Roger Lathbury Seeing "Satan Met a Lady" as a spoof of "The Maltese Falcon" is a desperate but futile effort to redeem it. It is a dreadful movie, full of unfunny, heavy handed jokes, with a garbled plot, and thin-to-the-point-of-vanishing dramatizations. The film appeared in 1936, two years after the sprightly blend of mystery and comedy of "The Thin Man." Probably the creators were trying for another singular conflation. In this film, however, the mixture fails. One reason is that the focus is blurred-at first the center of interest is the detective's affectless love life seen with elephantine facetiousness; then it switches to intent chasing after a valued object. The characters are both earnest and self-parodic. You can't have it both ways. Nick Charles (William Powell) is never earnest; he is always aware of himself as an absurd figure. Names are changed for no reason whatever: Shane is Spade; Purvis is Brigid O'Shaughnessy; Murgatroyd Effie; Madame Barabbas (a religious reference?) and Arthur Treacher split the role of Gutman; Kenneth is WIlmer; Farrell Thursby. The viewer keeps thinking how enjoyable the originals were as opposed to these inane cartoons. One has to feel sympathy for Treacher, forced to utter with a straight face cliché after cliché of British speech. The fabulous falcon becomes Roland's fabled horn from the French epic "La Chanson de Roland." The writers of "Satan Met a Lady" don't seem to know much about the epic, where the horn is a means to an end. In Hammett's story the falcon is appropriately an end in itself. It was plausible that the statuette be encrusted with gems in a wealth-oriented world. True, Roland's olifant was-as a sign of spiritual preciousness. Stupidly, here, the gems are supposed to be stuffed inside-a ridiculous notion in practical or historical terms. Finally, as any reader of this much-read work knows, Roland damages the object at the conclusion by attacking a Saracen soldier with it.The movie goes through the motions. Mercifully, after one hour and fifteen minutes it expires.

drgarnett It was very strange watching "Satan Met a Lady" immediately after watching the 1931 "Maltese Falcon". It is very clear that Warner Bros. was trying to remake their popular version of "Falcon" to cash in on the popularity of MGM's "The Thin Man". The tone of "Falcon" has been lightened to approach comedy, while the portrayal of Spade (aka Shane in "Satan") was suaved up to try to conjure up William Powell.Unfortunately, the attempt fails despite the star power of Warren William and Bette Davis. William looks like he's trying very hard but his lines just don't carry enough comedy to pull it off. Bette Davis has many good moments but doesn't quite demonstrate the intelligent conniver her character is supposed to be. Only Alison Skipworth (as Madame Barrabas, the film's designate for Caspar Gutman) shows any real feeling for the character. Arthur Treacher doesn't seem at all like a character that would be involved in theft and murder, while Porter Hall as Ames (also the infamous company psychologist in Miracle on 34th Street) seems more like an accountant than a private detective.Part of the problem is the frenetic pace. The lines come so fast they almost step on each other. The pace doesn't allow anything to sink in before we're on to another scene. Another problem is the Hayes code crackdown, which means the film can't reproduce the boozy sexiness of "Thin Man" nor the explicitness of the earlier "Falcon". Hence it just falls flat.

MartinHafer Warren William plays a scoundrel of a private eye named Shayne (no relation to the character in the series starring Lloyd Nolan). He tangles with a gang of thieves looking for the legendary Horn of Roland which is supposedly stuffed with jewels. Along the way, William battles the likes of Bette Davis and Arthur Treacher to get to the bottom of some murders and find the priceless artifact.Calling this film a remake of THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) is really a misnomer, as only the smallest bits and pieces from the exceptional Dashiell Hammett's original story remain. All the the great sarcasm, grit and intelligence was stripped away in this truly bad retooling of this prior film that had starred Ricardo Cortez (the more famous Humphrey Bogart version would not appear until 1941 and was the 3rd version of the story). While I usually like Warren William in movies, here he plays the role almost like it's a comedy, not a serious drama. Because of this, you have no idea how he possibly solves the murders!! As for the Fat Man and his cronies, having the old dame and her limp gang (with, of all people, Arthur Treacher?!) play these roles was just insulting and dumb. Why they had the very dippy Marie Wiilson in the film is anyone's guess--as it further reinforced the comedic aspects of the film--making it seem even less serious than a Saint or Falcon series film.Overall, perhaps my 4 is too generous--especially considering how little they did with such great material. Still, if you totally ignore that it's supposed to be THE MALTESE FALCON, then it's at least an agreeable enough time-passer.By the way, I watched the Ricardo Cortez version just before seeing this film and the contrast was amazing. Fortunately, you can get both films on the same DVD from Warner Brothers/Turner Entertainment.

tedg Dash Hammett wasn't a very good writer, but he was something of a genius in creating characters that sell. Films with his characters were only successful when heavily filtered through the inventive context of a filmmaker.Hammett hated it, this messing with his tone. But the original "Falcon" was something of a disaster. Someone had the idea (possibly Van Dyke) of making the Thin Man as a comedy. It was a huge success and has in retrospect been one of the most influential films of the era. So it only made sense for us to see this similar reworking of "Falcon" shortly after the Thin Man's success.But Van Dyke had a sense of timing and the ability to integrate that rhythm into the whole long form. This poor fellow has no such sense, so the humor is all over the place, each character driving their own bus.So when you watch it, you have to decide which character to align your perspective with. Though I cannot recommend the picture, if you do see it, I do recommend you become the ditsy blond secretary (who cannot even spell her own name).She's every bit capable of carrying this movie, where the detective cannot.I don't suppose she invented the ditz, but it was this girl, here a nineteen year old Marie Wilson who combined a Betty Boop "whoop" to become the sexually available, innocent but hungry, absolutely sweet but terminally dumb blond. Its great fun watching her mouth, a great mouth, one of the era's great mouths managed by an unappreciated master.The end of the movie is supposed to be something of a tragedy as the Bette Davis character is lost. But because our detective (something of a breezy dolt) has this ready girl to fall back on, the effect is lost.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.