MikeMagi Back in the 30s and 40s, there were movie houses that couldn't compete with the theaters that played what Warner Bros., MGM and other major studios churned out. Fortunately, there was Poverty Row's primary tenant, Monogram, and even deeper in the doldrums, Producers Releasing Corporation. "Inside the Law" is a classic example of a PRC release -- shot in less than a week, including long car chases to occupy running time, with a cast headed by a likable grade-B leading man, Wallace Ford, who was transitioning to the next stage in his career as a grizzled character actor. Oddly enough, it's entertaining. The script, about a gang of thieves who wind up running a small town bank and decide to go straight has enough holes to drive an old Ford roadster through. But a remarkably adroit cast plays it with breezy bonhomie. And there are even a few amusing surprises -- like the opening brawl at an auction house. It's worth watching despite the slam-cut ending which suggests that the film's final clinch may have been the victim of the decay that too often eroded nitrate film.

MartinHafer On May 2, 1942, Warner Brothers released a wonderful comedy, "Larceny, Inc.". It had a very creative story--one that was astoundingly original and fun. Yet, oddly, only about a week later, the utterly craptastic studio, PRC, released "Inside the Law"--a film with a very similar plot. However, I must admit that the quality of the two films is VERY different--"Larceny, Inc." is a true classic, whereas "Inside the Law" is enjoyable despite its many deficiencies.The film begins with Wallace Ford orchestrating an amazing robbery during an auction. While this was pretty neat, the writing here really irritated me as they didn't do their homework. First, the auctioneer talked about a '2500 year-old Ming vase'--even though the oldest items from the Ming Dynasty are less than 700 years old. Second, he then repeated a common myth that Ben Franklin invented the rocking chair. Get your facts straight! Looking for their next caper, an opportunity falls right in their lap in the form of a drunk guy. It seems that the boozer has a letter of introduction to a bank--a letter recommending the bearer as the new bank manager. Ford decides to take the letter and the job--then hire his crooked gang members so they can pull a bank heist. In the meantime, the bank owner wants Ford to come up with some ideas to drum up business and Ford's bizarre ideas actually work--and he becomes very successful. On top of that, his friends like the stability of real jobs and they decide to go straight. The problem is, one of the gang members is a jerk and STILL wants to rob the bank. And, when he does, it's up to his old partners to track him down and return what he stole. The ending is pretty funny and the film is surprisingly good considering most of the films I've seen from PRC were just awful. Now I will admit that "Inside the Law" had some spotty writing and was far from a work of genius, but it was original ("Larceny, Inc." not withstanding) and entertaining. A minor film but a clever one.

dbborroughs Inside the Law concerns a "family" of criminals who pick the pocket of a drunk driver and use the letter of introduction they find as a means of getting into a bank. Unfortunately when they arrive they find the bank empty of people and money. They then conspire to run the bank themselves…or something like that.Okay low brow very broad comedy that made me chuckle even as I was thinking that it wasn't very good. If you come across it and aren't in a demanding mood try it, but as something search out I wouldn't bother.5 out of 10 for the bits that work and make you chuckle even though you know you shouldn't

robert-temple-1 This C picture was directed by Hamilton MacFadden, who directed some Charlie Chan pictures, but this was done on an even lower budget, say five dollars. Wallace Ford, known for years as a supporting character actor, actually achieved top billing in this, though there was little for him to do, certainly no acting. The film manages to be consistently amusing, despite being so low-grade. A group of seven con men and women start the picture by staging a fake fight at a Manhattan auction, and after the melee has ended they have vanished and so have the wallets and watches of everyone present. After this, they decide to head west, which is portrayed by an extraordinary montage sequence of changing scenery, with them ending up beside a road sign saying Los Angeles City Limits. They stop and scratch their heads and say: 'But where is Los Angeles?' because there is nothing there but bush and scrub. This was evidently meant to be a joke. Then a drunk driver turns up, is arrested and put away for thirty days, and they naturally pick his pockets, thereby gleaning a letter of introduction to take over a bank in the area. They all move in as the 'staff', only to find that the bank vault is empty, having been robbed. So instead of robbing it themselves, they have to fill it first, by soliciting deposits, which they successfully do. Then they decide why steal it when they can go straight, settle down, and go on running 'their' bank. Then one of them double-crosses them and waves various guns around, but ends up stealing an empty suitcase, and of course there is a suspicious sheriff who wants to arrest them all, and it gets more and more complicated. The script could have done very well with a good cast and director, but it holds up with a bad cast and bad director nonetheless. Well, not every film is brilliant, sometimes they are merely like this. It's short, funny, and corny, what more do you want?