Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

drjgardner "Born Restless" is a 1930 gangster film that surely rates as one of the worst gangster films of all time, made even worse when you think of the great gangster films that came out in the early 30s – "The Big House" (1930), "Little Caesar" (1931), "Public Enemy" (1931), "The Beast of the City" (1932), "Scarface" (1932), etc.The version I saw had the worst sound of any film I've viewed, so this added to the problem.Edmund Lowe plays the star. Lowe was a leading man in the silent era ("East of Suez". "What Price Glory") and he plays this one as if it were a silent film, and given how poor the dialogue is, you wish it was a silent film. He did some good work later on (e.g., "Dinner at Eight", Dillinger") but in this film he is wooden.Lowe isn't the only wooden actor. Almost all the scenes are staged with nary a movement.This is a John Ford production and Ford gets credit as a co-director. It reminds us that while Ford gave us about a dozen of the finest films ever made, he had a lot of clunkers too, and among his finest films I can't recall a gangster film.All things considered there isn't any reason to watch this film. You may be curious, as was I, about viewing an early John Ford film, but give this one a miss and go with "The Lost Patrol" (1934) or "The Informer" (1935).

Michael Morrison "Born Reckless" did not strike me as an appropriate title, but the original title of the story from which this movie came was simply "Louis Beretti," even more meaningless."Born Reckless" starts right out with action and even gunshots, but moves rather slowly throughout. But remember, this is an early sound picture, and in that context, it is very well done.Locations range from New York to the World War I battlefield of France and back, from urban New York to the countryside, and the look we get of the era makes "Born Reckless" valuable, if not an entirely entertaining motion picture.It has an excellent cast, with Edmund Lowe the star. He was a good actor but is little known today.However if you look carefully, you will see the biggest star of all time ... but you have to look VERY carefully. In fact, I never did see John Wayne, although he is listed in the "uncredited" cast here at IMDb.Quite visible, although also uncredited, is the great Randolph Scott. Also visible is the great Ward Bond, who is given billing but is on-screen in about two scenes.Known well to John Ford aficionados is Jack Pennick, quite visible also, and whose presence always added so much. Another future cowboy star I didn't see is Bill Elliott, uncredited.Playing the sister of the Lowe character is Marguerite Churchill, who had a couple years before co-starred with John Wayne in "The Big Trail," and it must have been interesting to be on this set with him as an unbilled extra.Lowe's character is not especially likable, and probably the most likable character is the newspaper guy, played by Lee Tracy.The cast alone makes "Born Reckless" very worth watching, even though the story is not very pleasant. It is, though, an interesting look at the World War I and Prohibition era America which, added to the cast, should entice you into watching.I do recommend it, having watched it On Demand from Time Warner Cable. There is a trailer for it at YouTube.

mark.waltz It's a shame that this early talkie by John Ford is as poor as it is. The potential is there for an early "Little Caesar" and "The Public Enemy" (released only a short time later), but lacks the pacing of those similar gangster films which have become classics while this one just lays there. Fox Studios didn't have the same type of camera equipment as Warner Brothers did, and it shows. Tinny sound recording, a mostly grounded camera which barely moves, and lighting that only once in a while shows signs of life. The performances can be described as less than adequate, the actors all speaking their lines extremely slow, even such talented actors as Edmund Lowe, Warren Hymer and Lee Tracy, directed to draw out every word. The story covers World War I (with a bit of witty dialog here and there during the training sequences) through prohibition (with the most boring criminals imaginable) and bogs down in a mother love story that fortunately doesn't overstay its welcome. It also contains one of the most bizarre blunt endings I've ever seen in films, literally flashing "The End" titles without really even ending the scene it is in the middle of.

Michael_Elliott Born Reckless (1930) * 1/2 (out of 4) John Ford drama about a wannabe gangster (Edmund Lowe) who gets busted after a heist but instead of going to prison, the judge makes a deal with him. Instead of jail the man will enlist for WW1 and if he serves his country proudly then the judge will throw out the evidence against him. This all goes well and the man returns home a war hero but he soon learns that his old gang has killed his brother in law so he goes out for revenge no matter what it might cost him. In the end, this film is killed by its standard and routine screenplay, which tries to do way too much and it doesn't do any of them in any original form. The movies tries to mix the gangster genre with a war genre with an added touch of the revenge drama but all three are boring and don't feature anything we hadn't seen countless times in the silent era. I've never been a fan of Lowe but he actually comes off decent here and plays the role off as well as can be expected. The supporting cast, including Lee Tracy, are all standard and forgettable. The climax of the movie is certainly the best thing and Ford's use of a swinging door leads to a great thing but there's nothing else going on here.