Motion Picture Magazine (Feb-Jul 1927)

CHANG f-TH.TZ.Ti, is a might)' picture, one that miraculously brings the dark mystery of the jungle to those living within civilized boundaries. Here is a picture that has all the color of the tangled jungle for its backdrop and has searched out th: natives of Northern Siam and the wild animals abounding there .for its cast. \Yhat Chang means must remain a secret if the picture is to thrill you as it should. Suffice it to say that Chang names the fear in every Siamese's heart. Chang is the terror of wild places, at whose approach both men and beasts flee for safety. The men who made this film must have risked their gallant lives time and time again. Unmistakably wild animals leer in close-ups. At times the thundering stampede of hoofs and paws is only a foot above the cameras. "Chang" brings its audience into fascinated touch with stranger realities than they ever dreamed of. — Paramount. LONG PANTS W. HAT happens to a young man's fancy when the springtime and his first pair of long pants arrive simultaneously s the theme of Harry Langdon's latest. It isn't one of his ' ■ si pictures, but Harry has a crafty way of introducing two or three sequences so terribly funny that you go on laughing helplessly thru all the defective spots. And there are some moments in this one over which you'll laugh for a week. Harry is very amorous and very adolescent, and it's only natural that when a black-eyed adventuress drives into his life in a large automobile, he should thenceforth be in the grip of a hopeless passion for her. Dispensing with the little girl next door to whom he has been betrothed, and rescuing the black-eyed one from jail, give him a chance for two of the most priceless bits of comedy current on the screen. There's nothing we can say about this except that Harry's unique genius is worth seeing always, so you'd better go.— First National. 58 'picture CAMILLE "/""AMILLE" has fallen into uncomprehending hands in the studios of Hollywood. Fred Niblo's version is labored, and only in rare snatches does it catch at the real pathos of the story. Norma Talmadge is beautiful, but she fails to capture the essential spirit of Camille. She seems tired, and only in moments of sorrow and weariness approaches the author's conception of his heroine. Too, she is unfortunate in her Armani. The interlude of their love is so unreal, so incredibly Hollywood, that it robs the story of its whole tragic heart. It becomes meaningless. And at various inspired moments it even stirs the audience to ill-controlled mirth. This is a great pity, for "Camille," tho worn threadbare in almost every other field of the drama, still had something left to give to moving pictures, and in the right hands it might have come to poignant life again on the screen. — First National. CHILDREN OF DIVORCE J LLOGICAL and incredible is this adaptation of Owen Davis' story in which Clara Bow and Esther Ralston play side by side with great good nature. The proximity of the dazzling Esther makes it quite certain that Clara is not a beautiful girl, and strangely enough the acting honors, if any, go to Esther also. She is just too refined for words, so much so that she hardly dares to breathe. But Clara errs just as much in the other extreme, managing to act the complete hoyden right up to her last breath. The plot is an unparalleled feat of someone's imagination. Two lonely children in a convent form a close friendship which survives every test. Thru the author's caprice, the girls get their men mixed, and there's a lot of sacrificing all around. Proving that love is all, or what have you. The best performances are given by two sad, prim little girls in the first reel — before our heroines grow up and the shooting begins. — Paramount.