Universal Weekly (1925-1933)

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.

36 Universal Weekly June 13, 1925 THE MOVIE CRITICS AQREE THAT ,9? "The Phantom of the Opera' By GEORGE C. WARREN MYSTERY and terror and romance go hand-in-hand to make "The Phantom of the Opera," the Carl Laemmle 1925 super-special, a picture that will draw thousands, perhaps millions, to the box-offices of the theatres in which it is shown. It had its world premiere at the Curran Theatre last night, a first night that was attended with all the pomp and curiosity that goes to make these occasions memorable.. A romance by Gaston Leroux is the basis of the film, and Rupert Julian directed its making. So much for the record. Julian has accomplished something that had not before been done in pictures. He has put real mystery on the screen; the sort of mystery that makes the blood run cold and gives one a sensation of helpless terror. Something is going to happen, you are not exactly sure what, and in fear of its coming you cower and shiver and quake at the unknown horror which seems just around the corner. A stroke of genius here. Griffith tried to do this and failed, and others of the directors with big names have made the effort with small success. It's done, now. Julian has shown the way, so there will be more, one may be sure. The production is massive, magnificent, with a sequence in color, the Bal de l'Opera, wonderfully beautiful in its surging crowds and its gay costumes. The reproduction of the Paris Opera, exterior and interior, stage and vaults under the building is wonderfully well done. There is vastness about the building and the great staircase and foyer are so beautiful there was applause for them whenever they came on the screen. As mystery and its attendant dread are the chief ingredients of "The Phantom of the Opera" it seems unfair to tell anything of the story other than to say there is a thread of lovely romance running through it. The love of a man of distinguished family for a little opera singer, understudy for the prima donna. At first the love is carnal, but the purity and sweetness of the girl convert the evil in the man's heart into an adoration of her womanhood and beauty that makes it almost a holy thing, this love. There are barriers mountain high between them, but they surmount them all and come safely into the haven of happiness. This is only one thread in the pattern of the picture. The others are terror, jealousy, the life of people in a great opera company, the workings of a diseased brain. There is a scene in which the great chandelier in the opera house falls during a crowded performance and kills and maims hundreds; there is the wonderful ball scene; the mob that rushes through the streets and into the vaults under them, a torchlight mob; there are intimate glimpses of the ballet and scenes showing the performance of "Faust." And there are shadows, sinister figures that one sees in silhouette; figures that strike the heart with dread. Several thousand people were used in making the picture and a fine cast of principals is seen in the leads. Lon Chaney is featured, he playing the Phantom of the title, but the character has little variety, although Chaney brings all of his art to make it a hideous thing, repulsive to sight, repulsive to the moral nature. The real star is Mary Philbin, whose work has the maturity and finish that show her to have already arrived. She is a great emotional actress. Pretty, too, without being beautiful. Norman Kerry does a good piece of work as the lover, and others who figure prominently are Arthur Edmund Carewe, Gibson Gowland, Virginia Pearson, John Sainpolis and Snitz Edwards.— San Francisco Chronicle. "Dangerous Innocence" ( 6 TTN ANGEROUS INNOCENCE," \J co-starring Laura La Plante and Eugene O'Brien, made its debut at the Kinema yesterday. Both Miss La Plante and Mr. O'Brien made many new friends for themselves and further justified the claims of their old friends that they are in the high ranks of screendom. The cast surrounding these two favorites is excellent, while the story is one that appeals to all classes of movie fans. A new idea in the old story of love is brought to the front in "Dangerous Innocence," in fact, it is the foundation upon which the entire story is constructed. There is not a lagging moment in the entire production. Mr. O'Brien does a splendid piece of work when as Major Seymour he learns for the first time that the girl he loves is the daughter of the woman he once loved. He is also most expressive in the scene "The Price of Pleasure" IF only for the scene of the elevator changing: its course up and down the shaft, operated by an irate young woman, the new picture at the Piccadilly is worth while. "The Price of Pleasure," Universal's latest featuring Virginia Valli and Norman Kerry, is entertainment plus. It's the honestest photoplay in a long time once it gets going after a slow start. Good old-fashioned romance served us by Edward Sloman, the director, with charming delicacy and sincerity. It's the story of Linnie, the beautiful bargain basement girl. Now, who is the chap who flips his duster in her ear as she weeps midst the hardware in aisle six? Lo, he turns out to be the young millionaire. He's a Schuyler, one Garry Schuyler, and he is hunting romance in this particular basement. A week of clothes and parties and flowers and loveliness he gives Linnie, always with that touch of delicacy that rings true. And when the time comes for Linnie to go back to the basement — he marries her. Then the tale is of the hatred of Garry's aristocratic mother and sister for the new daughter-in-law, of a scheme to get Linnie's child, born after Garry thought her dead and while he was wandering around the world with brain fever. See how it goes? Nobody's too hard-boiled for this. The players must have loved their tasks. There is a moment when Virginia Valli, as Linnie, collapses into her husband's arms, wilted by the cold stares of his mother and sister, that is superb. The whole cast is good. Norman Kerry is the hero. Kate Lester, in her last part before her tragic death from burns recently at the studio, is splendid as the aristocratic Mrs. Schuyler. Louise Fazenda and T. Roy Barnes are uproarious in their comedy. Miss Fazenda's scene when she turns the course of the elevator in the office building that she may rescue Linnie*s baby is the finest work she has ever done, and that's saying something. On the whole, the picture's meat for a hokum holidav. — Neiv York American. (Lengths: 6,618 ft.) where as Ann's fiance he again meets her mother, while in the great fight scene with the "sneak" of the piece he demonstrates that he can do fighting roles as well as those of lovers. — Salt Lake Citu Telegram, (Length: 6,500 ft.)