I bought the Turner-Classic 4-movie set of Harlow, and she is excellent in all 4. 'Dinner at 8' I had not seen in a long time, but I did recall some juicy conflict between Beery and Harlow. The camera loved Harlow (as it did Monroe, 20 years later). The sets, lighting and her ensemble truly highlighted her beauty and sensuality. Her ability to feign 'culture' - and then talk like a carnaval barker the next minute is delightful to regard.Being a 'pre-code' film, we also get some frankness that would have been excised only a few years later: Harlow is having an affair with a handsome family doctor, who, according to his faithful wife, is a frequent philanderer; Marie Dressler confesses that she has acquired expensive jewelry from men in her previous relationships that were not matrimonial; pretty Madge Evans--engaged to a very suitable partner--falls in love with a charming, but over-the-hill, alcoholic actor (John Barrymore). These indiscretions are presented openly (without skin), in the spirit of pre-code films, which presented imperfect characters who seemed lifelike, and sometimes suffered for their sins - but sometimes didn't.Contrast this to 'China Seas' made only a few years later with Harlow and Clark Gable: Gable says he will stick with his pretty former-consort Harlow--even marry her--but first she must face the justice system for her role in an attempted theft. I doubt the original story ended that way, but the Code demanded that villains NOT prosper from their nefarious deeds - so, Harlow will face prison for 3 to 5, I guess. If made in 1932, that film would have ended with Gable suppressing the role Harlow played, and marrying her the same day, in a local church! In Dinner at 8, at least 2 leading female characters are guilty of unfaithfulness, but neither really 'face the music'. My point is: at least in pre-code films, the guilty didn't have to suffer harsh consequences -- hence, the writers had more freedom to wrap up the story as they saw fit.This is a fine ensemble cast, featuring Harlow at her prettiest and maybe most feisty (she & Beery disliked one another - so, maybe art was imitating life!?). Recommended.

One has to wonder if an actress like Marie Dressler would have made it in today's Hollywood. She was great during her era, but boy, what she offers up in the acting department is totally offset by her looks. Actually, I'll correct myself for the moment by pointing to Anne Ramsey, that infamous 'Momma' that was thrown from the train in the 1987 Danny DeVito flick. But Ramsey's heyday was in the Eighties, and I can't think of anyone who might fill the current bill as a similar type actress.This film had a glittering cast, what with the likes of the Barrymores, Dressler, Beery and Harlow leading the charge. I can't necessarily say that Wallace Beery and Jean Harlow were inappropriately cast here as husband and wife because it worked for the story, but I had to suspend disbelief the whole time watching them. Knowing that they hated each other in real life was something that worked for their characters in the picture, though Harlow's Kitty Packard turned me off early on when she displayed such boorish behavior toward her maid Tina (Hilda Vaughn). I had to question why Tina would have stuck around with all the times she was called nitwit, dummy and stupid by her employer. And not just Kitty, but the lout Dan Packard (Beery) as well.Set during the Depression, the story focuses on what once wealthy, upscale glitterati find they have to deal with as their fortunes run dry. Preparing for her well heeled 'Dinner at Eight' party, Millicent Jordan (Billie Burke) is totally over the top in her remonstrations over late cancellations and assorted menu options. The story offers up classic maguffins in the characters of Lord and Lady Ferncliffe who are mentioned repeatedly but wind up as no-shows for the big party.Though nominally billed as a comedy, the humor is mostly understated and primarily dialog driven; it helps if one has a droll sense of humor. I didn't consider any of the characters to be particularly likable, I guess because each one was looking out for Number #1, which in each case was themselves. But it's not a bad little film over all, one of the better ones actually when you go all the way back to the early Thirties.

Many years ago (I'd say around 1998-1999) I brought home a copy of "Dinner At Eight" on videotape, prepared to watch a gem. I'm sorry to say, I was nearly bored to tears. Over ten years later, I saw the film a second time on TV. Being older, I figured I might hold a differing viewpoint.It was still deadly dull."Dinner At Eight" is nominally about a social climber (Billie Burke) who's plotting a society party. The people who are invited all have various motives for attending (or not attending) this dinner. These motives are shared over the course of the film, which ends as dinner is about to begin.I kept waiting for dinner to begin, if only cause I felt that the dinner would've been necessary compensation for the two hours of dull build up to this soirée. For my money, the scenes with John Barrymore hold up best. Wallace Beery and Jean Harlow have some amusing bits early on, but near the end, I found myself tiring of the bickering. Billie Burke is just fine, but I wish she would've had more screen time. She, along with Harlow & Beery, and a few of Barrymore's lines, provide what humor is in this film.Other's may find it wonderful, but I found it to be a letdown, especially given the hype it's received over the years.

With the last sounds of the frightening echo coming from the 1929 Economic Crash in Wall Street "Dinner at Eight" delivers ruthless and unsympathetic characters who are trying to live the best lives they can get with glamour, style, away from their husbands and wives but together with their lovers, even though most of them are doomed to failure. The stage play of this might be interesting, funny and warmful but George Cukor's film with all the classic stars from MGM didn't add anything to his career simply because is boring, tedious to the fullest and we, as audiences, have no other place to go other than watch this film because it is often mentioned in lists of great films of all time, and when you see the constellation of stars present in this tragedy, names like John Barrymore, Marie Dressler, Billie Burke, Lionel Barrymore, Jean Harlow, Wallace Beery among others you really would expect something at least decent. It turns out to be a very boring movie that has no point, no direction, no meaning and it's not even a good entertainment.It's just a plain boring picture with a almost ensemble casting. Almost because there's something about the acting here that makes this film worth of a few stars. Harlow and Beery were great, they have the funniest scenes in the movie as a rich couple that seems to never go along right; Lionel Barrymore and Marie Dressler are quite well too; John Barrymore plays a figure that resembles himself, a decadent and drunk actor who lives in a hotel without having money to pay for, and desperate to find a good play to act. He's the most interesting in the film and his solid dramatic acting made this more watchable. Billie Burke was completely annoying as the lady who invites all those rich people for the so mentioned Dinner at Eight, a confusing and strange celebration of the bourgeoisie futility.And to think that Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote this (in a few years away, in the shadows of his drunkenness and trying to recover his fame he wrote what would become the best film of all time, and that is "Citizen Kane") and George Cukor ("Born Yesterday") were behind all this mess. A play that takes one and a half hour to get to its title, the disastrous dinner has to be badly translated to the screen. Nothing happens, the characters lives are filled with sorrow, failed things and everyone's pretend to be happy (or at least there's some who get fully loaded with drinks so that's why the so called happiness) and the meaning....well, there isn't one really.For a drama it is boring (sorry, I can't find another word to say about this film) and for a comedy it is very unfunny with one or two well humored moments. For the most of its core it's silly, silly, silly. I had a bad headache before and during the film and it got real worse after it. But barely I would know that my next one would be even worst than this ("The Family Stone" but please do read my review of it) and that's why "Dinner at Eight" gets 3 stars, this and because of the casting. 3/10