4/10
You might want to see this one in order to see a very young Clark Gable, otherwise, it's one worth skipping
22 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is moderately engaging and offers the viewer a chance to see Clark Gable in one of his earliest roles. Lovers of Gable won't be disappointed, as Clark did a good job in a supporting role as a hoodlum. However, apart from this, the script is pretty poor and Richard Barthelmess is given a thankless job playing a really stupid character. These are exactly the sort of films that helped to kill Barthelmess' career prematurely--going from a leading man to a has-been very quickly.

The film begins well, as Barthelmess plays a small town reporter who is hired by a big city newspaper. When he tries to make a name for himself by exposing a local mob joint, he is severely beaten but still wants to continue his job as a crusading reporter. However, oddly, his editor refuses to pay for Barthelmess' hotel bills and almost instantly, Barthelmess goes from good guy to a mob collaborator!! This makes absolutely no sense at all, though the basic idea COULD have worked. But, his switch is almost instant and you just can't believe this this sweet guy becomes an instant jerk. Additionally, aside from being "on the take", he soon gets a very swelled head and is just begging to be assassinated by the mob. Imagine a reporter trying to "put the squeeze" on the mob--demanding MORE money. No one is THAT stupid!! Overall, it's of no interest to anyone by Gable fans. Anyone expected good writing or intelligent characters should look elsewhere.

By the way, there are a couple other items of note about this film. First, there is almost no incidental music--making this a very quiet film. This wasn't too unusual for 1931, as sound film styles still hadn't been completely worked out and they just didn't realize that not having music made the films seem flat. Plus, in the earliest films, the actually had to have the orchestra there on the set--they didn't yet figure out how to add music later. Second, there is a strong implied sex scene towards the end--something that might shock viewers but which wasn't that unusual in the Pre-Code days of Hollywood (before 1934).
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed