala.) This is a wonderful picture. I was afraid it was not a small town picture. Too much rental to make any money. Otherwise good. (Grand, Yoakum, Tex.) Everything phantom. Opera house had one : my patrons were all phantom; the money In the till was all phantom. Only thing real was the red ink I used in the ledger. Worked harder and spent more money on this than any other picture. Actual attendance not even up to regular Wednesday-Thursday mark. (Texas. Grand Prairie, Tex.) Lost money on this. The fans liked it but the once-in-awhiles didn’t know what it was all about. Not a small town picture unless you have dyed-in-wool fans. (Star, Montevideo, Minn.) A good picture but not for a small town. Spent a bunch of good dollars for exploitation but they just wouldn’t come in. Lost money on this one. (New Liberty, Carnegie, Okla.) This is a good one if you don’t take it too seriously. (Kappyland, Port Gibson, Miss.) Poor business. An elaborate melodrama well produced, bat a frost with us. One third of a house the first night and less the second. Did not take In enough both nights to pay film rental. Lost more on this much touted picture than on any other In two years. We confess to paying twice what It was worth for which we blame only ourselves. We are getting very tired of paying long prices for alleged specials and then turning over the gross receipts to some producer that our vaunted prestige may not suffer. Since showing "Tho Phantom of The Opera” have made up oar weak mind that if we can’t buy a picture at a price that will give us a chance to at least break even we will prefer to lose a little prestige rather thav any more money. (Poramouiit, Okanogan, Wis.* Good picture but not for a small town. Wish had passed this one up. (Liberty & Melba, Carnegie, Okla.) Massive, beautiful. Well made production. Spooky and gruesome. They won’t like it but will come out of curiosity. It is a big wonderful production. (Liberty, Pasco, Wash.) It has been a nximber of months since I made any reports on pictures that I have run, but after viewing the above picture, I just had to let you exhibitors know what a wonderful picture "The Phantom of the Opera” Is. To say that this picture is great would be an injustice. It is superb, wonderful, wonderful. In my opinion there has never been made a picture that is more pleasing all the way from start to finish. Lon Chaney simply outdoes himself as the Phantom. All of my patrons went out of the way to tell me that was the best picture in this town ever. As far os I know I played this picture for tho first time in the state. I did not make any money on It, as Universal stuck a very high rental on It and nearly all I took in on it went to them. I am very well satisfied, though, that every one of my patrons were pleased, even if I did not make anything, If you can buy this picture right, you will make no mistake by playing and raise your admission prices. (Star, Tuokerman, Ark.) A great picture. I’ll agree to that, certainly, but the worst bust at the box office I’ve had for many a long day. Priced out of all reason for the small town, which, of course, is my fault too. But it is not a picture that my people want to see at least. Some liked it. I did myself. Too horrible and nothing good or wholesome to take away with you. Never again for me. It’s the last of this kind I'll ever try and put over. (Star, Menard, Tex.) Good playing and quite a novelty for small town, but will satisfy most of them. Film good. (Wallace Opera, Wallace, Neb.) A little too gruesome for average patron. I thought it a wonderful piece of work and heaid a few others express same opinion. Big business first night and a flop the next. (Capitol, Delphos, O.) Quite a lemon to play in Laugh Month. Did not go here. We all know that Chaney can act, but why the ugly gruesome face. Every time it showed the phantom on the screen children screamed and people walked out. Paid more for "The Phantom of tho Opera” than any that I have run since 1919. I agree with J. S. Walker, of Grand Prairie, Texas, that it won’t go over in a small town, if they pay as high a rental os they charged ua. Why? Because by the time the exchange take their share there isn’t anything left for the exhibitor. If I had a program picture booked instead of "The Phantom," would have made more jack and to boot would have gotten results. (Wapato, Wapato. Wash.) A very gruesome but interesting play. I consider it only a fair box office attraction, while the settings are expensive and elaborate. (Avgonne, Akron, Ind.) A magnificent production. The acting of Chaney was wonderful. Some thought it great, others did not care for it at all, but it created a good deal of talk. Business as good as could be expected in view of local conditions. (Grand, Rainier, Ore.) Big picture. No question about it, Wonderful acting on the part of Lon Chaney, but I can't see where Mary Philbin and Norman Kerry are so good. They get by and that's all. Did a big business on it, even though I am in a small town, but the picture is gruesome. A school teacher told me she left the light burning all night after she saw It. Chaney’s makeup creates talk and they will come to see it through curiosity. The big colored scenes are wonderful. (Bonham, Prairie du Sac, Wis.) This is just a great big picture. ^Vhen that is said, enough said. Is worth about half the price Universal is getting for it. Sure took a flop. (Monticello Opera Mouse, Monticello, la.) Big massive picture but somehow or other it did not give general satisfaction. Drawing power not so good for small town. (Palace, Waupaca, Wis.) Wonderful picture but why producers spend tho time, talent and money on such a production Is beyond me. Everyone thought it was a terrible picture. Lost money. (McTodd, Willoughby, O.) The poorest business getter we ever showed. A complete flop the second night. If you have a small town theatre, leave this one alone. (Star, Fowler, Colo.) Terrible any way you look at It, unless you are running a crazy house. (E. P.> Pittsfield, 111.) A very lavish production with beautiful colored film in several parts of the feature. Opened to good business first night, poor second, and worse third. Oversold to me about