Leofwine_draca RAFFLES is another version of the E.W. Hornung novel about a famous jewel thief who gets caught up in a scheme to help out an old debt-afflicted friend as well as falling in love and vowing to give up his life of crime. It stars man-of-the-moment Ronald Colman in a likable performance as the titular character, in fact more charismatic than David Niven was in the 1939 remake of this movie.The main problem I have with RAFFLES is how dated it feels to the modern viewer. Made as an early talkie, it lacks a musical soundtrack and suffers from quite poor sound quality too. This slows the production down quite considerably at times and occasionally makes the acting feel stilted; it doesn't help that this was still of an era when the actors would project themselves to deliver larger-than-life performances, in other words 'playing to the back row'. Still, this film isn't all bad, and there are some good twists and turns along the way, but I never quite bought the antagonist/protagonist duality of the main character.

MartinHafer Considering that this film came out in 1930, you need to cut its sound a bit of slack. While it's pretty easy to understand the actors talking (better than many 1930 films), because the sound technology was so new it was still far from perfect. The film has a strong and very definite hissing sound to much of it. And, like other films of the early sound era, it's rather quiet because there isn't the usual incidental music in much of the film. This is not a complaint--just an observation. They used such music very sparingly because back in 1927-1930 to get incidental music you literally had to have an orchestra just off camera performing live while the scene was shot--they hadn't yet learned how to add the music later. So, cut the film a bit of slack in this department--it IS pretty good for 1930 and the sound in many films of this and the previous years was a lot worse (such as 1929's "Coquette" which is almost unwatchable due to its WILDLY fluctuating sound)."Raffles" is about a gentleman who is also an amateur thief--and a very talented one. While his society friends adore Raffles (played by Ronald Colman at his charming best) because of his wit, sporting skills and fine manners, they don't realize HE is this thief. Much of the film concerns his attending a particular weekend party in order to steal a necklace so he can use the money to help a friend in dire straits. However, along the way he meets up with a swanky lady (Kay Francis) and he's torn between his life of crime or becoming 100% legitimate for her sake. What will Raffles do? And what will Raffles do when ANOTHER crook shows up as well?! All in all, "Raffles" is a pleasant and a bit too talky film. Personally, I think it would have been better with more outdoor scenes and action. But again, 1930 was still a transitional year for sound and the stagy production was pretty typical. I also thought Raffles' 'brilliant' escape at the end was anything but. However,the acting was good and it was nice to see a detective who was NOT stupid (a common and rather dumb cliché of the 1930s and 40s). Well worth seeing but not among Colman's best work.

Neil Doyle RAFFLES is a story filmed many times, with probably the most well-known version being the one Samuel Goldwyn made in 1939 starring David Niven and Olivia de Havilland in the main roles with Dame May Witty as Lady Melrose whose jewels are the centerpiece of the plot.That version managed to be barely above routine and this earlier take on the tale is even less impressive. Whatever merit the story has, it depends entirely on the presence of RONALD COLMAN to make the film bearable enough to watch. KAY FRANCIS is no help in a thankless co-starring role that makes little sense.The man who so successfully eludes capture by Scotland Yard is hereby confined to a routine and dull story treatment that does little to bolster the reputation of anyone connected with it. How he escapes and manages to fool the detectives hot on his trail is totally unconvincing, especially in the film's final scene where he plays a little trick on his pursuers and has time to pen a note for the Scotland Yard detective to read.Too dull, with no urgency in the story's pacing. Not recommended.

stryker-5 "Raffles" was produced by Sam Goldwyn and photographed by Greg Toland, the genius who was to help create "Citizen Kane" eleven years after this.Raffles the English gentleman has a discreet sideline as a burglar and jewel thief. The press has dubbed him 'The Amateur Cracksman', and as such he has become a household name. Now that he has fallen in love with the sophisticated Gwen (Kay Francis) and proposed marriage to her, Raffles has decided to retire from crime. However, his old pal Bunny is in a spot of bother. Bunny has been playing cards again, and has run up a gambling debt of £1,000. If Bunny is to be rescued from his predicament, Raffles will have to take on the Melrose 'job' ...Ronald Coleman gives us his trademark suave Englishman in the title role. We see him burgling a jeweller's shop wearing a top hat (note the excellent Toland touch of the policeman silhouetted against the window drape). Our first real glimpse of the hero comes on the dance floor as he sweeps Gwen around in a romantic waltz. On the cricket field at Lord Melrose's place, Raffles is of course dashing, and wins the game (even though he was not supposed to be playing - he invited himself along for the weekend at the last minute). Even when Inspector Mackenzie has him on the ropes, Raffles remains the epitome of poise and wit."All bubbles and froth - no taste," says Lord Melrose, giving his verdict on champagne. It is a reasonable comment on the film itself, which for all its pretensions to style is basically an inelaborate crime flick. We have the 'two Englands' crudely juxtaposed - one urban and ugly (the cloth-capped burglars from the pub, the 'pea soup' fog in London) and the other bucolic and 'refayned' (Lady Melrose's soiree). The film takes it for granted that the lower classes are unpleasant.However, there are good things in this movie. The cricket match is fun, and tolerably well done, though Raffles' bowling action is highly dubious and the umpire's position would make lbw decisions interesting to say the least. The skylight scene on Raffles' apartment roof is an arresting image.There is also a large portion of baloney. Does Scotland Yard protect country houses against burglary? Is this best done by surrounding them with a dozen detectives throughout the night? Why don't these detectives catch the various burglars who enter the premises? If closing the sash window is enough to stop the burglar alarm from ringing, then it isn't much of a burglar alarm. The 'common' burglars crouch in the shrubbery and talk aloud, spelling out their plans in pedantic detail, conveniently allowing Raffles to overhear. Is it not slightly more probable that they would have worked out what to do before entering the property?The film ends in a flurry of increasingly silly activity. Blatant undercranking of the camera makes Raffles' escape dash look ridiculous, and his place of concealment is laughable.Verdict - An enjoyable crime caper with absurd elements.