I've always been a Ricardo Cortez fan. He rarely gets a chance to stretch his acting wings but he does so here. Cortez is exceptional in playing older men. In Torrent (1926) you'd swear he actually aged. In Hat, Coat and Glove he plays age, hopelessness and loneliness quite well. It is unfortunate that the effect is damaged by shoddy makeup. His graying hair varies between scenes and virtually disappears in some. Dorothy Burgess was never better. The wife and her lover are somewhat weak. Frankly, I didn't see what the husband or lover saw in her. But it didn't matter; this is Cortez's film. The twists and turns of the plot are anything but conventional. For all it's absurdities this is a quality programmer that will hold your interest.
12 Reviews
Wardrobe case
bkoganbing27 April 2017
Hat, Coat, And Glove finds criminal lawyer Ricardo Cortez and artist John Beal having a lot in common including the women they see. Which includes the very unstable Dorothy Burgess who commits suicide while in Cortez's company.
But it's Beal that is arrested for her murder and put on trial. Barbara Robbins exacts a promise from Cortez to not get her involved and he agrees to defend Beal.
Every actor loves a courtroom film and this one gives Cortez a chance to shine. He gives a smooth polished performance as a smooth polished lawyer. In fact as per the title wardrobe plays a great part in the outcome of the trial.
Margaret Hamilton who is a milliner and just happens to be in court when an expert on lady's hats is needed gives a really great performance when Cortez questions here. She really stands out in this film.
One of Ricardo Cortez's best talkie films without a doubt.
But it's Beal that is arrested for her murder and put on trial. Barbara Robbins exacts a promise from Cortez to not get her involved and he agrees to defend Beal.
Every actor loves a courtroom film and this one gives Cortez a chance to shine. He gives a smooth polished performance as a smooth polished lawyer. In fact as per the title wardrobe plays a great part in the outcome of the trial.
Margaret Hamilton who is a milliner and just happens to be in court when an expert on lady's hats is needed gives a really great performance when Cortez questions here. She really stands out in this film.
One of Ricardo Cortez's best talkie films without a doubt.
It the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
planktonrules3 February 2013
"Hat, Coat and Glove" is a film that really strains credibility--so much so that the only way to enjoy it is to turn off your brain and not question things that seem too coincidental to be believable. However, despite this, IF you can put aside your brain for a few minutes, the film is rather entertaining.
Ricardo Cortez plays a very erudite lawyer--but one whose marriage is all but over. In fact, he and his wife haven't lived together for some time and she's already got a new boyfriend. However, and here where it gets goofy, when Cortez goes to have it out with this boyfriend (because he still wants a reconciliation with his wife), he isn't home but a crazy lady is there. This unstable woman has a history of suicide attempts and when she is talking to Cortez, she starts behaving irrationally and ends up getting shot when Cortez was pulling the gun away from her. But, Cortez doesn't call the police--and soon they arrest the boyfriend and think he murdered the woman. Cortez knows it was NOT murder but decides to exploit the situation. He agrees to defend the boyfriend IF his wife agrees to return! However, through the course of the trial, the wife starts to notice that some of the evidence seems to point to her husband! How all this ended, though, really confused me--especially what the wife did when she realized the truth. Baffling to say the least.
None of this is particularly believable....none. But, Cortez was enjoyable to watch and the film was enjoyable. HOWEVER, my favorite part involved seeing if a glove found at the site belonged to the boyfriend--and a Johnny Cochran moment at the OJ trial came to mind. It was, in so many ways, like the script that Cochran used! Pretty funny...
Ricardo Cortez plays a very erudite lawyer--but one whose marriage is all but over. In fact, he and his wife haven't lived together for some time and she's already got a new boyfriend. However, and here where it gets goofy, when Cortez goes to have it out with this boyfriend (because he still wants a reconciliation with his wife), he isn't home but a crazy lady is there. This unstable woman has a history of suicide attempts and when she is talking to Cortez, she starts behaving irrationally and ends up getting shot when Cortez was pulling the gun away from her. But, Cortez doesn't call the police--and soon they arrest the boyfriend and think he murdered the woman. Cortez knows it was NOT murder but decides to exploit the situation. He agrees to defend the boyfriend IF his wife agrees to return! However, through the course of the trial, the wife starts to notice that some of the evidence seems to point to her husband! How all this ended, though, really confused me--especially what the wife did when she realized the truth. Baffling to say the least.
