I don't like to review the politics of a film, because every film has a political viewpoint, however subtle, and I have an open mind. But I do make note of political slant when it is the obvious point of a film. "My Son John" is not subtle at all. It takes a while to get in gear, but once it does, it hits the viewer over the head with its anti-Communist message. Which is not a terrible thing, messages at least stimulate the mind and make one think. But what is terrible is for a message film to be dull and lifeless, and that pretty much sums up "My Son John."

The plot is excruciatingly simple. A normal small-town family has a son, John, who works for the government in some fairly high-level capacity. Over time, clues emerge that cause his family and others to suspect that he may in fact be Communist who is passing government secrets to the Kremlin. Everybody is upset with this and suffused with grief, even, supposedly, an FBI man investigating John played by Van Heflin.

The problem is that very little happens in the film. So much time is spent in showing the family going to church and doing this and that to establish its All-American bona fides (the father even sings patriotic songs when drunk, and two younger sons are pointedly shown to be football players, which was not the case with that Black Sheep John) that there is very little action. At one point there is a minor traffic accident and one perks up, thinking maybe something is about to happen - then everybody shrugs it off and the gloomy talking resumes.

Helen Hayes does her usual over-acting - she may be a stage legend, but it doesn't translate well here - while Dean Jagger is simply embarrassing as the somewhat simple father. Robert Walker is an enigma as the son, made to look smooth and sophisticated in comparison to the rest of his family, and thus, presumably, weird and prone to foreign recruitment with his fancy-pants attitudes. The film also is very dark - even the outdoor scenes are dark, with the indoor scenes just dreadfully difficult to look at. Perhaps that was a conscious decision, to make a film about a dark subject matter physically dark, but it simply makes the end product difficult to stomach.

Not an enjoyable film. Who in the early 1950s would want to go see a film that shows their son or brother may be a spy - it's just not very light entertainment, kind of like making a documentary about cancer that passes itself off as fiction. I don't recommend this except to film students and people interested in the post-War Red Scare days.


My reason for giving this film a 4 is for some problems with the acting as well as the contrived ending necessitated by the untimely death of Robert Walker.

My complaints about the actual subject matter of the film are minimal, as, despite some revisionist history, there apparently was some Communist infiltration of parts of the US government (particularly the State Department)--as shown by the release of records from the Soviet archives in the 1990s. Was it as bad a problem as the film shows--perhaps not. And, did justifiable concerns about this justify trampling the First Amendment right to free speech--of course not. But it was a serious problem and it was a very scary time in the world--with two nuclear powers nearing a deadly showdown. And, while there was a 'Red Scare' (with some terrible abuses of civil rights), there actually was a reason to be scared. So it's natural that a film would dramatize this struggle.

Sadly, despite the timeliness of the movie, they sure didn't do a particularly good job of it. Instead of the film being informative or entertaining, it came off as silly and contrived. My first biggest complaint was with Helen Hayes. For a while, I liked her playing of this role. She was sweet and believable...to a point. But, late in the film, she began overacting horribly and I felt embarrassed watching her. I'm not sure how much of this was due to the poor writing or her acting...or both. Unlike Robert Walker and Van Heflin (who both were quite good), she did NOT underplay her role in the least! Dean Jagger, for his part, overacted a bit as well--but nearly to the level that Hayes reached.

Another problem was the result of the film makers trying to work past the fact that Walker had died towards the very end of the production. I think it would have been better to scrap the scenes he made and re-shoot them with another actor. Instead, they changed about the script, used a double in a darkened room scene and substituted a shot from Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train" for his final scene--and had his voice indifferently dubbed. If you aren't looking for this, the ending will confuse you as it makes little sense. If you are, it's pretty obvious what they did--it shows.

Overall, the film comes off as a bit hysterical, disjoint and confusing. What could have been an interesting idea for a film just comes off as cheap propaganda in the end--though it could have had something to say had it been done better.


