Convicts at Large (1938) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
How could anyone mistake Ralph Forbes for a gangster???
kidboots27 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If anyone should have succeeded in talkies it was Ralph Forbes who possessed a beautiful speaking voice and dashing good looks. He came to Hollywood, in the mid 20s, with his wife, stage actress Ruth Chatterton, who was by far the better known of the two. Her film career really took off while Ralph's just plodded along. His best known film was the silent "Beau Geste", he was even in the follow up "Beau Ideal" - why he wasn't given a role in the 1939 remake is anybody's guess. After "Mambo' (1930) , which was one of his career highlights, he settled down to a steady career in programmers and A grades - "The Phantom Broadcast" (1933) showcased his acting talents admirably, as did "Convicts at Large".

David Brent (Ralph Forbes) is an architect who is working on a plan for affordable homes that give the owners a sense of happiness and well being, he is also "mooning" about a radio singer, Ruth Porter (Paula Stone) who he has never met. Paula Stone sang and danced in this film and deserved to be much better known.

Meanwhile there has been a prison breakout and while David is out walking (to get out of his sister's "happy home"!!!) he is accousted by one of the escapees and when he comes to, finds his clothes have been switched. Singer Ruth is giving in her notice to the club - there are some shifty things going on that she doesn't like but her boss is not happy with her decision. He is the master mind behind the prison break. David wanders to the club, meets Ruth and explains, strange as it may seem, all that has happened to him that night. Before he can go to the police he is taken backstage and given the third degree - he has to talk his way out of it and talk he does, convincing them that he is "Squires", the gangster and even drawing them an architectually designed plan of where the jewels are hidden. Fortunately, before he is forced to lead them to the place the real Squires shows up....

I don't really agree with the other reviewer. These films were made on a shoestring budget (I. E. Chadwick Productions produced only 7 movies including "Jungle Bride"(1933) with Anita Page and "Police Court" (1932) with an all star cast of silent greats) and were entertaining enough for the bottom end of a double bill.

Recommended.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Adequate.
planktonrules16 November 2012
"Convicts at Large" is a low-budget B-movie with little-known actors and a short running-time of only 57--typical of a B. It begins with a prison escape and two hardened mobsters break out of the jug. Between this incident and serious action in the film is about 20 minutes of...well...not a lot of anything. You get some singing and dialog--but not a lot of action or plot development. Then, around 22 minutes into the film a guy is grabbed by criminals, as they think he's one of the escaped men. Why do they want this guy? Because this prisoner knows about a large stash of money--and they want it. However, he cannot convince him he's not the wanted man, so he eventually lies in order to keep them from killing him. What's next? See the film and find out for yourself.

Overall, this isn't so much a bad film as a rather dull film. The acting is fine and the story idea isn't bad, but he lack of energy to the film as well as no musical score work together to make a very, very somber film--one that really could have used more excitement. Still, for what it is, it isn't bad--more a minor time-passer than anything else.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Barebones B
boblipton24 August 2020
Ralph Forbes is an architect, toiling away as a draftsman while working on his plans for a residential development. He's listening to club singer Paula Stone on the radio. He's sweet on her, though they've never met. When her song is interrupted to inform the public that gangster Charles Brokaw has escaped prison, he leaves his home in annoyance and goes to the club where Miss Stone sings. There, through a mishap, he winds up changing clothes with Brokaw and is mistaken for him by some gangsters who want Brokaw to lead them to where he's hidden the jewels from his last job; of course they drag Miss Stone along.

Forbes offers a decent performance for once, Brokaw is good, and Miss Stone sings and does a lively tap dance as part of her act, but the movie is a barebones Poverty Row B that barely tops 57 minutes. it looks like it's had the heart cut out of it, and Marcel Le Picard's gracefully moving camerawork wouldn't save it.

It's the last screen credit of William Selig, who's listed as the presenter. He went broke about this time; his zoo, intended as a major theme park, was a drain on the little money he had left. He and several other pioneer film company heads would be given an honorary Oscar in 1947, and Selig would die the following year, at the age of 84.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"Has anyone got an eraser?"
classicsoncall10 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well I've watched a number of these Poverty Row mystery crime stories in a row ("Half A Sinner", "The Woman Condemned", "Night Life in Reno"), and I'm pretty much convinced by now that they make "Dumb and Dumber" look like Mensa material. Here's what you'll have to accept at the core of this story to work - a guy just walking down the street is rolled by an escaped convict who steals his suit, a bundle of clothes is then thrown to him from a passing car, and after getting dressed, he strolls down to the nearest night club where he orders a ham sandwich! Really, how much time and thought could have possibly gone into this? By the way, the suit in the bundle just happens to be a perfect fit for Dave Brent (Ralph Forbes), an architect who can't stop talking about his vision for 'Happy Homes', a concept that will bring joy and contentment to all Americans if he could just find a financial backer to help make his dream come true.

You know, if you approach films like these with an open mind, you can have some fun with them. However you'll need some patience, as scenes drag and conversations between characters have an unreal quality, because let's face it, people just don't talk that way. Not even in the 1930's. I wasn't around back then, but I think you can trust me on this.

The one thing I did like about the story was the inclusion of a notorious jewel thief known as The Squire - it sounds like he would have been right at home in an episode of Seinfeld. But here's another thing I just don't get - if the Squire (Charles Brokaw) was going to renege on his deal with boss Steve Moran (William Royle), why did he even go back to Moran's joint in the first place? This whole thing could have been wrapped up in about a half hour, even if they kept the tap dance number.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Spruce this up a little, add A players, and this might have become a classic.
mark.waltz4 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Had Ronald Colman played the part that Ralph Forbes plays here with better known character actors, I think this one could have been a higher class crime spoof. It has an amusing plotline involving mistaken identity (architect mistaken for escaped convict jewel thief) and a memorable leading lady (musical comedy star and later producer Paula Stone. What it lacks is a high budget and sparkle.

As is typical in the poverty row films that made Republic and Monogram seem like A studios in comparison, this has a very static pacing and some of the character actor performances are less than stellar. Forbes is good, but he's far more like a Herbert Marshall type than a Ronald Colman type. Stone however showed great potential, a lovely singer and feisty personality that didn't take away from her ladylike image. At just under an hour though it gets points for uniqueness and for striving to be better than what the filmmakers had to deal with.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Comic Drama and a Happy Home
johnniedoo14 April 2011
I thought this was a particularly good example of the low budget , feel good , depression type second feature. Need to take a lot of things for granted but before television and radio already had the imaginations working much better than we do now. If the movie had been restored and not as noisy or blocky (with all my digital helpers engaged) it would have been better. What could be better than the Happy Home concept? In a time where half the work force had been out of work and dispossession was a matter of course in many areas. There was drama, comedy, mystery, money falling out of the sky and into the laps of the needy, now, how much else can be packed into a short trip to the movie house? Unsuspecting guy having a load of goodies fall into his grasp. Meet a good looking woman looking for a change too. Never know what to expect in this one . Just as i had given it up as predictable old saws , they threw a curve and made it a bit more complex and interesting.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed