As most commenters here on IMDB have noted, this one was made in England, and has lower production values than one would expect in a 1930s movie starring Robinson. It isn't a great movie, to be sure, but it isn't much different than most "foreign films" in those days. Try watching a Claire Luce film, or a Gertrude Lawrence movie from the 1930s - both famous English stars of the day. While neither of them could approach the megawatt stardom or talent of Hollywood actresses, you can still see the best treatment that Britain could offer her biggest stars at that time.
Actually, "Thunder in the City" stands up very well to other British films of that day.
Robinson and Bruce dominate the film. Richardson, one of the greatest English actors, disappears so completely in scenes with them that it's obvious their training and experience in Hollywood placed them on an entirely different level from everyone around them.
The difference in quality that is so glaring to viewers today, is really because they are accustomed to watching movies of the '30s that were produced by Hollywood studios.
Actually, "Thunder in the City" stands up very well to other British films of that day.
Robinson and Bruce dominate the film. Richardson, one of the greatest English actors, disappears so completely in scenes with them that it's obvious their training and experience in Hollywood placed them on an entirely different level from everyone around them.
The difference in quality that is so glaring to viewers today, is really because they are accustomed to watching movies of the '30s that were produced by Hollywood studios.