Ever since a friend in grad school described it: "Robert Walker is mean to his mother, so everyone suspects he's a Communist." It was worth the wait: it is spectacularly awful. Some other reviewers say the last 3rd is spoiled because of Walker's death. Not true: This movie is a disaster from the first scene. McCarey tries to present everyone but Walker as a simple, patriotic American. He succeeds in making patriotism look simple-minded. Walker seems to be still playing Bruno, ironic in a world of terminally sincere people. (He's literally Bruno in the scenes spliced in from "Strangers on a Train.") And Helen Hayes! She seems to think she's playing Mary Tyrone in a road company of "Long Day's Journey," and she's pitching it to the back balcony: only morphine addiction and withdrawal could justify the split-second mood swings that occur within a single sentence.

Thanks to TCM for making my dream come true. And for showing pro-Soviet films that are as wonderfully bad in their way as "My Son John." Apparently the thought of the Soviet Union turned everyone in Hollywood, friend and foe, into hysterical simpletons.


Since most of the political bellyaching about this movie seems to be coming from the self-righteous right, I'm going to ignore it and just talk about the film itself. What starts out as a well-acted exploration of family tensions - especially those between a relatively uneducated set of middle-class parents and their college-educated son - gives way to the clumsy, overwrought melodramatics of the second half of the film. The death of Robert Walker during filming doesn't really excuse or explain the awfulness of the last hour. There's an early scene between John and his mother in which he explains that his goals are the same as those of the Catholic Church in which they were both raised but that his methods are different. The fact that he is a Communist (McCarey and some of his apologists seem to suggest) means that those goals must be evil because the methods are evil. Just stop thinking for yourself; trust in God and the FBI. It's a dangerous message, and not all that far off from the one that the Communists drilled into their victims (for "God and the FBI" substitute "the Party"). Oh, well . . . I guess I couldn't avoid the political bellyaching.

The sad thing is that the lead actors are all so good. McCarey was brilliant at getting excellent naturalistic performances from his actors, and Helen Hayes, Robert Walker, Van Heflin and Dean Jagger are all extremely convincing until the film collapses into right-wing agitprop at the halfway mark. Even Hayes couldn't do much (except overact) with her climactic scene in which her character tries to use a football analogy to get her son to see the light.


I saw this film when it appeared on Canadian TV some years ago. Yes, it has an agenda which seemed to really bother most reviewers, but it is worth preserving and seeing for a really wonderful performance by Helen Hayes, the best that I've seen from her. We feel her pain as she suspects, then has her suspicions gradually confirmed, that her son is a Communist spy. I also liked the performances of Van Heflin & Dean Jagger.

The ending is laughable, and there are some really clunky insertions of Robert Walker taken from Strangers on a Train. There is even one telephone scene using an actor who obviously is NOT Robert Walker.

One can't help wondering how this film would have turned out if Walker had not died in the middle of production. But still, someone, maybe Criterion, will put this one out on DVD to satisfy film buffs.


Gentlemen,

Not having seen My Son John, I give it a rating of 10, based purely on suspicious ignorance.

I am suspicious of the criticisms.

One reviewer here says that the film is directed against those who would overthrow American middle class life, which is a strange trivialization of the animus informing Stalinist Communism, a political reality that had already murdered some 53 million people by the time My Son John was made -- the figure given by demographer Grigory Dyadkin in his Unnatural Death in the Soviet Union, 1928 - 1953.

Many of the reviewers appear to agree that this film as well as flagrant anti-Stalinism is bad, bad, bad, though they split a bit on the quality of the performances. One contributor attacks the entire career of Helen Hayes and has her at the nadir of her non-art in the film under discussion; another reviewer gives her performance a grudging nod. Same with Dean Jagger.

I suspect that the film is a good deal better than the politically motivated reviewers on this forum would have us believe. But even if the film stands out for its odoriferous fumes in a vat of year-old flounders, I don't care for the assumptions of several of the critics.

