Heartbreak (1931) is a bit of a clunky, sad mess

Is it worth your time?

Only if you have a real soft spot for those early 1930s talkies where everyone sounds like they are reading a very expensive menu. It is perfect for people who like Charles Farrell and his puppy-dog eyes.

If you want actual tension or a plot that doesn't trip over its own feet, you should probably skip this one. Heartbreak is exactly what the title says, but it takes a very long, dusty road to get there. 😴

The Plot (What there is of it)

Farrell plays John Walden. He is an American pilot fighting for the British—or maybe the Italians, it’s a bit blurry—over the Italian front.

He meets this Austrian countess, played by Madge Evans, and they fall in love instantly. I mean, they basically look at each other and decide the entire World War is just a secondary concern.

They spend a lot of time looking at each other in nice rooms. The lighting is that soft, fuzzy 1930s style that makes everyone look like they are made of glowing clouds.

But since the movie is called Heartbreak, you know the romance isn't going to last. Walden ends up shooting down her brother in a dogfight, which is one of those movie coincidences that feels a bit too convenient.

Small things I noticed

There is this one scene in a villa where a background actor is just staring at a glass of wine. He looks like he has never seen liquid before in his life.

I found myself watching him more than the main characters. That is usually a bad sign for the movie.

The flying scenes are... well, they are 1931 flying scenes. You can almost see the strings on the models when they catch fire.

One plane goes down and it looks like a birthday candle falling into a bush. It’s kind of charming, but it definitely kills the dramatic tension.

The dialogue is also very heavy. It feels like they forgot they weren't on a theater stage anymore.

"I love you, I hate the war, oh no my brother is dead!" It is all very loud and very theatrical.

I kept thinking about Salomy Jane while watching this. Not because the stories are the same, but because that movie felt like it had a bit more life behind the camera.

Heartbreak feels like it was filmed inside a very quiet, very expensive box. Even the explosions feel polite.

The Cast

Charles Farrell is usually better than this. He seems a bit lost without Janet Gaynor by his side to help the chemistry along.

Madge Evans is fine, I guess. She has very nice hair and looks great in a veil, but she doesn't get to do much besides look tragic.

The supporting cast, like Paul Cavanagh, mostly just stand around in very stiff uniforms. Seriously, those uniforms look like they were dry-cleaned five minutes before the cameras started rolling.

Nobody in this war seems to have any dirt on them. It’s the cleanest war I’ve ever seen on film. 🧼

Should you bother?

If you've already seen everything else, like What Happened to Jones or La nuit est à nous, then sure, give it a go.

It is a bit of a relic. A slightly broken, dusty relic you find in the back of a closet and then forget about twenty minutes later.

There is a scene with a letter that stays on the screen for so long I read it three times. I think the director was worried we couldn't read fast.

The ending is exactly what you expect it to be. It doesn't try to surprise you, it just sort of... stops.

It’s like a piece of toast with not enough butter. 🍞

It’s not a bad movie, it is just very thin. You won't regret watching it, but you probably won't remember it by tomorrow morning.