None of this is particularly believable....none. But, Cortez was enjoyable to watch and the film was enjoyable. HOWEVER, my favorite part involved seeing if a glove found at the site belonged to the boyfriend--and a Johnny Cochran moment at the OJ trial came to mind. It was, in so many ways, like the script that Cochran used! Pretty funny...
An exceptional, remarkable film, that breaks the rules
briantaves21 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER! Another of those surprising films that sometimes appear in the early morning on TCM and defy all our expectations of mid 1930s Hollywood and the classical style we expect. It is a sort of love diamond, as opposed to triangle, four not three sided. A couple are living amicably, but separated, tho lawyer husband Ricardo Cortez's feelings for his wife have not changed. Hers are purely platonic now, for she has found someone new, but cannot bring herself to tell her husband. But the boyfriend calls during Cortez's visit, she goes into her room to finish the conversation, and he slinks off. His pain is the more profound for what he does not hear, and neither does the film's viewer. It turns out the new boyfriend is an artist, and coming home finds a floozy has flopped on his (single) bed, faking a suicide attempt. She's clearly an alcoholic, but he is also throwing her over for the new love. Cortez finds out the boyfriend's address, goes to meet him, but finds just the floozy. She calls his wife and pulls a gun on Cortez in an attempt to prevent him from interfering--struggle ensues--she is accidentally shot.
Cortez flees the crime, and his wife must beg him to save her boyfriend from the resulting murder charge. The viewer suspects the worst--that Cortez will use the case to see that the boyfriend does take the rap (And that his wife is making the ultimate sacrifice). But, surprisingly, as the tension builds, Cortez does not do as expected, and as foreshadowed. He even endangers himself to discredit a final, possibly lethal witness. Nor does he ask his wife to maintain the promise he exacted in agreeing to defend the boyfriend, that she would return to her husband. Instead, the wife does go back to Cortez, willingly, for her own love has been reawakened. And, most surprisingly, the film defies our expectations for a Hays Office approved ending, for there is no punishment for the crime--no one has been found legally guilty, or in the eyes of the film. Cortez, and the boyfriend, both are free, but Cortez, who was in fact guilty, has gained back his wife and never even contemplates a confession--in effect he was rewarded for his actions. Are we to believe the censors were asleep on this one? An utterly astonishingly handling of what might seem to be potentially trite material. The acting is impeccable (Cortez fortunately replaced John Barrymore at the last minute), and the direction by the unsung Worthington Miner is astonishing, modern and almost avant-garde in its use of camera angles, lenses, and framing. The script could be remade in the same style today as an independent film and play at Sundance. Yet here is an RKO 7 reel feature from 1934. Was Hollywood the monolith that dictated formula and interchangeable style, or did it allow for fluctuations and experiments, ruptures and exceptions to the "rules"? This film argues strongly for the latter understanding.
Cortez flees the crime, and his wife must beg him to save her boyfriend from the resulting murder charge. The viewer suspects the worst--that Cortez will use the case to see that the boyfriend does take the rap (And that his wife is making the ultimate sacrifice). But, surprisingly, as the tension builds, Cortez does not do as expected, and as foreshadowed. He even endangers himself to discredit a final, possibly lethal witness. Nor does he ask his wife to maintain the promise he exacted in agreeing to defend the boyfriend, that she would return to her husband. Instead, the wife does go back to Cortez, willingly, for her own love has been reawakened. And, most surprisingly, the film defies our expectations for a Hays Office approved ending, for there is no punishment for the crime--no one has been found legally guilty, or in the eyes of the film. Cortez, and the boyfriend, both are free, but Cortez, who was in fact guilty, has gained back his wife and never even contemplates a confession--in effect he was rewarded for his actions. Are we to believe the censors were asleep on this one? An utterly astonishingly handling of what might seem to be potentially trite material. The acting is impeccable (Cortez fortunately replaced John Barrymore at the last minute), and the direction by the unsung Worthington Miner is astonishing, modern and almost avant-garde in its use of camera angles, lenses, and framing. The script could be remade in the same style today as an independent film and play at Sundance. Yet here is an RKO 7 reel feature from 1934. Was Hollywood the monolith that dictated formula and interchangeable style, or did it allow for fluctuations and experiments, ruptures and exceptions to the "rules"? This film argues strongly for the latter understanding.
great even if ridiculous fun
AlsExGal28 April 2017
You know that a film is going to be a camp precode treat when it begins with the protagonist, attorney Robert Mitchell (Ricardo Cortez), waxing poetic about mannequins, to the point that even the department store sales staff is giving him odd looks.
