Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

JohnHowardReid George Bancroft (Bull Weed), Clive Brook (Rolls Royce), Evelyn Brent (Feathers McCoy), Larry Semon (Slippy Lewis), Fred Kohler (Buck Mulligan), Helen Lynch (Mulligan's girl-friend), Jerry Mandy (Paloma), Karl Morse (High Collar Sam), Alfred Allen (judge), Shep Houghton (street kid), Julian Rivero (Mulligan henchman).Director. JOSEF VON STERNBERG. Screenplay: Howard Hawks. Adapted by Robert N. Lee and Charles Furthman from the story by Ben Hecht. Titles: George Marion, Jr. Director of photography: Bert Glennon. Supervising film editor: E. Lloyd Sheldon. 2nd unit director: Henry Hathaway. Art director: Hans Dreier. Associate producer: B.P. Schulberg. Producer: Hector Turnbull. Presented by Adolph Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky.Copyright 29 October 1927 by Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. New York opening at the Paramount, 2 August 1927. U.S. release: 29 October 1927. 8 reels. 7,643 feet.SYNOPSIS: New member of an underworld gang takes an interest in the boss' moll.NOTES: Academy Award, Original Story, Ben Hecht (defeating The Last Command and The Patent Leather Kid). Number 8 in The Film Daily 1927 poll of U.S. film critics.COMMENT: Just as entertaining today as when first released nearly 80 years ago, this fast-paced story (with concise, often-amusing titles by George Marion, Jr.) is made marvelously vivid by von Sternberg's passion for atmospheric effects (especially in the fantastic climax) and by a number of particularly vibrant performances. Miss Brent is perfect. Her first scene with the reformed Clive Brook is an acting tour-de-force. Mr. Brook is also quite extraordinary. In his introductory scenes he is almost unrecognizable, making the transition from bum to gentleman crook with a polished ease that dazzles with fluid charm. Can this be the same wooden Brook that gave such stiff performances in early talkies? Bancroft is also a powerhouse, and all are well served by von Sternberg's (don't take any notice of the name on the credits) film noir photography. (The photographer's union enforced the rule that one of their members be engaged, even if he did no work and offered no suggestions.)

MissSimonetta Contrary to popular belief, the gangster picture only grew more popular with the coming of sound and did not originate there. Underworld (1927) is not the first gangster movie made in Hollywood but it is one of the most seminal. It brings all the images and tropes we associate with the Jazz Age/Great Depression impression of the genre to the forefront: gunfights in the dark, brassy molls, and speakeasies flowing with booze and jazz music.The story is simple, a love triangle with rather flat characterizations, but it's forgivable because everything is played with such grand style and flair. The performances are strong, with Evelyn Brent, Clive Brook, and the shamefully underrated George Bancroft bringing much to their one-note characters. Von Sternberg's direction and Bert Glennon's cinematography are just gorgeous, elevating the gritty urban setting to almost Gothic levels in the moody black and white lighting.A great gangster flick, one I actually prefer to the Oscar-nominated The Racket from the same year. It has Thomas Meighan, yes, but not nearly as much atmosphere.

Michael_Elliott Underworld (1927) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Big-time gangster Bull Weed (George Bancroft) takes pity on an alcoholic lawyer (Clive Brooke) and gets him cleaned up and back into shape. Soon the lawyer and the gangster's moll (Evelyn Brent) begin to fall in love but they both owe Bull everything they own so this puts a hamper on their relationship. D.W. Griffith is credited with making the first gangster film and 1915's REGENERATION gets credit for being the first feature-length film to feature gangsters but I think it's fair to say that UNDERWORLD is what really shaped the genre for decades to come. When you watch this film you can see the impact it would have on Warner and their upcoming gangster pictures with Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney. You can also see the impact it would have on films like SCARFACE. The Oscar-winning screenplay from Ben Hecht really puts us into the life of gangsters and their lifestyles better than any movie up to this point so I'm sure that's the reason this thing went over so well with people back when it was released. The most impressive thing for me was the beautiful look of the film and it's clear von Sternberg wanted to show the fast, loose and dangerous world that these men lived in. I really loved how the director would shoot the more outrageous stuff extremely fast and almost out of control as this really did make you feel as if you're were involved with these men and you could feel the pace that their lives worked. One of the best scenes happen early on when the lawyer, still working like a bum, gets picked on by another gangster to get some money out of a dog bowl. Just take a look at this sequence and see how von Sternberg slows things down just to add some built up tension that something bad could happen at any second. This type of suspense is used in the same fashion later in the film when the moll comes under attack by this same gangster. Bancroft is downright marvelous in the role of Bull and you can easily see the influence he's have on everyone who would play a gangster. I loved the toughness he brought to the role and in the scenes where he goes off you can't help but understand and feel why everyone would be frightened of him. Bancroft has the perfect look for the role and you can't help but feel he was born to play the part. Brooke is also very good in his more serious and straight role. Brent is wonderful as well and we also get strong support from Fred Kohler as the rival gangster and Larry Semon gets a few funny scenes of comic relief. I did have a few problems with the film and that includes the ending, which I found to be quite bad and it really took away from how the characters were throughout the film. I won't ruin everything but I didn't believe what happened and thought the film should have ended in a different way. I also thought the love story could have used a couple more scenes just to build it up as the relationship between the lawyer and moll seemed to happen a bit too fast. With that said, this is a very important film and it's easy to see why it was such a hit in its day and why it would influence so many.

secondtake Underworld (1927)A lot of people avoid silent films at all costs, and I understand that totally. Many of these films are stiff, and the plots are either sentimental or obvious. But there are many reasons to watch a good, or great, silent film. Sometimes the acting, whatever its expressive style, is really wonderful. Often the photography and editing is really terrific and sophisticated. And the stories can be fast, fresh, and even pertinent.And finally, the silent films easiest for the uninitiated to approach are at the very end of the silent era. That would be 1927. See Joan Crawford in The Unknown for the bizarre, or Murnau's Sunrise for eloquence, or consider this film, the first major film by the soon to be legendary Josef von Sternberg. The only thing that might put off some people is the exaggerated expressions in one of the three main characters, Bull Weed. But go with that flow and you'll see not only some more subtle acting, but a sweet, violent, complex plot interweave in just an hour or so (81 minutes, though there is an 87 minute version out there if you can find it, Netflix doesn't have it). The Criterion disc version is really clean (another reason to consider this as an intro silent films, since it isn't broken up or scratched to death)."Underworld" is filmed with visual complexity even though it lacks some of the virtuosic moving camera of Murnau. The sets are simple but convincing, and the shift in attention to the gangster side of the story, complete with guns and molls and the precursors (or pre-precursors) of film noir, is gripping. It's not as intense as the heyday of gangster films just four or five years later, but it has if anything more emotional sophistication. The story was written by the legendary Ben Hecht, which might explain some of its success.Von Sternberg you say? Well, he was a master at creating aura, and between him and Dietrich a whole new level of starmaking savvy was born. This, as a first film, and as a last minute replacement, was expected to flop, and was released in a single New York theater. Word spread, however, and it became a hit. You can see why. Great stuff.