utgard14 Great Pre-Code prison flick from Warner Bros. stars Spencer Tracy as an arrogant hoodlum sent to prison where he learns he's not the big shot he thought he was. Gradually he's humbled by a stern but fair warden and we learn he's not such a bad guy after all underneath all that tough talk. Tracy's good in an early role. The fine cast backing him up includes Bette Davis, Louis Calhern, Lyle Talbot, and Arthur Byron. This was the only screen pairing of Tracy and Davis. Bette's likable and pretty here with one nice scene to display her melodramatic acting chops. This might be the first prison movie to use the plot device of a convict being granted 24-hour leave for but doesn't return on time for one reason or another. It would be used in other prison dramas in the years to come. I'm not certain this is the first but I think it might be. It's also notable for having many scenes filmed on location in Sing Sing. It's solid entertainment that any fan of the types of crime dramas WB was known for in the '30s will enjoy.

vincentlynch-moonoi Although I hadn't seen it in many years, this was a film that I remembered. Some of the scenes are simply unforgettable, even including the opening credits where as the convicts walk past their number of years follow them in white letters, leading up to "20,000 YEARS" and then the main title. A number of things made this film stand above the typical gangster flicks of the time. For example, much of the dialog is rather sophisticated for a prison yarn. A few select scenes seemed to be filmed on location along the Hudson River.I always saw Spencer Tracy's breakout film as being "Fury", made 4 years later, but after seeing this again, I would have to say this was a dramatic breakthrough for him. And, here he wasn't as guilty of talking loudly to look tough or "in charge" (as he often did in "Riffraff", for example).Time does take its toll, however. There was clearly part of a scene missing from the print supplied to TCM, roughly at the 26 minute point. when the Tracy character is being tested so as to determine what his job should be.I couldn't find anything online to support the idea that Sing Sing allowed a few prisoners out on the honor system, although I did find an article dating to the 1920s that supported the concept in general, although it did not mention Sing Sing. So, while this part of the plot seemed illogical...well, perhaps. I have to admit that it was handled well in the script. James Cagney had been the original star slated to star in this film, but I can't imagine him pulling this off as well as did Tracy.One thing that particularly interested me was the supporting role by Louis Calhern...the earliest film I have seen him in...and in this case the slick villain lawyer. Two other performances worth mentioning here are that of Bette Davis as Tracy's love interest...really quite beautiful here; and that of the warden, played superbly by Arthur Byron.A fine movie. Thank god it was Spencer Tracy and not Jimmy Cagney.

tedg As I write this, "Shawshank Redemption" is IMDb's number two top movie of all time. I find that absolutely fascinating.The prison movie isn't quite a genre to itself because the story possibilities vary so. But there is a definite collection of cinematic devices that are used in nearly all of them, only "Silence of the Lambs" excepted that I can recall.This film may be the first to set that collection of cinematic devices. It has a lame redemption story and quite ineffective acting styles. But the way the story is told in images is masterful. The filmmaker is Michael Curtiz, who you will know as the man who took a B movie and framed it beautifully as "Casablanca."His is an approach very much like the "graphic novel" trend sweeping across Hollywood right now. Simple compositions, starkly presented to be easy to read. A consistent pulse in the way scenes change. Strict attention to the way the brightness is modulated slowly throughout the thing. And of course within this, some shots of prison life that have since become almost mandatory. (Thank God, that slamming door sound effect hadn't found its way into movies yet.)So, if you are interested in cinematic storytelling, this is something of a must for you.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Ursula 2.7T This movie is a tame, toothless wannabe prison/crime drama that doesn't hold a candle to its pre-Code siblings such as Scarface, Little Caesar, and Public Enemy, to name a few. I was quite disappointed.The movie starts out promising enough, with Spencer Tracy as a hardened tough guy being hauled off to Sing Sing. The problem with this movie is that is was really all over the map -- it didn't pick one genre and stick to it. At times it was a crime flick (or was pretending to be), at other times a light-hearted comedy, at other times a buddy flick (with the prison warden and Tracy being the buddies, no less!). The actors did well with their individual roles (including a very young and beautiful Bette Davis) and the story moved fairly apace, but in the end it added up to a whole lot of nothing for me.To top it off, there were some inconsistencies and/or hard-to-follow plot developments that bothered me: 1 - During a psychological test session to determine which manual labor to place the prisoners in, Tracy and Lyle Talbot do good enough on their puzzle to earn the "shoe shop" (top of the line job at the prison, according to the story), but dolt Hype can't fit the square piece into the square slot even after 5 minutes, so he is assigned lavatory duty. However, minutes later when we see the boys toiling away in the shoe shop, there's Hype too! 2 - While on his honor leave, Tracy decides he needs to get out of town rather than returning to prison. He talks to one of his buddies to make arrangements to leave on a train, and even hands over $5,000 to help grease the wheels and make the escape happen. Then, a scene or two later, we see Tracy showing back up at prison. What gives? 3 - The whole business with Tracy's lawyer and his girlfriend and the $5,000, I just didn't understand it. The movie tried to explain it but either they did a really bad job of it, or there were things going on in 1932 that you just had to be there to understand it (and hence my 2005 mind didn't quite catch), or I'm as big of a dolt as Hype. (I prefer not to think it's the latter!) Overall, it was fun to watch Tracy and Davis early in their careers, but honestly wasn't really worth having to sit through this movie in order to do so.