Behind That Curtain (1929) Review: A very slow escape

If you are looking for a fast-paced thriller to watch tonight, honestly, keep moving. This movie is strictly for the people who love dusty old films and don't mind a lot of static in the audio. 🎥

It’s an early talkie from 1929, so everyone talks like they are trying to explain a concept to a very confused toddler. If you hate slow pacing and actors standing perfectly still so they don't miss the microphone, you will absolutely hate this.

The story is basically about Eve Mannering. She marries this guy who turns out to be a total creep and a killer. It takes her a weirdly long time to realize it, but when she does, she decides to bolt.

She hitches her wagon to John Beetham, played by Warner Baxter. He’s an explorer, which in 1920s movies means he wears a lot of khaki and looks deeply serious about maps. 🗺️

The movie spends a huge chunk of time just traveling. We go from London to India and then eventually to San Francisco. It feels less like a mystery and more like a very grainy slideshow of someone’s vacation.

One thing I noticed is how the camera just... sits there. It’s like the camera was afraid to move or it would break. This was pretty common back then because the equipment was basically a giant lead box, but it makes the dramatic scenes feel like a stage play.

There is this one scene where a character is reading a letter. It goes on for so long I actually checked my phone to see if the video had frozen. It hadn't.

Boris Karloff shows up in this, which is cool to see. He plays a servant named Beane. He doesn't have the Frankenstein makeup yet, obviously, but he still has that intense look in his eyes that makes you think he knows where all the bodies are buried.

Speaking of bodies, the murder mystery part is kind of a mess. It’s based on a Charlie Chan book, but Charlie Chan is barely in the movie. He shows up at the very end to explain everything, which feels like a bit of a cheat.

I kept waiting for him to do something, but mostly we just watched Eve look worried in various hotel rooms. It reminds me of the slow build in The Shadow on the Wall, but without the payoff. 🕵️‍♂️

The sound quality is pretty rough on the existing prints. There is a constant hissing sound, like a very angry snake is hiding behind the curtains. It makes some of the dialogue hard to catch, but you can usually guess what they’re saying.

“I love you,” “He’s a murderer,” “Let’s go to India.” That’s the bulk of it. The script isn't exactly Shakespeare.

I did like the sets, though. They have that old-world glamour that you just don't see anymore. Even if they are just painted flats, they have a lot of character.

The husband, played by Philip Strange, is almost too villainous. He does everything but twirl a mustache. It makes you wonder what Eve saw in him in the first place, but I guess people made bad choices back then too.

It’s sort of like The Invisible Bond in the way it handles a crumbling marriage. Just with more international travel and a detective who appears out of nowhere.

There’s a weird bit with a curtain (hence the title) that is supposed to be very symbolic. It’s fine, I guess. But the movie treats it like it’s the most profound thing ever filmed.

I found myself getting distracted by the hats. The women wear these massive hats that look like they could catch a satellite signal. 👒

If you’ve seen The Claws of the Hun, you know how these older dramas can sometimes feel a bit stiff. Behind That Curtain is even stiffer because of the transition to sound.

Is it a good movie? Not really. It’s a bit of a slog. But it is a fascinating piece of history if you want to see how Hollywood was trying to figure out how to tell stories with voices.

Warner Baxter is actually pretty good here. He has a solid voice for the era. Most actors back then sounded like they were shouting into a tin can, but he feels more natural.

I wish there was more of the mystery and less of the wandering around India. The middle section just drags and drags. You could probably skip twenty minutes and not miss a single plot point.

In the end, it’s a movie about a woman trying to find safety. That part still works, even if the rest of it feels like a museum exhibit. It's okay for a one-time watch if you're bored on a Sunday afternoon. ☕

Just don't expect a masterpiece. It's just a strange, slightly broken relic from a time when movies were learning how to talk.