The truth is that although Hollywood has handled nazism well, it has never come to grips with the phenomenon of Stalinism -- its enormous death camps, its man-made famines, its surreal rendering of reality to a captive population. Some Jewish writers bemoan that the Holocaust has had no Solzhenitsyn to tell the story as he did of the Soviet camps across the three volumes and 2,000 pages that is the horror and gore of The Gulag Archipelago. The other side of the coin is that Hollywood has never attempted to render Stalinism and its mega-murder to a Western audience.

There is no film about Darkness at Noon; no dramatization of The Long Walk; no attempt to capture the despair of Kolyma Tales.

Let me suggest that a Hollywood producer might be able to make something of Viktor Kravchenko's I Chose Freedom. There is scope in the work for epic and plenty of pathos. It might work commercially.

Yours, Larry Parr Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia


It's such a distinguished cast and crew, and they look as though they felt they were part of something important--the dark, somber lighting, slow pacing, and portentous music suggest Paramount's "A Place in the Sun" from the year before. But screenwriters John Lee Mahin (can this really be the same guy who wrote the lively, bawdy "Red Dust" 20 years earlier?) and Myles Connolly make elementary mistakes: They make Walker's secret ridiculously obvious without even telling us what D.C. department he works for, and they end scenes arbitrarily. McCarey and DP Harry Stradling, another distinguished name, traffic in irrelevant tracking shots and unimportant details. And McCarey badly misdirects his actors: Hayes and Jagger are way, way over the top, and she gesticulates like a silent-screen heroine. Walker overdoes prissy (which I guess equaled Communist in that climate), and Heflin's underplaying, while not much fun to watch, is refreshing in contrast. Most anti-Red pictures of the day were Bs, and it's instructive seeing what A-picture production values could bring to the party. But the picture's, meaning McCarey's, viewpoint is odious, and even such basic functions as plotting and pacing are substandard.


After a long period of time (maybe 15 years, maybe more) I have finally seen this film thank you to the internet (and some unknown friend who put it "in the air"). It's interesting watching a feature that you have been years reading about; in this case much more to knock it down as a an anti-communist pamphlet with no interest. And like many films along cinema history this is a great and surprisingly unknown film, typical of the best period in McCarey's career, which it means that it's a perfectly edited, wonderfully rhymed, gracefully shot film. It's almost a perfect portrait of American families in the 50's, better (and before) than Nicholas Ray's "Rebel without a cause" and the consequences of generation affairs between father and sons, between the America coming out of a war and the new country that looks upon the future. Remarkable cast, perfect Robert Walker and Dean Jagger and moving Helen Hayes.


Patriotic Jagger and Hayes must confront the grim realization that son Walker is a Communist. The hysteria that follows seems ludicrous by today's standards. Trust me, it did then too, but in a different vein. Hayes is in her element, emoting to beat the band. Walker is appropriately opaque, but Jagger is spellbindingly awful.

What a waste of talent!


It is sad to say that a film should be "lost", but this is one. This work, directed horrendously by Leo McCarey, was a sorry thing when it was first released during the McCarthy-Witch Hunt period. MY SON JOHN is even worse now... Yes, we may disagree with the statement in a film, but we can also begrudgingly respect its professionalism. None of that is present here in this paranoid monstrosity that brought the overrated Helen Hayes back to the screen as the mom of a (gasp) suspected Commie. She is truly terrible-- the nadir of a career that, in retrospect, was not a great one at all. And poor Robert Walker died before its release. No comment needed. The most embarrassing moments occur when Hayes forces her son to spill his dreaded secrets... ARRRRGGGHHH. Not many films can make you angry by their incompetence. This McCarey disaster, with a big budget, is one of them. It makes "I Was a Communist for the F.B.I." and even "The Red Menace" look competent.. and they weren't.