Robert is separated from his wife, Dorothea, because she wants it that way, not him. She is in love with Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). Unfortunately for Jerry, he had a brief affair with what today we would call a stalker, Ann Brewster (Dorothy Burgess). Nobody could play the precode crazy woman like Dorothy Burgess.
Ann shows up in Jerry's apartment one night, in his bed, in a negligee, demanding he love her back. He leaves and goes to see Dorothea. Robert goes to have a man to man with Jerry and winds up trapped with crazy Ann, who, for some strange reason, knows Jerry has a gun and where he keeps it. She decides to kill herself, she calls what she thinks is Dorothea's number but misdials, Robert struggles to get the gun from her but it goes off, and Ann falls dead.
The next day this woman with one deadly bullet in her is mentioned as "the bullet riddled body" in all of the newspapers and Jerry is blamed for the crime. His alibi, though, was that he spent the night with Dorothea, and he doesn't want to create a scandal and use that alibi. But he wouldn't have this problem if Robert had just called the police and said what happened. He didn't have any past relationship with Ann and she did have a history of suicide attempts. Instead Robert just left the scene, stealthily.
So Dorothea appeals to her estranged husband to save her lover by defending him in court. He agrees, as long as she agrees to come back to him. Was this his plan all along or did he just panic the night before? The trial is a riot with lots of nuttiness that only one person sees through. And then the highlight of the film is Margaret Hamilton as a milliner with a "stage name" of Madame Du Barry. That's first name "Du", last name "Barry". This great character actress steals the entire film out from under the script, cast, and director.
Lots of people pan this film, but for ridiculous dialogue and a ludicrous plot full of precode naughtiness that was actually released after the code, this one fits the bill.
Robert is separated from his wife, Dorothea, because she wants it that way, not him. She is in love with Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). Unfortunately for Jerry, he had a brief affair with what today we would call a stalker, Ann Brewster (Dorothy Burgess). Nobody could play the precode crazy woman like Dorothy Burgess.
Ann shows up in Jerry's apartment one night, in his bed, in a negligee, demanding he love her back. He leaves and goes to see Dorothea. Robert goes to have a man to man with Jerry and winds up trapped with crazy Ann, who, for some strange reason, knows Jerry has a gun and where he keeps it. She decides to kill herself, she calls what she thinks is Dorothea's number but misdials, Robert struggles to get the gun from her but it goes off, and Ann falls dead.
The next day this woman with one deadly bullet in her is mentioned as "the bullet riddled body" in all of the newspapers and Jerry is blamed for the crime. His alibi, though, was that he spent the night with Dorothea, and he doesn't want to create a scandal and use that alibi. But he wouldn't have this problem if Robert had just called the police and said what happened. He didn't have any past relationship with Ann and she did have a history of suicide attempts. Instead Robert just left the scene, stealthily.
So Dorothea appeals to her estranged husband to save her lover by defending him in court. He agrees, as long as she agrees to come back to him. Was this his plan all along or did he just panic the night before? The trial is a riot with lots of nuttiness that only one person sees through. And then the highlight of the film is Margaret Hamilton as a milliner with a "stage name" of Madame Du Barry. That's first name "Du", last name "Barry". This great character actress steals the entire film out from under the script, cast, and director.
Lots of people pan this film, but for ridiculous dialogue and a ludicrous plot full of precode naughtiness that was actually released after the code, this one fits the bill.
R Cortez in talkies
ksf-24 October 2018
Ricardo Cortez had been around for YEARS in the silent films... here he co-stars with Barbara Robbins, as husband and wife, Robert and Dorothea. When HE finds out that SHE's seeing other men ( we ARE still pre-code, so its ok to show this for another year or so...), then the poop hits the fan! Cortez is very happy, relaxed, ethereal. almost ghostly throughout. doesn't seem that upset over anything that happens. the wife is seeing the younger Jerry (John Beal), who is also seeing another girl of his own. keep an eye out for Margaret Hamilton in the courtroom, WAAAYYY before Wizard of OZ! the story moves pretty slowly. Cortez had been a pretty big name in the late 1920s and the 1930s, but he has a pretty cardboard performance in this one. very average for the time. When someone turns up dead, attorney Robert must figure out exactly what's going on. Directed by Worth Miner, one of the first things he had directed. and he only directed nine films. It's entertaining... very typical courtroom case from the 1930s. Very soon, the film code would come rushing in, and everything would be hot cocoa and marshmallows. Hamilton is the most exciting part of this one. ends on a strange note.. a bit anti-climactic.
