Best movie ever!

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I occasionally watch a silent film.I do find it very frustrating when actors are mouthing words and we are expected to know what they are saying without benefit of intertwines. Byou far the best part of the film is the opening trial scene.After that it is all downhill and rather silly at that.Hitchin was capable of making stinkers egg Under Capricorn,and this was clearly one of them

Divorces were getting popular in the 1920s - yes they were happening - but it was still a taboo subject for some people to talk about or even accept as being "okay". Films like this one were made with the taboo subject of divorce in mind to help bring divorce to mainstream discussion and acceptance. Divorces were considered to be a "problem" during the 1920. Films like "Easy Virtue" really helped with shedding light on the subject in the social consciousness/awareness and divorces became socially acceptable.I'm not big on most "romance" films but there are a few of them I really enjoy and this Hitchcock film is one of them. I found this one pleasant to watch since it deals with a subject that was still considered to be taboo during the time era this film was made in.A good film if you like romance films, the history of films in general or simply love Alfred Hitchcock.7/10

"Virtue is its own reward," they say - but "Easy Virtue" is society's reward for a slandered reputation. In the prologue, director Alfred Hitchcock crosscuts courtroom drama with flashbacks... Attractive Isabel Jeans (as Larita) is in divorce court, after a scandalous incident results in the death of a painter for whom she was sitting. Her drunken husband interrupted artist Eric Bransby Williams (as Claude Robson) as he was making play for the modeling Ms. Jeans. The painter wounded brutish rival Franklin Dyall (as Aubrey Filton), before killing himself. Jeans gains nothing but her freedom at trial. But, she was named in the dead painter's will.Notorious, Jeans goes for a vacation on the Mediterranean, intending to relax and stay away from men. Instead, she finds the latter when well-heeled bachelor Robin Irvine (as John Whittaker) hits her in the head with his ball while playing tennis. After apologizing, Mr. Irvine begins courting Jeans. "It was like a cool breeze sweeping away the ugly memories of the past." The two whirlwind themselves into man and wife. Then, Irvine brings Jeans home to live in the family mansion. There, matriarchal Violet Farebrother senses something lurid in her daughter-in-law's past. Will Jeans' sordid history ruin her chances for happiness? But, of course. "Easy Virtue" may be considered rather ordinary, albeit a Noel Coward play directed to film by Alfred Hitchcock. But, as a silent melodrama, it's not only above average, but a little innovative. The location and settings are very nice. Most of the featured players are held over Hitchcock's previous "Downhill" (1927). "Mother-in-law" Farebrother makes the bulk of the film interesting, as she endeavors to rid her son of his bride. Their witty exchanges were written by Eliot Stannard, not Mr. Coward, by the way. Farebrother has a pleasantly sharp tongue, asking, "John, who is this woman you have pitchforked into the family?" She shoots to kill.****** Easy Virtue (3/5/28) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Isabel Jeans, Robin Irvine, Violet Farebrother, Ian Hunter

If this film had not been directed by Alfred Hitchcock, no one would remember it or even want to remember it! It is obvious that this film was just a chance for the director to work his craft until he ultimately made a dandy film a year later (THE LODGER). You will also not see very much of the "Hitchcock style" in this film, as the movie is not a suspense film or mystery and in places, his quality as a director was very suspect. It is just amazing how quickly he went from this sorry film to great films.When I say badly directed, I know some die-hard fans will no doubt have an apoplexy. I have long ago noticed that die-hard fans rarely can allow criticism of their idols, so I know I'll have a few people rate this review as "not helpful", but it simply was botched by him in places. In particular, the beginning of the film is a histrionic mess! While it is untrue that MOST silent films are overacted and have exaggerated action (this is really only something you see in very, very early films), this film looks like a throwback to bygone days during the confrontation between the evil drunken husband and the painter. Such overacting and hysterics are pretty much laughable. I also loved how the husband did such a rotten job "hitting" the other man with his cane--he pulled the blows so obviously that it just looked like it came from a high school play! Well, I must admit that the rest of the film DID feature better acting and it seemed that if Hitchcock made this movie linearly (from start to finish), then you can see how his direction improved as the film unfolded. But, unfortunately, the script is so preachy and obvious that it hardly seems worth watching. About the only positive that I really liked was the very end--the lack of a happy or clichéd ending actually helped make the movie a little more palatable. Still, all-in-all, a pretty forgettable and unimpressive film in almost every aspect.