MartinHafer Mary Turner (Ruth Hussey) works at a department store and some stolen store merchandise is found in her locker. She is innocent but her employer, Mr. Gilder, prosecutes her--and she receives three years in prison. Not surprisingly, Mary is bitter and wants revenge. But she's smart...and spends her time in prison studying law and looking for LEGAL ways to hurt her ex-employer. When she is released from prison, Mary meets up with a gang of crooks (headed by Joe Garson--played by Paul Kelly) and insists they listen to her...as they will legally be able to make a ton of money off Gilder family. While there are several scams she wants to use, legal scams, the big score is to marry Gilder's son (Tom Neal) and destroy the family.Does the story seem believable in any way? No....but it's highly entertaining and unusual. I loved the plot, though must admit near the end it did became a bit too complicated. Overall, well worth seeing...and ironic because two of the actors in the film, Neal and Kelly actually DID spend time in prison in real life...both for Manslaughter.

MikeMagi Back in the days before television, there was nothing wrong with being a "B" movie. They went by quickly and some were pretty darned entertaining -- "Within the Law," for example. Ruth Hussey plays a sweet young girl who's accused of theft. Despite being innocent, she's sentenced to three years in jail and comes out swearing revenge against the department store tycoon who testified against her. Her plan -- to humiliate him by marrying his son. But she falls in love with the guy which creates a problem when a few old friends try to rope her into robbing the tycoon's home. Does it all work out in the end? Of course. But along the way, there are several lively twists along with contributions from old pros like Paul Kelly and William Gargan.

Evangeline Kelly Allow me to preface this review by stating that I've read the original source of this story (a play produced in 1912) as well as the 1930 Joan Crawford version, Paid. With this context, my review is equal parts a commentary on this movie alone and a commentary on an adaptation and remake.I've grown to appreciate the talents of Ruth Hussey after tracking down her available films, and while I do see her as MGM originally saw her (a potential replacement for Rosalind Russell who was a potential replacement for Myrna Loy should either one get on Louis B. Mayer's bad side {as Myrna did when she went on strike after the success of The Thin Man for more money}), she more than proves herself capable of dependable acting and even great drama in the vein of Susan Hayward (too bad Hussey hadn't been born ten or fifteen years later) in Within the Law.The plot is simple: shop-girl Mary Turner is falsely accused of theft from her place of employment and sentenced to three years in prison, vowing revenge on the man who sent her there--her employer. This version is much more brisk than Crawford's Pre-Code melodrama, which, as a Crawford vehicle, paid more attention to its star than the actual story. This is the result of the script for Hussey's version pulling the plot out of its stage-roots and casting an attractive and charismatic actor (Tom Neal) as Richard Gilder. Also, as amusing as Marie Prevost was, Rita Johnson's "Aggie Lynch" was suitably brazen and funny as the "Aggie Lynch" from the play. However, like Paid, Within the Law cannot escape its source material and I can see why the up-and-down drama of the last act can come across as stupid. The plot twists are very plausible and characteristic of 1912, but in 1930 or 1939, they are simply over the top.But the acting is superb, even though I must admit that given a bit more of the MGM polish and a higher tier of actors and actresses, Within the Law could have been a perfect Myrna Loy vehicle (and I did see shades of Myrna in Ruth Hussey's performance). Though this is obviously a programmer and most likely a vehicle for testing audience reaction of Hussey, it is just as entertaining as MGM's "A" pictures of this period.

samhill5215 There's quite a bit to like in this movie in its first half. Ruth Hussey's portrayal of the downward spiral into a life of crime after being wrongly convicted is well done and believable. The plans she concocts for legally extorting large sums from her former employer are clever and add quite a few nail biting moments. Despite the film's pedigree I found myself expecting more and more clever twists. But in its windup the film becomes melodramatic and predictable. Love wins all, love sacrifices all, blah, blah, blah. Boring, boring, boring. The producers opted for a safe and bland conclusion when a more original ending would have raised this film to a much higher standing. Oh well, Ruth Hussey, Paul Kelly and Rita Johnson are all very good in their roles so I guess they make it worth a look.