A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Apparently Maurice Dekobra was a prolific writer français, and had numerous works turned into short and full length films. and is still having his works made into films, even though he croaked in 1973 ! The always-debonair Adolphe Menjou is Captain Roberts, and when caught with the wife of prominent Sangrito (Stroheim), makes a payoff to him rather than fight a duel. and of course Hugh Herbert is in here for comedic effect. Lili Damiti is Sangrito's wife, and it turns out they have played this blackmail game before. But this time she doesn't want the money... she wants the Roberts, the lover. Damita herself had quite a life-story, according to wikipedia; married to Hollywood big-shots Michael Curtiz, then Errol Flynn. and her journalist son disappeared in Cambodia in 1970, never to be found. In our film, a very young Laurence Olivier is the interloper, also falling for Madame Sangrito. The story is pretty simple; the sound quality isn't so good... keeps going up and down. a couple awkward edits. and that ending. so abrupt. were some scenes cut or did the book really end like that? was pretty good overall, but the ending kind of left me feeling cheated. Some clever editing... how they switch from showing the male lead showering to showing us the female lead showering, artfully blocked, of course. This was prior to the film code being enforced, so i'm sure part of that was just for the tingle factor. Directed by Victor Schertzinger, who had started out as a musician. This is an RKO shortie, at 68 minutes.

Though I don't rate Friends and Lovers (1931) high based on my harsh rating scale, I give credit where it is due. Friends and Lovers is a perfect example of how I feel films should have been made in the early 30s---condensed. (This comment/review, however, will not be.) The film, including titles, is 68 minutes long, yet it tells an engaging cohesive story with several locations, people, costumes, events, passage of time and action without weighing it down with the fluff that movies were full of during that period. By fluff I include but am not limited to: extended reaction shots, excessive beauty shots, far off stares (see Greta's films), eyebrow movement shots (see Norma's films), mouth and lips parting shots (see Irene's films), unnecessary walking, unrelated dialog extending screen time for the stars, etc. Yes, this movie does have a few gratuitous fluffs but it doesn't tack on an entire hour showing them. The movie doesn't feel "glossy"; instead, somehow, it feels real.The studio was unstable bankrupt great depression era Selznick helmed RKO. Director Victor Schertzinger, who had been in film since the first moving frame, pulled poignant performances from his cast and provided the music. DP J. Roy Hunt strapped to RKO through all of its phases provided believable lighting for B/W film through many types of scenes both indoors and out, as well as smooth camera movement and action. Adolphe Menjou survived the silent years to give a decent performance as obsessed, possessed, ardently pining Geoff, Larry Olivier makes his stiff and subtle Hollywood debut in a fair size role as Ned, Lili Damita also from the silent era wasn't a blazing beauty or brilliant actress but she did her part allowing her accent and body to do the rest as Alva, Erich Von Stroheim though a little cheesy made being a sadistic and evil porcelain collector seem lucrative and fun as Victor, and Hugh Herbert as McNellis, trying not to trip over his on and off again accent, bounced through the film offering humor here and there to keep the viewer's emotions connected.Film making is all about taking the viewer in, cold from the street with their own world in their mind, connecting with their emotions and transporting them to another place and time, taking them on an emotional roller coaster ride until the film is through. If at any time the coaster slows or stops, the viewer has time to realize themselves again, even if only subconsciously, and the film has lost them. If picked up again, the viewer must start over emotionally with the story. Condensing this film down to 68 minutes keeps the viewer's attention the entire time. The overall ride may be short, the sets may be cheap, the acting may not be the best, the plot may be thin, the music may be shallow, the dialog may be simple, but tell a story that efficiently and the viewer doesn't notice while watching. Should the viewer notice, it's not considered long because the next sequence is already speeding along with fresh new things for the brain to process. Plot of the film is simple on the surface though it has a few morality testing twists and turns. For what they had to work with, the plot was kept clean and cohesive, the shots were tight, the camera action was appropriate, the cinematography and lighting was believable, the sets weren't spectacular but scenes didn't last long enough to pick them apart, the tension was there, the emotion was heavy, the beauty was shown, the dialog was believable and the actors sizzled. So much happens at a comfortable pace that I never once got bored or thought about anything else other than the film. I ignored a ringing phone. I ignored portable electronics. The film was paced so well that I didn't want to look away. I was completely surprised by how enjoyable the film was to watch, unlike so many pre-code early 30s films I have suffered through. (I'm an elitist film snob, so I will watch a terrible film just so I can say w/o any doubt I hated it.) If there is so much fluff in a film that I sit there and start counting how many steps the actress is making across every single room, on every single street, up every single stair and then start counting their stares, far off looks, exaggerated baby spot lit soft shots, and on top of it listen to senseless dialog that does nothing to forward the plot but included just so that the actress/actor is getting a certain percentage of screen time, I feel I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic rather than sit through the rest of the film. For me to sit through an entire early 30s film without moving or thinking of anything else means the film is very special in some way. In retrospect, I wonder: the novelty of the talking pictures was new, but it does make me wonder if viewers really loved the long lingering shots of the starlets or if they tolerated them. Did they expect them because they were paying money to be visually entertained? Does length equal value? According to rumor, the film lost $260k at the box office, though IMDBpro, AFI, or BFI don't offer any budget or salary info. Perhaps Friends and Lovers was shot with the same early 30s heavy fluff monkey on its back but given to a gifted editor that said NO to fluff. Regardless, this is a very rare 68 minutes that I was happy watching a pre-code film, and for anyone like me who barely tolerates movies of the early 30s because of the unnecessary fluff, give this one a watch. It's not the best film in the world, but 68 minutes isn't long in comparison to 2 hours of Norma's eyebrows going up and down.

