Danger Ahead (1926) Poster

(1926)

User Reviews

Review this title
3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
fun silent-comedy parody of melodramas
django-118 September 2004
This silent comedy short stars Earl McCarthy(who vaguely reminds me of Charles Starrett) as "Hairbreadth Harry," a parody of the hero of early melodrama and who had his own comic strip beginning in 1906 (the closest modern analogy I can think of is Dudley DoRight). Of course, there is the heroine Belinda (also taken from the comic), who is chased after by the bad guys, headed by Relentless Rudolph, who resembles Snidely Whiplash, gleefully stroking his handlebar mustache and laughing wickedly when he does something bad, stamping the ground and pouting and saying "curses!" when he is defeated by Harry or by circumstances. McCarthy continued to work into the early sound era (I remember him as the crusading reporter in Dorothy Davenport Reid's SUCKER MONEY in 1932, wearing too much silent-era-style makeup and lipstick, but doing a good job otherwise), but died young in 1933. During the silent era most of his featured roles seemed to be in comedy shorts--his appearances in features were generally small, which continued into the sound era, where many of his roles were uncredited walk-ons. SUCKER MONEY may well be his only starring role in a sound film, although he seems to have at least a featured role in his final film, CHEATING BLONDES starring Thelma Todd, which I haven't seen, and in the early-sound serial CLANCY OF THE MOUNTED,starring Tom Tyler, which I also haven't seen. DANGER AHEAD shows the modern viewer that the conventions of silent-film melodrama were antiquated and worthy of lampoon even by this point, and it's a fast-moving short that doesn't need much explanation to be appreciated. You can learn more about the Hairbreadth Harry comic strip by doing an internet search--you'll see some sample strips and learn about the character's history.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
simple story, excellent stunts
planktonrules6 July 2006
At heart, this is just a chase 'em silent short. There were a lot of them, but this one stands out for a couple reasons. First, a few of the camera tricks were pretty cleaver--such as when the bad guys hid behind poles. It must have been done with a split screen, as a 6 inch wide pole can conceal not just one bad guy, but his entire gang AND their getaway car! This was pretty funny. Second, the stunts were often very high energy and difficult--and I had a lot of respect for the people making the film. The only let down for me was the plot--it was just way too simple and looked a lot like an old DUDLEY DO-RIGHT cartoon--complete with a Snidely Whiplash character and his gang trying to steal a fortune from a poor lass and her lover-boy.

Overall, a good, but not great silent comedy worth seeing just for its visuals.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silly But Often Humorous Parody Feature
Snow Leopard6 December 2004
This silly but often humorous parody gives many indications of its comic-strip origins. From the hero Hairbreadth Harry to the villain and his henchmen to the melodramatic and thoroughly illogical story, it faithfully reproduces on film the nature of a comic. It's often a little too goofy to be enjoyable, but when it works, it delivers a few laughs. Likewise, it occasionally tries some fancy visual tricks, and some of them are a little ridiculous, while others work pretty well.

The story has Harry trying to protect a young heiress against the plots of the villain Rudolph and his henchmen. They are all stock characters, and it is really the henchmen that work the best on film. Harry (played by Earl McCarthy) is an energetic, likable, but rather plain hero. The villain has the expected attire and mustache, but he really comes off as rather plain. The three henchmen mug for the camera in a usually amusing fashion, having fun without taking themselves too seriously, and they provide more of the better moments.

The movie overall is probably typical of the average to mediocre range of silent comedies of the mid-1920s. There's nothing really wrong with it, but there were many movies of the era and genre that showed much more imagination and resourcefulness.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed