Stoutor
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
Livestonth
I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible
Erica Derrick
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
JohnHowardReid
Producer: Sam Goldwyn. Copyright 24 January 1940 by Samuel Goldwyn. Released through United Artists. Presented by Samuel Goldwyn. New York opening at the Roxy: 12 January 1940. Australian release: 2 May 1940. 8 reels. 6,444 feet. 71½ minutes. SYNOPSIS: Social cricketer takes up jewel thieving for fun and profit.NOTES: William Wyler directed the cricket scenes. F. Scott Fitzgerald also worked on the script, but contributed little of significance.COMMENT: Ernest William Hornung was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's brother-in-law. What more natural than that he should pen a rival series of stories featuring a thief instead of a detective? Like Sherlock Holmes, these stories were originally published in a monthly periodical. Like Sherlock, they are narrated in the first person by an accomplice of the principal character. There, unfortunately, the similarity stops. Hornung's writing style is always bland and often long-winded, his characterization weak and his dialogue dull. The plots have little sting and are often resolved by a most disappointing let-down.His first book collection, entitled simply Raffles (1899), contains fourteen short stories. The first eight were part of the original magazine series. The remaining six form a "Return of Raffles". The film script doesn't touch upon any of these last six stories at all. Instead it is largely based upon the two stories that are connected: "Gentlemen and Players" and its sequel, "The Return Match", plus a substantial part of "The Ides of March" and a single, chance idea from "Nine Points of the Law". (The most exciting story, "A Costume Piece" in which Raffles adopts some effective, Holmesian-style disguises is not used at all.)Howard and Van Druten have done a marvelous job combining these stories and the resulting film very faithfully reflects Hornung's original - right down to the weak climaxes. Of course the characterizations in the film - helped as they are by the endeavors of a first-rate cast - are far more exciting.Niven (in his first starring role) is exactly right for the true-blue sporting blood, A.J. Raffles. It's a role he was born to play and he loses not a single opportunity to be charming, witty and gallant on the one hand, roguish, twinkle-eyed and cunningly resourceful on the other. Miss de Havilland has little to do but look decoratively uncomfortable, while Dame May Whitty gives her usual vigor to a characteristically strident dowager. Dudley Digges has one of the film's meatiest parts which he puts over with such unsubtle insinuations as to compel attention even in his less dramatic scenes.Aside from Douglas Walton (who makes Bunny far too weak a character), the rest of the players led by Lionel Pape's Lord George are solidly supportive, although Peter Godfrey (soon to become a major director) overdoes the Cockney accent and mannerisms. His Crawshay (as written and played) is too much a caricature - a fault that is not found in the book.As we might expect from Sam Goldwyn, the film is immaculately produced. Photography, sets, costumes are most attractive. Wood stepped into the director's chair straight from his stint on Gone With The Wind. From all accounts, he was worn out. (William Wyler directed the cricket scenes when he was off ill for a few days). And Raffles looks like the work of a tired man. The direction is flat, straightforward and pedestrian. Not only are the camera angles persistently routine and unimaginative, but the pace is slow and the editing slack. The whole film lacks sparkle.And as for those weak climaxes! It's one thing to get the hero into those all-odds-against him situations, but we expect the writers to extricate him with a modicum of ingenuity. This, they signally fail to deliver.OTHER VIEWS: Slight, but entertaining and filmed with impeccable taste. As usual, producer Samuel Goldwyn has surrounded himself with the very finest writers, technicians and players. One couldn't help but make an enjoyable film with such a tower of talent! The acting especially is delightful, with Niven exactly right as the charming if rascally Raffles, while Dudley Digges, his watchful nemesis, burrs away with a hearty Scottish accent.
Leofwine_draca
RAFFLES is something of a so-so screen adaptation of the famous literary character, a notorious safe cracker and jewel thief here envisaged as David Nivan's charming cad. This 1939 version is a virtual remake of the 1930 film with Ronald Colman, and it follows that film's plot quite strictly.What I found about this movie is that I didn't connect with the material as much as I had hoped. The characters go through the motions rather than living off the screen and everything is dealt with in a matter-of-fact way. Niven can do little with his character other than show up and act typically charming, and the best performer is none other than Olivia De Havilland, who shines as the romantic lead. The rest is straightforward, and not particularly memorable.
Luis Guillermo Cardona
Do not know about you but as far as I am concerned, since a child I loved that movie heroes were marginal and risky to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The bank robbers, who without firing a shot-safes to leave the applause encouraged me, and anyone who exposed their lives to bring dignity to the people, deserved a good place on the corner of my heart grateful. Robin Hood was the prototype, and then met the Crimson Pirate the Captain Blood... up to this trendy Raffles who, besides being a famous cricketer, occasionally steals in an art gallery, in an ostentatious jewelry or steals any aristocratic lady a necklace, then, does one need to return, so, so, it will pay the reward. That is, a thief returner. Steal with elegance, but pretend. And what we love about Raffles is that it is a handsome, elegant, well spoken, courteous and able to get along great even with the hound that pursues him ready to catch it as a good salmon. Meanwhile, love and ends up making her an accomplice to the same woman who, one day, also get into the heart of Hood and even the same Blood… ¿Do you can believe it? Well, I'll explain in case anyone is not up to date: David Niven ago Raffles "The thief cracksman" as he signs his messages of farewell. And Olivia de Havilland, the love with Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Captain Blood", is now Gwen, the girl who wins back the heart of the hero of the day. And that is how: beauty, sweetness, consistency and accessibility. A donut with whipped cream. The film is charming, curious tricks, sharpness of wit and some other really funny situation. The story catches without difficulty and you feel quite at ease with a handful of delightful characters. Believe me, is a detective film... and there's no bad, almost everyone is honest. No for nothing, the same story was made into a movie-in just 23 years-in four successful cases.
David (Handlinghandel)
"Raffles" has one thing going for it: Olivia De Havilland is beautiful and appealing. This was in the early phase of her career.. She made many movies in which she was saucy and as pretty as anyone else in Hollywood. Then she turned to serious roles. She did well at those also but in certain ways, these early trifles are fun.Dame May Witty, a versatile character actress, is totally wasted. She plays a standard dithering dowager. Any of at least ten actresses at the time could have done as well.What "Raffles" needed was the right director. Sam Wood was at the helm of many fine movies. But this is not his genre. Alfred Hitchock could have had fun with it. Imagine this movie with Cary Grant in the title role, directed by Hitchcock. (It might have been like "To Catch a Thief." The full axiom from which that tile is taken is quoted in "Raffles.") But Lubitsch would have been the best for it. He could have turned it into a soufflé' about class, criminals vs heroes. It's not a soufflé, though: It's a blintz.