I just noticed that "Melvin and Howard" registered a mere 6.6 on the IMDb rating scale. Don't you believe it! This is a great American movie. Director Demme and writer Goldman take a footnote to history -- a contested Howard Hughes will that named Melvin Dummar, a milkman who once loaned him a quarter, as one of his heirs -- and turn that slight material into a wry meditation on the American Dream. Or more specifically, the thin line that separates the American Dream from pure hell. Demme has a great eye for people like Dummar, a dreamer whose clock for realizing his dreams is winding down. The performances are terrific, especially Paul Le Mat as Dummar (whatever happened to Le Mat?) and Mary Steenburgen who won an Oscar for playing his wife. Jason Robards does one of his patented cameos playing a real life character (his Howard Hughes makes a neat hat trick with his Oscar winning performances as Dashiell Hammett and Ben Bradley.) Watch for the real-life Melvin Dummar as the counterman in the bus station where Steenburgen makes a sandwich for her daughter. This is a small but knowing and winning movie. It definitely gets my vote for "Milkman of the Month"!


Here's a strange tale of a couple and their on-and-off again marriage and the stupid things they do.....and the eventual flak over money billionaire Howard Hughes supposedly left the man.

Paul LaMat plays the husband and supposed beneficiary. He's just fun to watch, a likable, never-loses-his-cool kind of guy. Mary Steenburgen plays his wife and kind of surprised me by how much skin she showed, not the usual scenario with her. Both of them are somewhat low-lifes. Heck, even Hughes (Jason Robards) is pictured to look kind of scummy character in here. Then again, his last years on this earth were a bit strange!

It's a fictional story but those of us who remember, there WAS a lot of flak over the will of Howard Hughes. Despite this being on the grungy side (typical for movies between 1970-1981) this is still an appealing film in a sweet kind of way.

One thing for sure: it's different. Well worth a look.


In this day of $100 million plus movies with special effects that drown out the dialog and stars with out-sized egos and paychecks to match, a film like Jonathan Demme's minor masterwork, "Melvin and Howard," would be lucky to get a video distributor. Even a quarter century ago on its initial release, the film was largely ignored by audiences despite glowing reviews, Academy Awards, and critics kudos. However, those who make the effort to seek out this wonderful fable will be rewarded. Based on a story that may or may not have been true, "Melvin and Howard" spins the tale of an easy going hard luck kinda guy named Melvin Dummar who gives a lift to an old man he finds asleep in the desert. The man says that he is Howard Hughes, and, years later, when Hughes dies, Melvin finds a will that has been left on his filling station desk that names him as one of the heirs to the Hughes fortune. Since we know the ending before the film starts, the pleasures lie in the quirky characters and situations that screenwriter Bo Goldman and a terrific cast have created. Despite the circus that surrounded the question of the will's validity, Melvin was content just knowing that, during their drive, Howard Hughes had sung a song that Melvin had written. His evident joy in that simple event was a rare personal quality even in 1980. There are a lot of other unpretentious, yet memorable, moments in this outstanding film.


***SPOILERS IN CLEARCOAT***

This is a forgettable 'cursed treasure guarded by ancient monster' film that breaks no new ground and shows its lack of budget rather obviously. Near as I could tell, the plot involved an archaeologist gone bad who decides to loot a sacred site, and thereby awakens the ancient evil there.

It's a good thing there were so many characters; since none of them had more than one dimension, it would have been hard for them to stand upright without each other for support. Hatch was incredibly annoying as the treasure-mad professor, though it's hard to say who was the MOST annoying. When you hate every character in a monster movie, it's hard not to hope the monster wins.

The monster itself was rather disappointing; the CG effects weren't very good, so it was hard to tell just what shape it had. It seemed to bear a fair resemblance to the warrior bugs from Starship Troopers. Apparently, it was just some kind of animal, not a mystical guardian, since all it took to kill it was standard weapons - though it did manage to die and come back.

Major continuity gap with the 'gold' they were carting around from the looted site. A good rule for any movie in which quantities of gold are being moved around by the characters is to assume that gold weighs as much as lead. A duffel bag full of lead items is NOT going to be something you can carry three of, let alone RUN with.

