best movie i've ever seen.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Off camera for possibly only a few minutes during this film version of one of his biggest Broadway hits, All Jolson does all he can to worm his way into the hearts of his fans. His schtick may fate but the urge to smile at least is always there. Even his now taboo if black-face us forgivable, a part of a by-gone era that can never return. When he breaks into traditional Negro spirituals, it is as if his whole soul has been taken over by some spirit of the past, crying out for peace. His rendition of "Tomorrow is Another Day" must have been pretty potent stuff for depression era audiences, and the passion in his singing still strikes today. It is a shame, however, that all movie audiences got with this was an obviously truncated version of what he had done on stage, and it is not memorable for anything else but Jolson's singing.The slight story concerns an alleged Creole stable boy who works past his station, eventually becoming a singing waiter (again!) and later a jockey in the Kentucky Derby. Such respected players as Claudia Dell, Noah Beery and Louise Closser Hale stand up with their dignity intact, but as he admits even here in the script, if you are what you eat, then he is the Easter ham to end all Easter hams. Still, ham sliced thin makes for an awfully nice sandwich.

Big Boy was a complete shock to me, a 1930 picture that was vibrant, funny,bizarre and very entertaining. I bought it expecting to see a train-wreck,a politically-incorrect minstrel show featuring a white actor performing in black-face. Not just for a scene or two mind you, but for the entire picture(save for the very end)!!! What I got was a fabulous performance by Al Jolson,who is frankly so good here it's almost scary. He's funny, charming, sings wonderfully and performs with a sort of wink-wink to the audience, as if he knows he's in a ridiculous situation as an actor and wants everyone else to know it. His asides are often hilarious,and frankly he is so good overall that if he had chosen to play the part in normal black makeup, without the exaggerated lips common with black-face, I honestly think he would've disappeared into his role completely and truly transcended his makeup. The plot is almost completely beside the point-it exists simply to provide a frame-work for a series of wonderful musical interludes.There is one extended flashback sequence that appears almost out of nowhere, and is so wild and broadly played that I don't think anyone who sees it will ever quite forget it. Print quality is sometimes excellent, and often-times poor. This picture is in definite need of some restoration. I have to applaud those who decided in this sensitive age to release a movie as bizarre and potentially offensive as this one,and I'd like to think that it's because they trust us to be adults and apply some context to what we're watching. If the very idea of black-face portrayals offend you, this picture is to be avoided at all costs. If you can place the use of it into a proper context, this picture might still offend you, but at least you won't keep yourself from watching a wonderfully bizarre and surreal little curio. The ending to my mind is fabulous,by the way.

As a black person viewing this film, it was extremely disturbing for someone of this generation, and I'm sure to black people of that time it was insulting, but what could they do. They had no power to complain. It was politically correct to be racist and insulting of other races back then, because whites were superior and what they said went. They didn't care to take black people's feelings into consideration. Gladly, things have changed. This film couldn't and wouldn't be done today. If you want a black person, get a real black person to play a role, don't black-up a white person and make them look ridiculous and un-naturally black. Blacks aren't just black-face, black people's skin tone range from black, dark brown, brown, light brown, caramel, honey, mocha, yellow, olive, even pale.Of course white people gave this movie positive reviews because its not their race being insulted or offended. These are the reasons why racism, discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice will always exist, because you will always have people who condone the behavior in this movie, by making up excuses like "its not that racist" or "oh, that how it was back then." I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, it wouldn't be as amusing.Al Jolson passing as black, portraying a black man, was extremely stereotypical, of course, he would act in that way. He wouldn't act educated or with class or sense, whites wouldn't want to see that, naturally Jolson would roll the eyes and act a fool, sing of the lord, and carry watermelons, white people wouldn't have had it any other way. Jolson doesn't represent positive blackness to me, but of course whites think he did a great job portraying a black, because that's how they view us.I read how some people say Jolson didn't act like an "uncle tom" so that should give some relief, well like I said he was still very stereotypical, and of course he could talk sassy and tough to some whites, because it was known he was white, so he could get away with it. If he was really black, he wouldn't have been able to talk up to whites on screen that way. When Jolson looks at the white woman that walks pass him when he's singing at the club, you know if he really was black, that part would have been cut from the film. If Jolson really wanted to make blacks look good and if he didn't mean no harm, he could have portrayed the new era of black people, not stereotypical, Southern, shuffling, yes-sir black, but the northern, Harlem black, bold, head up, educated, glamorous, ambitious, listen to Ethel Waters, "Underneath a Harlem Moon." The only true portrayal in this movie is the racist Southern man who says all kind of racial insults.I hate to see how blacks, native Americans, asians have been treated in the movies back then. Its making it harder for me to watch these old classic movies, especially since the racism is so obvious and blatant. Whites were always superior and well-behaved, while people of color were made fun of, inferior, and not as well-behaved as whites, now we know the "white lies" and that whites weren't so perfect, but whites always put themselves in the best light back then.From what I know about Jolson, he seemed to have been influenced by blacks, which you can see in his singing and dancing. Possibly, his dressing up in black-face was a way to become a black man to him. I've seen minstrel shows from back then and seen many black-face comedians, and found them insulting and offensive and they knew they were, but like I said it was okay to make fun of blacks back then, but with Al Jolson it seems he really wanted to be black, even though his portrayal was negative. Maybe with this film he was trying to show the ignorance of white racism by becoming a black man, of course the audience knew he was really white, but by becoming black, maybe he's trying to show whites it could have been you who could have been black, so how would you like to have been mistreated? Perhaps he was also showing how blacks always had to come to save the day for white people.Anyways, this movie was ridiculous. Jolson was supposedly the greatest entertainer in the world in his time, well, maybe he would be more remembered mainstream and appreciated by everyone if it wasn't for the black-face. I hear talk of Judy Garland, Sinatra, and others, but not much talk of Jolson, I suppose its because of the black-face. If white audiences enjoyed the play or the movie Big Boy, its because Jolson reassured them with his stereotypical black person, that blacks were everything whites thought or wanted them to be.I try to put myself back in the 1930's, and still was offended, as I'm sure many blacks were back then, but like I said they had no say. I read black newspapers of that time, and they were disgusted by the film. A lot of whites get offended when black comedians like Chris Rock make fun of them, well maybe now you know how blacks felt seeing Cantor and Jolson. Some may say, Eddie Cantor and Jolson were appealing to the tastes back then, so you mean they were appealing to whites love of seeing people of color made fun of? None of them had the balls to stand up and say I'm not doing that? Doing blackface don't make you a greater entertainer.hotoil, said blacks didn't have leading roles back then. This movie was made in 1930, in 1929, Nina Mae McKinney, a black actress, starred in one of the first black films, and then there was Hearts of Dixie, another black film made in 1928. So there were blacks in starring roles.

Al Jolson attempted to re-create his hugely successful Broadway show by making this film. Unfortunately, Jolson on film is a pale ghost compared to entertainer referred to as the "World's Greatest." On Broadway in "Big Boy" Al Jolson received what are to this day, the greatest reviews a Broadway stage performer has ever garnered. (see, Herbert Goldman, "The Legend Comes to Life") All who saw him perform knew that Jolson did not work on film, and Jolson knew it himself - - he simply could not put across on film his electrifying and magnetic stage persona through celluloid. Thus his screen performances are stiff and wooden. The media was completely wrong for him. In this film we see only glimpses of what audiences saw on the stage: an extraordinary comedian, singer and "presence." It must, unfortunately, fail to deliver. But it is worth seeing as one might want to see a still photograph of a lost work of art, or magnificent edifice.