The FRIENDS AND LOVERS of a duplicitous female nearly have their lives destroyed by her wicked ways.This well-acted piece of fluff makes no attempt at serious entertainment but manages to engage the viewer nonetheless, mainly because of its unique cast.Lily Damita plays the sultry vamp who has no difficulty in enticing every man she meets. She is the female star of the picture, but her character is completely detestable. It says nothing positive about the moral discernment or intelligence level of the lead male players in the film that they are so completely seduced, for a time.Adolphe Menjou and Laurence Olivier play the two British officers, firm friends, who both fall into Damita's web. Making no pretense at behaving British, Menjou plays the debonair captain who must decide between carnality & comradeship. Olivier, who looks astonishingly young (he turned 24 in 1931) is bright & energetic, projecting shadows of the future Lord Olivier as he advises Menjou as to the proper cut of tailored lapels.Whimsical Hugh Herbert puts his gentle humor to good use as Menjou's Scots valet. Acting as a sort of Greek Chorus to the proceedings around him, he easily steals most of his scenes. Erich von Stroheim, that Teutonic master of menace, dominates the screen with a cunning portrayal of Damita's vile husband. Like an uncoiled snake ready to strike, von Stroheim slithers about the screen, alert to deliver the maximum discomfort to his victims. As always, he is a joy to watch. Alas, that his role is so brief.Frederick Kerr as a boisterous old general, and Blanche Frederici as his straitlaced titled sister provide a few moments of sparkle at the end of the film.The action during the scenes set in India takes place entirely within the walls of a rather dull fort. The Studio, Radio Pictures, apparently were unwilling to spend an extra dime on ambiance.

Cardboard sets on the back of the studio lot, a shocking opening scene between Menjou and Damita, terrible dialogue, poor structure, a plot i didn't care to follow and a cliche concept (love triangle). Menjou (from Paths of Glory) is fairly dreary, his camp cliche conversations with Olivier seemed to stretch the movie out interminably, quite a feat for a movie barely an hour long, and the woman is beautiful, but not really an actress. In truth, there is only one element which rescues this movie (and even then only the scenes this particular gentleman is in), and that is, or he is, Erich von Stroheim.Nobody made being evil look as much fun as Stroheim. Von plays the scheming evil husband of Damita who blackmails her lover, Menjou, to do what i can't remember (even though i just watched it - which perhaps says something about the significance of the plot). Von gives this material the seriousness it deserves (not much), which ironically results in his saving the picture. He plays the husband as a broad comedy character, replete with evil laughter. I noticed him almost choking on some of the dialogue its so ridiculous, but there was also some really great fun dialogue in his scenes, which i can't really remember either, except this:Menjou: Blackmail! Stroheim: Blackmail is such an... ugly word...Stroheim (explaining why he's just read a love letter addressed to his wife from another man): I am a romantic. I enjoy reading other people's letters, doesn't everybody?After the first scene when Menjou and Damita are alone together you've totally written the whole movie off as being able to be taken seriously - but when Von Stroheim appears as the malicious husband, which he plays with flair and humour, all of a sudden you feel this wonderfully trashy facade of a film is actually quite fun. And it is - mainly only Von's scenes and those that comedian Hugh Herbert, playing Menjou's servant, are in.Little-known actress Lili Damita plays the woman every man in this picture is fighting over - and for once, i can understand all the fuss! She's absolutely radiant, really sexy. One of the most beautiful people i've ever seen. She has a racy shower scene where the side of her breast can be seen (i'm not kidding) and a scene where she's getting dressed. These are the luxuries afforded by a pre-code film (1930-1934 i think).The down side to movies from this period is the cardboard-sets, talk-instead-of-cinema nature of them. Aside from the wonderful films of Lubitsch and anything Carole Lombard is in (and Riefenstahl's The Blue Light, perhaps), films from this period are quite poor. They've thrown away everything that was good about silent pictures, and haven't yet learned how to incorporate dialogue well, so what we have are filmed and edited stage plays.Watch out for Lawrence Olivier at 24, in his third ever film, who's so slender, high-voiced and camp he's almost feline. This is not a significant film for anyone involved - the only reason it is notable is probably Olivier (if he's your cup of tea), being one of his first movies and probably his first major role.