The 'gold' artifacts themselves were cheesy, and their placement in the 'ancient' site downright insulting to a viewer's intelligence - unless we're to believe somebody's come down to shine them once a week for the last 10,000 years.

Just proves that low-budget monster movies never die - they just go straight to video.


I have to say that this film caught me by complete surprise. I expected it to be a typical "Hostel" kind of horror movie. But the opposite was the case. Rohtenburg is an incredible shot film that draws you into a personal story and guides you slowly into the darkness of a disturbed mind. Against all odds i was pleasantly surprised about this film. I do understand though that this film will raise a lot of controversy and have people not understand it or love or hate it. This film has no grey area, it is hate or love for sure, since it doesn't slumber through the mediocre horror genre formulas and has very little blood for the die hard horror fans. It works on a psychological level and goes way deeper than i expected, actually giving me sleep trouble for two nights.

This is a very different film. I don't think i have ever seen anything like it. I would recommend it.


I can't help but wonder, after reading so many negative reviews, if people really got this movie. Yes, it is a commentary on a depraved culture. But, as the narration points out, the important things are not what makes us different from people like cannibal Oliver Hartwin, but what makes us the same.

As Hartwin, Thomas Kretschmann does a great job in a role that can be described in a mastery of understatement as "difficult." He plays a man who fantasizes about eating human flesh. He finds the yin to his yang in Simon Groembeck (Thomas Huber, equally superb), a man who's veritable truckload of I.S.S.U.E.S. see him abandoning his GQ model boyfriend to be eaten by a guy with a Herman Munster haircut and a predilection for beige. Go figure. They hook up over that great haven for all the demented and depraved - the Internet. Go team!

Kerri Russell narrates the film in a somewhat unnecessary framing device. Quite frankly, what I found most irritating about the film were the most over obvious attempts to sell it internationally - Russell is the known "face" but the majority of the cast is comprised of German actors. Why not film it in German? Why not drop Russell altogether and instead focus on the relationship between the two men? A relationship which is, in its own way, oddly affecting. For as the title implies...this is a love story.

Well, come on. How many movies does Hollywood churn out annually based on the central premise of a woman (once upon a time Meg Ryan, lately her mini-me Reese Witherspoon) and a man (preferably Hugh Jackman but Mark Ruffalo or one of the Wilson brothers in a pinch) who are made for each other? When you really examine it, this film is based around the same premise. These are two men who are, in Russell's own words as she drably narrates, a perfect match. Far too much screen time is given to Russell poking around Hartwin's farm house and looking generally freaked out, at the expense of the developing of the relationship between two true oddballs. This is not monster and victim - these are two lonely men who have found each other, and not nearly enough time is devoted to the why of it all.

In it's look, the film very much honors it's subject matter, to great effect. It is shot mostly in muted tones, yet avoids the trap similar films have fallen into - namely looking too dark and leaving the audience wondering if they need to turn the contrast on their TV up. Very much a 1970s horror movie feel. Clever tricks abound - we see a grisly horror film being enjoyed by Hartwin reflected on his eyeball in an extreme close up, while in an earlier flashback the camera travels under the sheets to watch him reading under his bedclothes as a child. The running time is concise, a mere hour and a half, with the majority of the film's most difficult to watch scenes occurring in the final twenty minutes. There is the odd unexpected moment of black humor - yes, you feel guilty for chuckling - while the bare bones script is stripped of exposition and all the better for it. On the whole it is a well made movie, not what you'd call entertaining, but a worthy watch none the less.


***Some Spoilers*** Okay, I don't really know what the other reviewer was on about, this is a human story about two lonely guys with issues regarding their self esteem, sexuality and place in society. It is not sensationalist, nor particularly exploitative and it is based on the true events. Wishing to watch, or even make a film about a gruesome murder, does not mean you necessarily have a sick mind.