A feeble and contrived courtroom drama.
Michael-1107 April 1999
This film is extremely weak in all categories, particularly acting and screenplay. As a courtroom drama, it is downright pitiful. An attorney is involved in a murder; it was an accidental shooting but the attorney could well have been a suspect. He agrees to represent the defendant in the case without disclosing his own involvement. Moreover, the defendant has to agree to forego his alibi because he was with the lawyer's wife (from whom the lawyer was then separated) at the time of the killing. The trial itself is absurd with such nonsense as the prosecutor calling the defendant as a witness and expert witnesses popping up in the courtroom and volunteering to testify. Although there is a glove scene which is amusingly like the O.J. Simpson case (in this case, the glove fits both the defendant and the defendant's lawyer), there is nothing else amusing or worthwhile about this film. Originally a B movie, it rates a D minus.
***
edwagreen9 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Rather off-beat drama where a lawyer defends his estranged wife's younger boyfriend when the latter is accused of murdering an ex-girlfriend. What makes this more interesting is that the lawyer is the real killer who went to the guy's house to have it out with him only to find the girlfriend about to commit suicide and with the gun going off while he tried to wrestle it from her.
Margaret Hamilton does an effective job as a milliner on the witness stand. As cookie and devilish as ever, Hamilton really delivered here.
The ending of reconciliation is exactly what you would expect from this rather benign, but interesting film.
Margaret Hamilton does an effective job as a milliner on the witness stand. As cookie and devilish as ever, Hamilton really delivered here.
The ending of reconciliation is exactly what you would expect from this rather benign, but interesting film.
A future witch steals this film in an extended cameo that will have you in hysterics!
mark.waltz4 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Of course, I am talking about Margaret Hamilton who simply stands up in court and announces that she is a milliner in this delightful society thriller that has some very surprising twists and turns. Ricardo Cortez is cast against type as a rather staid attorney who discovers that his wife (Barbara Mitchell) is having an affair with a much younger man (John Beal) who is being stalked by the sociopathic Dorothy Burgess. Cortez, realizing that he is on the verge of losing his wife, goes to Beal's house and finds a very drunk Burgess there, having refused to leave Beal's apartment after confronting him over his affair with a married woman. She's really spooky, an early version of the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction", obsessed with Beal even though he has insisted to Mitchell that she was just a passing fling. Cortez leaves the intoxicated Burgess behind and later on it is revealed that she has been found dead in Beal's bed and that he has been arrested for her murder. For unclear motives, Cortez takes on Beal's case, keeping his wife's identity a secret.
Hamilton's appearance comes at a tense moment in the trial where examinations of Mitchell's hat (found in Beal's room) and the judge says that only a milliner could assist with evidence in locating the owner. Up steps Hamilton, proud as a peacock, and with the name "Madame DuBarry" getting laughs, she takes over the film for at least 10 minutes. While a good majority of the film's plot line is rather over the top and difficult to swallow, it is fun to watch it all unfold, especially with the performances of Cortez (underplaying the suspicious husband role), Burgess (quite intense) and Hamilton (hysterically funny!). Mitchell and Beal are unmemorable in comparison to these three performances, and Beal's performance makes his character seem truly weak and desperate. In their confrontation scene, Burgess practically eats him alive, and the difference is truly felt when Beal takes off and Cortez comes into the room. Very unique as far as films from this era goes, it's one of the last of the truly racy pre-code dramas that adds some psychological tension into the characters, especially with Burgess whose intense performance would have made her a natural for an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actress had they been presented in 1934.
Hamilton's appearance comes at a tense moment in the trial where examinations of Mitchell's hat (found in Beal's room) and the judge says that only a milliner could assist with evidence in locating the owner. Up steps Hamilton, proud as a peacock, and with the name "Madame DuBarry" getting laughs, she takes over the film for at least 10 minutes. While a good majority of the film's plot line is rather over the top and difficult to swallow, it is fun to watch it all unfold, especially with the performances of Cortez (underplaying the suspicious husband role), Burgess (quite intense) and Hamilton (hysterically funny!). Mitchell and Beal are unmemorable in comparison to these three performances, and Beal's performance makes his character seem truly weak and desperate. In their confrontation scene, Burgess practically eats him alive, and the difference is truly felt when Beal takes off and Cortez comes into the room. Very unique as far as films from this era goes, it's one of the last of the truly racy pre-code dramas that adds some psychological tension into the characters, especially with Burgess whose intense performance would have made her a natural for an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actress had they been presented in 1934.
