Dorathen
Better Late Then Never
WiseRatFlames
An unexpected masterpiece
Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
classicsoncall
I'll try to be fair in my review of this early version of "The Maltese Falcon", but with Bogart as my favorite actor and the 1941 remake as one of my Top 10 films, it's going to be difficult. Not that this isn't a serviceable story, it is, but if you've seen the Bogey crew in action, there's no comparison, at least for this viewer.I never read the Dashiell Hammett novel, so I don't know which Sam Spade more closely resembles the literary version. I can say though, that I didn't care for the Ricardo Cortez portrayal here all that much. Perhaps it's because he was a flagrant womanizer, or because he didn't trade barbs with Polhaus (J. Farrel MacDonald) and Dundy (Robert Elliott) with the sardonic wit of Bogart's Spade. On the flip side though, the fact that Spade understood Chinese was an interesting idea; it's not till late in the story that we learn that Lee Fu Gow told Spade who killed his partner. So he knew all along, and kept it close to the vest to see how things played out.Character for character match-ups between the two pictures makes it a hands down proposition for the later film. How can you top Greenstreet, Lorre and Elisha Cook, Jr. as the heavies compared to the statue hunters here? As Ruth Wonderly, Bebe Daniels uses only one name in the story compared to Mary Astor's character, and Sam's secretary in this version, portrayed by Una Merkel, gave every indication that she had a past, present or future in the romance department with her boss. Bogart's Spade wisely kept his hands to himself around his secretary, maintaining a professional relationship instead of a lecherous one.I guess there are those who'll see things just the other way around with this pre-code version of The Falcon. There's something to be said for the free wheeling attitude displayed toward sexual innuendo in the story. It helps explain how Miss Wonderly wound up with a woman's kimono in Sam's apartment - it belonged to partner Archer's wife!! I did get a big kick out of one thing that blows by pretty quickly if one is not attentive to it. Listen carefully when Sam Spade makes a call to Effie's home phone - her number is Berkeley, Double O-7! It would be a couple decades before writer Ian Fleming came up with that designation for his secret agent, James Bond! I wonder if he saw this picture.
John T. Ryan
DUE TO SOME other pressing tasks, of late we haven't been very attentive to doing our regular time at the reviewing desk. The just finished screening of this 1931 (original screen version) THE MALTESE FALCON has brought us just about directly to the old keyboard. While we saw many differences, the end result was that of great satisfaction.BEING DONE A full decade before the John Huston directed/written screenplay had, by virtue of its belonging to a new era of film, a very different mood, feel and appearance. Although there are so many of the typically Warner Brothers' elements in both, the earlier one bore a rather intimate relationship to the Silents; which had of course just recently "rode off into the sunset." Its Humphrey Bogart vehicle remake had the advantage of all of the elements of the highly developed and polished Warner product of the 1940's war years. In essence, it was the Warner Brothers movie being at the very zenith of their power.BEING THAT THIS production is one of the "pre-code" era, there is a lot of material that is, while not necessarily explicit, very highly implied. We are referring mainly to the sublet of S-E-X. We see ladies' man (now called a "womanizer" in today's vernacular) in several highly 'adult' situations, always in the company of females. The opening scene has Sam revealed to be in a 'private' conference with a briefly shown 'flapper'; who has to adjust her stockings before departing his office. Mr. Spade then tidies up his couch, having to pick up the multitude of throw pillows that are scattered about the floor.HID LATER MEETING with Miss Wonderly include their sharing his apartment for the night. Although any even partial nudity and simulated sex is never shown, there's no doubt in our minds. (The nudity and intercourse were about 40 years ahead in the Hollywood of the '70's) IN DEFENSE OF this "original" version of the FALCON, in many respects the plot seems to be somewhat clearer to we, the audience. This applies mainly to understanding the relationships