The problem I have with Grimm Love is the pathetic back story of the American student. Why does a very strong and intriguing story about two German men need to be framed by, and told through the eyes of, a fictional, attractive female American? Well, the answer is pretty simple I guess, she'll look good on the poster and in the trailer and give the film some chance of success in the US. However, this is a MAJOR flaw of the film.

This character adds absolutely nothing to the story and only serves to waste about 20 minutes of screen time which could have been cut completely from the film or used to go deeper into the actual story of the two men. Not only is this character boring and unnecessary but she acts irrationally throughout the film.

For example, she breaks into the house where the crime occurred - this was highly unconvincing and only served as a means to start some flashbacks to the actual events. Secondly, she is able to locate the actual video of the crime, which has never been found, even by the police, by posting a single message on a cannibal website! This was so laughable it was beyond belief. This lost video must represent something of a holy grail to the cannibal community so the idea that an outsider can simply stick a request for it on a forum and be sent a copy free of charge a few days later is ridiculous.

It's a real shame about these elements which surely anyone with even a basic understanding of script writing could have pointed out would scupper an otherwise serious attempt at film making.


Perhaps the most bizarre murder(?) case I've ever heard of, it was fascinating to follow on the news. When I heard they made a movie out of it, I was skeptical. Fortunately, it has been done the right way. No major names in the cast - a huge plus. No Steven Soderbergh, Gus van Sant, or Spielberg as director (nor would they ever dare touch this kind of subject matter). The photography is appropriately dark, somber. Having the main characters speak English with a German accent (i.e. have German actors) was an okay choice, too, the alternatives being American/British accents or German with subtitles (bad options). The idea of having Russell as a sort of physically existent narrator was okay, as well. The story is written as a drama, which then, of course, turns into horror. However, no graphic showings of severed limbs or penises flying through rooms, which would have cheapened the overall effect. Fans of "Saw" should stay away from this: it is not an idiotic/illogical thriller about torturing innocent people. GL hasn't got quite the level of realism of the terrific "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", but it's head-and-shoulders above the vast majority of wannabe gloomy movies that are out there, in this regard. GL is also surprisingly brief, under 90 minutes. Considering how much there was to this case, perhaps a little short, but on the other hand, it's tight and never dull.


I went to see this movie without fully understanding what I was in for. It played here in Seattle as part of the Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF) at the Seattle Center, and i thought it would be a subtle investigation of the two men. My first surprise came when the audience was addressed by a festival employee who told us that although the movie was German, the dialogue was English. Good for me, because I think I need new glasses. The second surprise was that Kerri Russell was in it (huh?). I'd like to preface my comments by stating a few things: I am in my twenties, and therefore have grown up in an age violence and moral deprivation, and consider myself to be desensitized, sometimes to an alarming degree. The interest I have in abnormal psychology (particularly sexual) is deep and passionate, and although I am pretty well adjusted, my curiosity borders on the creepy-even to those that know me well. I am also extremely liberal in politics, and as close to an atheist as someone as spiritually apathetic as I can be. This movie made me ill. Physically. The grad student that Russell played was (although annoying in the beginning) the one saving grace in this movie, because the character acted as a device that separated the viewer from the actions taking place. Yes, these were sad people who had shitty lives, but it is not in me to be sympathetic. In and age where people can find each other on the internet via a chat room, surely one of them could have found a descent therapist. The "made for each other" aspect that attempted to romanticize the story was sickening and pathetic. I know that they were not trying to make it into a beautiful love story, but really-where was the psychological analysis? This film is irresponsible-the ideas that the viewer is exposed to are not easy to forget when given this sort of treatment. It rushed to the climax and then dragged out the gore for what I can only assume was shock value and media provocation. Cannibalism is the one taboo we have left on this planet, and this movie dealt with the subject with all of the subtlety of the rock Russell throws through the window. I think that people should be allowed to explore the darkest sides of their shadows without shame, but the desire to eat another human, and the desire to be eaten are not sexual perversions, they are severe mental illnesses. Human frailty is not something to be mocked and stylized. This was simply a movie about suicide and murder. I wish I had never seen it.


