Lee Eisenberg Warner Bros. spent much of the 1930s as the studio that turned out gangster-themed movies (and launched the Looney Tunes later in the decade). It was a surprise to learn that the studio known for Humphrey Bogart and Bugs Bunny also made "Dames", the sort of musical for which MGM was usually known.What I like about this movie is that it shows puritanical people as regressive lunatics (they really are). I just wish that they had done so without all the musical numbers. Seriously, the whole thing is a happy-go-lucky ego trip. If you ask me, the best kind of musicals - aside from the Beatles' movies - are satirical ones: the musical versions of "Reefer Madness" and "The Evil Dead".As for this one, I took the time to look for strings holding up the clothes during the "Girl at the Ironing Board" sequence (and I could make out a few of them).Basically, it's not the sort of movie that I recommend.

dougdoepke Busby fans have to wait until the last part for their guy to do his stuff. But then it's a real eye-popper. The dames keep comin' at yah one after another, blondes, brunettes, and in- betweens. What a line-up of 30's cuties. Then there's Berkeley's trademark: feminine geometry. That's enough to give Freud analytic overload and others x-rated dreams. Good thing those fluid figures were too abstract for the censors to erase. Speaking of blue- noses, '34 was the first year of Code enforcement. So, wouldn't be surprised the plot was jabbing at our watchdogs of public morality. After all, ridding the city of stage shows is the millionaire's (Hugh Herbert) favorite hobby. It's a winning cast, even if Powell mugs it up faster than a Ferrari's RPM's. True, Keeler's hoofing may be on the clunky side, still she's got the sweetest smile this side of Hollywood and Vine. Too bad the real dame, Blondell, was hobbled by six months of motherly gestation. Working her camera angles must have been a real challenge. I know a lot of folks don't especially like these antique concoctions. But in my book, they're inspired combinations of artistry, pizazz, and sheer Hollywood hokum.

utgard14 Millionaire Hugh Herbert leads a moral crusade against musical shows he deems objectionable. But his young relatives Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are both actors and intend to put on a show of their own. They also date but, before you are grossed out, we're told they're 13th cousins. Anyway, the plot is incidental. What we really want to see are those wonderful Busby Berkeley musical numbers, which are all great fun.Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are likable leads. Neither strains their acting muscles. Powell sings several pleasant tunes. Joan Blondell, not surprisingly, steals the show as the sexy wisecracking dame she always played so well. Hugh Herbert is an acquired taste. I have watched movies where I enjoyed him and watched movies where I couldn't wait for him to go away. His primary shtick was to fidget with his fingers and mumble a lot, frequently throwing in a 'woo hoo.' It could get old fast. Thankfully here he resists using many of his usual idiosyncrasies (whether that's his choice or the director, I don't know). Because of this, I thought Dames had one of Herbert's better roles. There's more fine comedic support from Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts, and Leila Bennett. It's a fun movie. Not the best of the Warner Bros musicals but a good one.

MartinHafer From 1929 until the late 1930s, Hollywood made a ton of films that followed a very similar pattern. There was a thin story that was more an explanation and excuse for the HUGE production numbers to come. This plot almost always had to do with something that threatened to cancel the 'big show'. Despite many thinking Busby Berkeley only directed films like this or that all these films were Berkeley movies, they weren't. But the ones with the wildest production numbers so often did end up being his films--and he always seemed to try to outdo himself--resulting in some VERY crazy films! Seen today, people are often in shock at these numbers--with huge swimming pools, dozens and dozens of pretty dancing girls, sparklers, enormous sets and the like. But, even if you don't like them, you have to admit it took a lot of work and talent to direct and choreograph these peculiar films! The thing that threatens to stop the show is a blue-nose (Hugh Herbert)---a moralist who threatens to pull financing from the show because it features, uh-oh,...dancing girls! While Herbert is best an acquired taste (one I have never managed to acquire), Guy Kibbee was his usual fun self. As for the singers and dancers, the very familiar Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are the leads. None of the story particularly excited me, but there were a few nice songs (such as "You Ought To Be in Pictures") and the production numbers were...well...crazy and complicated. None of this is in the least bit innovative or different from a couple dozen other films, but it is pleasant and well-made. While not nearly the quality of the better musicals like "Footlight Parade" or "42nd Street", if you like the genre this is a pleasant, if predictable, film.