between those contesting for possession of "the Black Bird." HAVING VIEWED THIS '31 version for the first time today, after years of familiarity with the latter, provided us with a sort of scrambling of our Time/Space continuum. The only previous similar experiences were in viewing some other previously made movies after the later, more familiar. They are: THE SPIRIT OF NOTER DAME (Universal, 1931), which in many ways laid the foundation for Warner Brothers KNUTE ROCKNE: ALL-American (1940); RIO BRAVO (Warners, 1959)remade as EL DORADO ()and especially ZERO HOUR (Paramount, 1957) which was fractured and remade into AIRPLANE (1980).ANY REVIEW OF this film must refer to the casting that was done. Of course we had Bogart in for Ricardo Cortez (Spade) and Bebe Daniels giving away to Mary Astor's Miss Wunderly. Others who were very different than the later cast members are: Walter Long/Jerome Cowan (Miles Archer), J. Farrell McDonald/Ward Bond (Det. Sgt. Tom Pohlhaus0, Una Merkel/Lee Patrick (Essie),Thelma Todd/Gladys George (Iva Archer).BUT FOR OUR money, the two roles that are so different in casting are that of Dudley Diggs to Sydney Greenstreet's Casper Gutman; as the mannerisms were similar, but where's the bulk, Diggs ? The other is Dwight Frye to Elisha Cook, Jr. as Wilmer. Dwight had a lot less to do and only a few lines. He was also the king of the creepy characters in the 1930's Universal horror epics. Elisha's characterization was able to fully develop that of a psychotic killer. (Oddly enough or maybe because of this fact, Wilmer's surname is given in the '31 version, but not in the latter. It is Cook!) WE GIVE THIS on many thumbs up and recommend it to any and all !
disdressed12
i liked this first of three filmed versions of the novel.it's the fist one i've seen,and it's pretty well done,i think.it's well acted,well paced,and the story flows smoothly.the dialogue is good.there's no clunky,awkward lines.Ricardo Cortez(Sam Spade)has a natural charisma about him.the characters are all believable.there's sort of an intimate,comfortable,almost quaint feel to the whole affair.this version is much less famous than its 1941 counterpart starring Humphrey Bogart.it will be interesting how it and the 1936 remake(Satan Meets a Lady)stack up against each other.as for this particular version,i found it quite satisfying.an easy 7/10
JohnHowardReid
Although both films received rave reviews in The New York Times, only the Del Ruth version could be counted as a box office success on its first release. The Huston film was lucky to earn back its comparatively high negative cost of $381,000. Warner's big successes of 1941-42 were Sergeant York, which returned a colossal $6.1 million in gross domestic rentals, and Yankee Doodle Dandy with $4.8 million. The Man Who Came to Dinner, King's Row, Captains of the Clouds, In This Our Life, The Bride Came C.O.D., Dive Bomber, The Sea Wolf and The Strawberry Blonde were also enormous, multi-million dollar box office winners for the studio. The Maltese Falcon didn't figure at all and would be forgotten today were it not for the cult status of Humphrey Bogart and—to a lesser degree—John Huston. All the same, it comes a surprise to find that among 2008 film lovers, sixty times more people have seen this version than have seen the original, even though both films are equally entertaining.While few would contend that Digges, Mattiesen and Frye outclass Greenstreet, Lorre and Cook, the decision is close. On the other hand, as for Long versus Cowan, Merkel v. Patrick, Todd v. George, and Elliott v. MacLane, the winners are plainly Del Ruth's. Yet Ward Bond is certainly more forceful than J. Farrell MacDonald, and Walter Huston has it all over Borgato, simply because he has dialogue.So we come down to the principals. Which set you prefer here is simply a matter of taste. I prefer the Cortez-Daniels combination. The 1931 movie still has a gripping noir atmosphere despite the fact that Cortez's impeccably suave, super-pleased with himself, egotistical private eye runs somewhat against type. There is no self-agonizing here. The Cortez character is solely concerned with looking out for number one. The ruthless heroine is also far more stridently hard-boiled, whereas Mary Astor turns her into a lady-like, high society type.As for directorial finesse and production values, the Huston movie is definitely the winner. All the same, despite his smaller budget, Del Ruth gives Huston a good run for his money.