After the promising first minutes of the movie which look like they where trying to build a serious profile behind the killings, the movie drifts to a simple and disgusting presentation of violence.

A movie made for perverts...

The acting is decent, the storyline is not. The entire plot focused on the student trying to understand the psyche of the killer is only based loosely on the facts, all leading to build up more shots with violence. Even so it may have happened that way - why would you make a movie that features the most disgusting things a human has done? Looked to me like the director and writer failed to find a clear statement for the film and therefore went down the easy way by producing a flick that thrives on pain and the scandal behind it to get recognition at the box office.


"Public Enemy" brought two things to the screen: the little tough guy, fast-talking, unscrupulous gangster characterization by James Cagney which was to follow him throughout his entire screen career, and the grapefruit scene

Though "Public Enemy" created the Cagney image, he had already appeared in two other gangsters films for Warners, as a murderer prepared to let someone else pay for his crime in "Sinner's Holiday," and as a double-crossing hoodlum in "Doorway to Hell."

"Public Enemy," however, was a bigger-budget production, directed by William Wellman, and it contained all the elements of success It is the story of two brothers who become Chicago booze barons in the Twenties... One was Cagney, the other Edward Woods

It is sometimes claimed that the story of "Public Enemy" is based on that of "Little Hymie" Weiss, leader of the North Side Chicago gang after the murder of Dion O'Banion by the Capones in 1924 What is more likely is that the Cagney characterization is based on "Little Hymie"; the plot itself is pure fiction

When Cagney, in his striped pajama, sat opposite Mae Clarke at breakfast and decided he had had enough of this boring broad, he wasted no time He picked up half a grapefruit and planted it full into Clarke's face It was a piece of screen action which has lasted down the years as the ultimate in violence from the gangster to his moll

Of course, it isn't  it just seems that way Since then gir1s have been slapped, kicked, beaten up, run over, shot, stabbed and raped, all in the tradition of mobster violence

But at the time this scene was daring, and the more daring because it was totally unexpected We remember Mae Clarke in "Public Enemy," yet forget that Jean Harlow was in it, too There may have been good reason The New York Times, reviewing the film in 1934, commented: "The acting throughout is interesting, with the exception of Jean Harlow, who essays the role of a gangster's mistress."

Cagney made violence and a life of crime magically seductive, and "Public Enemy" made him Warners' number 2 gangster, second only to Edward G. Robinson


"The Public Enemy" is one of the starting points of the great season of gangster movies, a very interesting work. It is not the story of the rise and fall of some big boss of crime. Tom Powers (James Cagney) and Matt Doyle (Edward Woods) are just small time crooks, and so they remain throughout the movie. Only, they make the big money that the circumstances of prohibition offer to any criminal. Tom is just a semi-illiterate, naturally violent thug. He is not even professional. He kills just out of stupidity or desire of a pointless revenge, that ultimately will severely damage himself. Further evidence of his cheap personality is shown when he instantly falls for the vulgar, tasteless girl Gwen (Jean Harlow). By the way, Harlow looks remarkably unattractive (to our modern eyes, at least). Was it a choice of director Wellmann? Matt is slightly better than Tom, but clearly he has not the guts to cross his mate.

In my opinion a major credit of the film is that it systematically avoids cliché. Neither Tom nor Matt are outcomes of poverty and social injustice. They come from simple but honest, decent and loving families. But they are both bad (that's the word) and they use the freedom and opportunities of their democratic country to make evil.

In "The Public Enemy" we find probably the first instances of the beautiful stylish cinematography and clever camera-work that will become the trade-mark of later gangster and noir movies. Some scenes are unforgettable, like the final one, or that under the rain, or that of Cagney abusing the girl. The brief scene of the killing of the horse is pure cinematic genius.

