Girl Without a Room (1933) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Mildly amusing...but NOTHING like the poster!
planktonrules23 March 2018
If you look at the poster currently on IMDB, you would probably assume that this pre-code film is very tawdry. After all, there is a lady wearing nothing but a towel! But while the morals and situations in this film would have required changes had it come out after the tougher production code was enacted in mid-1934, the changes would have been minor. After all, a guy shares an apartment with a lady...and they aren't married. But they are, despite this very chaste.

Tom Duncan (Charles Farrell) has come to Paris to become a great artist. He soon falls in with a bunch of weirdo bohemians in an apartment building. Can Tom discover and unleash his great talent within and can he manage to win the girl by the end of the film?

This is an odd film. After all, a lot of the dialog is in rhyming prose! And, the characters are weird and keep popping into nearly every scene...much like you'd see in the movie "You Can't Take it With You". It's pleasant and fun...though a tad shrill...as if it's working just too hard to try to make you laugh.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very Good Start That Isn't Sustained
boblipton27 December 2020
Charles Farrell is a Tennessee painter who wins a scholarship to Paris. On arrival he settles into an apartment in Montmartre, where the zany occupants include Charlie Ruggles, Gregory Ratoff, and Marguerite Churchill. Soon he and Miss Churchill are in love, but the other roomers are busy spending his scholarship money and filling him with hooey. Then Miss Churchill sees the painting he has done under their influence, she calls it terrible. They break up.

The movie starts off briskly with the events given in recitative, but it sags in the second half, despite Ruggles' quavering, good-natured nonsense and Grace Bradley as a peroxide Russian gold digger. It never quite recovers, but the lively first half and occasional bouts of nonsense keep it moving throughout.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A total hoot with a lot of hollering.
mark.waltz20 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I give this less than a *** rating simply because there's not a real story, only a lot of rhythmic dialog and screeching and rolling around in fights in this study of artists in Paris in the 1930's. Charles Farrell is an American in Paris (from Texas) who finds himself aiding the sophisticated Marguerite Churchill who needs a place to sleep, giving her his day bed which is in the same room he sleeps. There's no hanky panky going on, it is made clear, but for pre-code Hollywood, this was still pretty risque. In a sort of sing-songish way of delivering dialog, Farrell, Churchill, fiery Grace Bradley and eccentric Charlie Ruggles try to develop some sort of story, but other than some deliciously creative moments, this formula (made so perfect in "Love Me Tonight") looses steam here. A big ensemble song about the artist's brush working its way through what they see has some amusing lines of dialog (quite blue in nature at times), and several fights between Ruggles and Bradley (one where he literally drops her on a hard wood floor) are quite funny. It's a nice idea, never fully developed, with a cast of veteran character actors playing a variety of cultures (including alleged members of the Russian royal family), all mixed together in the crazy world of artists from around the world in the zany Paris of the 1930's.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amusing, but a bit of a hodge-podge
JNMassie2 June 2003
Mostly for Charlie Ruggles fans; he's far and away the most amusing thing in it. It's supposed to take place in Gay Paree but except for a poilu in the opening sequence there isn't a single French character in the entire piece. Farrell and Ruggles talk their way through their "numbers" which are so badly scored you can barely tell they're even supposed to be musical. After "Love Me Tonight," someone at Paramount must have thought there was a demand for musicals cast with non-singers. Except for one short song each by Marguerite Churchill and Walter Woolf King (billed as Walter Woolf,) no one in this musical actually sings a solo. Churchill is initially rather charming in the title role but her character virtually disappears for the middle third of the story. It looks like they shot this on the Merry Widow set at Paramount. It's worth sticking around for the final line in the movie which is the funniest single gag in it.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't Paint the Whistle, Paint the Blow
drednm15 May 2019
Charles Farrell is miscast as a young hayseed from Tennessee who goes to Paris to study painting. He wins a scholarship but his painting style is very old-fashioned. He falls in with a loony bunch of Bohemians and learns about women and life and art.

He's interested in Kay (Marguerite Churchill) who's from Atlanta but they quarrel and the greedy Nada (Grace Bradley) moves in on him to take his money. There's also the sullen singer (Walter Woolf) who drinks too much but wants to marry Kay. Charlie Ruggles plays Crock, a fellow artist who tell Farrell his style of painting stinks and says, "You don't paint the whistle ... you paint the blow." If you paint the whistle, it's only photography.

Farrell gets drunk and paints a piece that wins a big prize ... until they discover something about it.

Bright and funny with a few good songs. The Russian duel scene is tedious. Farrell hardly bothers to hide his Massachusetts accent even though he's supposed to be from Tennessee. But Ruggles, Churchill, and Bradley are all quite good. Mischa Auer and Leonid Kinskey have small roles.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Contains Too Short Dance Sequence...
wrbtu7 July 2018
I collect Pre-Code films & have 150+ of them. "Girl Without a Room" is not one of my favorites. It is talky, very silly, & much too "busy". The "comedy" is rarely amusing. I agree with other reviewers here about the poor quality of the "singing". On the positive side, this was Mrs. Hopalong Cassidy's (Grace Bradley, AKA Mrs. Boyd) best film performance. And then there's the dance sequence, described below.

The film is noteworthy for it's nightclub female dancer sequence, which lasts only about 5-10 seconds, & that's a shame. The dancer is the uncredited Joyzelle Joyner, & she dances without clothes! It's impossible to tell this from the film video, because she's shown for such a short period of time, & from the waist up, & more so, because of the outstanding body paint that was applied to her in a snake motif (shoulders to ankles).

I have seen three still photos of Joyzelle in character, in her painted "outfit", which show: 1) her full-body make-up being applied backstage by Makeup Artist David S. Garber, with "supervision" from a female assistant (actually, more of a "chaperone"); this photo is dated November 29 1933 (the date the photo was received by a photo service in New York City, not the date the photo was taken). 2) Joyzelle on the film set of "Girl Without a Room" at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, with the backdrop being the back wall of the nightclub scene set in the film. 3) a colorized photo of #2 above, with the backdrop edited out; this photo best shows the magnificence of the body paint; it appears on the front cover of "PIC" Magazine, May 2 1939.

Joyzelle's body make-up is possibly the most outstanding example of its kind in Hollywood history.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed