JohnHowardReid Director: WILLIAM KEIGHLEY. Screenplay: Laird Doyle, Abem Finkel. Story idea: Martin Mooney. Photography: Sid Hickox. Film editor: Clarence Kolster. Art director: Esdras Hartley. Music director: Leo F. Forbstein. Producers: Sam Bischoff in association with Martin Mooney. A Claridge Picture.Copyright 20 September 1935 by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. Presented by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc and The Vitaphone Corp. New York opening at the Strand: 18 September 1935. Australian release: 25 December 1935. 9 reels. 76 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Agent goes undercover as a friendly reporter to get the goods on an elusive gangster. He romances the crime czar's book- keeper, but falls in love with the girl. NOTES: Re-made by Warner Bros in 1940 as "Gambling on the High Seas" with Jane Wyman, Wayne Morris and Gilbert Roland.COMMENT: Here's a script that would undoubtedly have made an engrossing "B" picture, now dressed up with such appealing production values, it offers superlative entertainment as an "A".In addition to its pacy yet meticulous direction, and moodily atmospheric photography, the picture presents real class in its cast. For once the goodies almost keep level with the heavies. Brent is ideal as the crusading hero, whilst Miss Davis offers just the right touch of dowdy appeal to her in-too-deep book-keeper. In a much smaller role, Pichel delivers some effective lines as a the D.A.On the heavies' side of the ledger, the opposition can scarce go wrong with actors of the caliber of Ricardo Cortez (a truly frightening performance), J. Carroll Naish (one of his most sinister roles), Joe Sawyer (hideously convincing) and treacherous Paul Guilfoyle. Even William B. Davidson has a half-decent role for once as a crooked lawyer. Keen cameo watchers will also spot Wheeler Oakman as the out-of-town kidnapper. And back with the good guys, you'll notice Charles Middleton and Thomas Jackson have small roles as office cops who relay information to Emmett Vogan's radio announcer. Frankly, though, I thought the two really stand-out players were Jack LaRue and Robert Strange. The former is wonderfully bent, whilst the latter, playing a crooked crook, gives such a nervily charismatic performance as to steal a scene from even the fiendishly impassive Cortez. The sequence in which LaRue inveigles Strange into parting with $50,000 is a gem.OTHER VIEWS: Justly described by Frank S. Nugent in The New York Times as "a crisp, fast-moving and thoroughly entertaining melodrama", it's a shame that Special Agent has such a poor reputation today.The reason for this peculiar and totally undeserved downgrade is simply due to Bette Davis, who spent more than fifty unrelenting years attacking this film (and others she claims she was "forced into" by Jack L. Warner around this time) on the grounds that both the movie and the role were unworthy of her vastly superior talents.Her part admittedly is third in importance to Cortez and Brent. Also it offers few opportunities for scene-chewing or look-at-me- I'm-a-great-actress hysterics. But the part is by no means the "stinker" Miss Davis so often described, and her performance is actually quite apt and very suitably subdued.

akasbarian Above-average gangster film, typical of the '30s genre. Fun watching, but nothing too extraordinary...EXCEPT some of the close-up scenes involving Ricardo Cortez. With the help of some great lighting, his eyes and facial expressions are chillingly sinister! In particular, there is his private showdown with Armitage (Robert Strange)...simply unforgettable.I also found Cortez's expressions to be reminiscent of Pacino in the Godfather (or should i say the reverse)...i wonder if Pacino studied this film at some point.Bette Davis clearly showed great acting chops, but her role was fairly typecast and thus limited her range somewhat. George Brent did just fine...his role was probably the most straightforward. The supporting cast was outstanding...lots of subplots, double-crosses, and idiosyncrasies that enriched the story.

blanche-2 George Brent is a "Special Agent" in this 1935 crime drama also starring Bette Davis and Ricardo Cortez. The original story was written by a newspaperman and is most likely based on the Al Capone case. Brent plays a reporter, Bill Bradford, but his job is a cover -he's an undercover Federal agent after a crook, Alexander Carston (Cortez) for tax evasion. His entrée into the books of Carston's organization is the bookkeeper, Julie Gardner, with whom he's also in love. After the case is built, Carston is arrested and Julie is taken into protective custody. But can she really be protected against Carston? This is a fairly routine drama with good acting and some solid action. Davis is very young and blonde here, and not as glamorized as she is in other early films - "The Man Who Played God," "Fashions of 1934" or "Ex-Lady" but nevertheless quite pretty. She's a little too classy to be a mob bookkeeper; as the character, however, she exhibits intelligence, which certainly Julie would have. Brent is his usual pleasant self as Bill, and Cortez is a sinister gangster.The only part of the film that gave me a giggle was the riddling of men with machine guns as they continued to stand until their bodies must have had more holes than Swiss cheese before dramatically falling. Certainly they would have been dead long before the 100th bullet.Interesting for early Davis and the always good Cortez.

MartinHafer In the 1930s, Warner Brothers was the place for gangster films, as they churned out a huge number of high-quality films in this genre. While this one did NOT star the usual gangster stars of the day (Cagney or Edward G. Robinson), it star the ever-capable George Brent as a federal agent and Ricardo Cortez as an Al Capone-like thug. I particularly liked Cortez's little speech to Brent that men like him are above the law and can never be convicted--it was a very exciting scene. In addition to these two, the film also stars Bette Davis in a pretty decent role as Cortez's bookkeeper. The film features good writing, dialog and acting and while not the greatest gangster film, it is very good and watchable. Oh, and by the way, the ending is pretty exciting (and violent), so it won't disappoint.By the way, if you see the film and it seems familiar, this appears to be a reworking of the plot from the MGM film THE SECRET SIX. There are just too many similarities to be coincidental, as both heroes are government agents whose cover is newspaper reporter.