Silly and Rather Far-Fetched Court Drama
Michael_Elliott28 January 2013
Hat, Coat and Glove (1934)
** (out of 4)
Mildly entertaining drama about lawyer Robert Mitchell (Ricardo Cortez) who is trying to get back with his ex-wife (Barbara Robbins) but she's seeing a man named Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). One night Robert goes over to Jerry's house to confront him but Jerry's ex is there trying to kill herself. Robert accidentally kills her, while she's trying to kill herself that is, and then Jerry is charged with the crime. Robert agrees to defend him when his ex-wife asks him to. Did you get all of that? I watch every single crime picture that turns up on Turner Classic Movies but I honestly can't remember one with such a dumb story. I mean, there are so many things that happen here that are just downright crazy and it really seems like this story was written by someone who lost a bet and had to turn something crazy in only then someone gave it the green light. The entire court sequence just contains so many dumb moments that you can't help but be slightly entertained by them. The entire structure of events that have to happen in order for this crime to take place is just so silly that you can never believe it. Still, the performances are somewhat interesting especially seeing Cortez playing a role like this. This type of character isn't something we often saw from the actor so his fans might be interested in this. Beal and Robbins are both good in their parts as is Paul Harvey and Margaret Hamilton. Just wait to you see Hamilton's turn in the witness chair. HAT, COAT AND GLOVE isn't a very good movie and it would be wise for most to just avoid it unless you're the type, like myself, who tries to watch all of these movies when they show up.
** (out of 4)
Mildly entertaining drama about lawyer Robert Mitchell (Ricardo Cortez) who is trying to get back with his ex-wife (Barbara Robbins) but she's seeing a man named Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). One night Robert goes over to Jerry's house to confront him but Jerry's ex is there trying to kill herself. Robert accidentally kills her, while she's trying to kill herself that is, and then Jerry is charged with the crime. Robert agrees to defend him when his ex-wife asks him to. Did you get all of that? I watch every single crime picture that turns up on Turner Classic Movies but I honestly can't remember one with such a dumb story. I mean, there are so many things that happen here that are just downright crazy and it really seems like this story was written by someone who lost a bet and had to turn something crazy in only then someone gave it the green light. The entire court sequence just contains so many dumb moments that you can't help but be slightly entertained by them. The entire structure of events that have to happen in order for this crime to take place is just so silly that you can never believe it. Still, the performances are somewhat interesting especially seeing Cortez playing a role like this. This type of character isn't something we often saw from the actor so his fans might be interested in this. Beal and Robbins are both good in their parts as is Paul Harvey and Margaret Hamilton. Just wait to you see Hamilton's turn in the witness chair. HAT, COAT AND GLOVE isn't a very good movie and it would be wise for most to just avoid it unless you're the type, like myself, who tries to watch all of these movies when they show up.
Well, it's not THAT bad!
klg1921 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER Despite the damning review already posted here, this film isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be. The character of the lawyer is an unusual one for the period (something of an existentialist), and the director uses some interesting techniques to introduce each of the three main characters. Since the previous review gives most of the plot away, I'll feel free to add that the most astonishing thing about the film is that, despite the newly enforced Hays Code regulations, the lawyer gets away with killing the girl and even gets his wife back. So much for crime not paying!
It's also nice to see underrated Ricardo Cortez (ne Jacob Krantz!) in a starring role.
It's also nice to see underrated Ricardo Cortez (ne Jacob Krantz!) in a starring role.
Well.... I almost saw all of it!
tmpj30 May 2002
This is an interesting film, somewhat of a departure for Ricardo Cortez from the dapper ladies man he generally portrayed in films of this period. He is a dreamer, a man who has been in love, is divorced, but is still in love with his wife. He also has to endure the reality of his 'ex' and a younger man who are now doing 'light housekeeping'. The script's OK, not great, but economical and to the point. Cortez is a lawyer who must defend his ex-wife's present lover on a murder rap, and does so against his better wishes. But he knows a lot more about the murder charge than he lets on. This flick came on late at night in the city, and the station cut the tail end of the flick so I couldn't comment on the end...because I ain't seen it. They gave the film short shrift, which is a drag. However, knowing the Hayes code of the period, I am almost certain that I could write the ending without having seen it, and it wouldn't be too terribly far removed from the ending that I did not see, thanks to the neglect of the local TV station. Be that as it may, the part I saw was slightly above average for 'B' film fare of the period.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