In the film there are also some naiveness and clumsiness, though. The way Tom undergoes the personality of his good brother is far-fetched. It is not clear why a gangster in a hospital, wounded in a gun-fight, is not under strict police control. The behavior of Tom's boss in the ending is illogical. Moreover, the part where Tom and Matt are kids is too long (we audience are all eager to see Cagney!), and action is a bit scarce for a gangster movie.

"The Public Enemy" was Cagney's breakout film, and really he makes a powerful and accurate job. Actually, a strong acting is provided by the whole cast. The director William A. Wellmann handles the movie with sound talent.

"The Public Enemy" is a beautiful and historically important movie. I recommend it to any cinema-lover


Once again, Jimmy Cagney struts his stuff.....and makes a big name for himself in the very early part of his acting career. He clearly demonstrates that he is a man who take over any scene and dominate it, and the film.

Hollywood found this out in making this film. It is said that Cagney's role was originally much smaller in here but he was so good the script was changed to give him the starring spot....and his career took off from there.

Speaking of billing and stardom, Jean Harlow gets second billing in this film but really has only a bit part; Blondell gets fourth billing has only a few lines.

The story is a fast-mover and the movie is over in less than an hour-and-a-half. The cinematography in here is excellent and DVD really brings that out.

The famous "grapefruit scene" with Cagney shoving the fruit in Mae Clark's face wasn't that big a deal back then and the scene happens so fast you almost miss it.

For me, a highlight of the show was simply the facial expressions on Cagney. At the end of the movie, as he stands in the pouring rain getting ready to go in and kill people, his expression is downright scary - a very powerful scene.

The ending of this movie is memorable, too. In all the film may be dated but it still very, very watchable and one of the great crime movies of all time.


The Public Enemy, along with Little Caesar and Scarface, set the standard for the gangster film. Though films about crime had been done in the silent era, sound was what really ushered in this particular genre. I've always maintained that musicals and gangster films are the only two movie genres that date from the sound era.

Of course this film about a young man's rise to prominence in the bootleg liquor business during Prohibition made James Cagney a star. Interestingly enough Edward Woods was originally supposed to be Tom Powers and Cagney was cast as best friend Matt Doyle. After some footage had been shot, Director William Wellman scrapped it and had Cagney and Woods exchange roles. Stars get born in many and strange ways.

Some critics have complained about Beryl Mercer's part as Cagney's mother, saying she's overacts the ditziness. I disagree with that completely. In the prologue section with Cagney and Woods as juveniles, there is a two parent household. The boys have a stern Irish father and a mom who'd spoil them if she could. The older kid who is later played by Donald Cook has more the benefit of the two family home and both influences. That and the fact that World War I leaves him partially disabled prevents him from thinking about the gangster trade. Cagney misses the war and is spoiled by mom.

I knew a woman like Beryl, in her own world with a stream of nonsensical chatter to keep out the reality of things. Her portrayal for me rings true.

Oddly enough in The Roaring Twenties Cagney is a veteran who enters the rackets because he can't get a legitimate job and its easy money.

Both The Public Enemy and Little Caesar are short films, edited down to the essentials so the viewer ain't bored for a minute. Warner Brothers sure knew how to do those gangster flicks.


This was the film that made James Cagney a star. In a surprise move, Warner Brothers made him switch roles with Edward Woods, and the end is history. James Cagney, who made a career out of playing tough guys, appeared as Tom Powers, a young man who loved the company of all the Irish wise guys in his area. The film starts with a message from the studio about one is going to witness as it wanted to point to a social problem, and it ends with a sort of disclaimer about what was seen a social issue at the core of the society of those years.

Tom Powers rises to the top of the crime scene when Prohibition went into effect. There was a lot of money to be made smuggling liquor and having pals like Paddy Ryan, who controlled the trade. Helped by his inseparable Matt Doyle, they make their mark as people that could get away with what the crimes they were committing. Tom Powers inspired violence because he was ruthless in the way he wanted to do things.

The film, made before the arrival of the infamous Hays Code, gets away with showing the morality of the gangster on the scene and the women they went after. Tom's relationship with Kitty, and the cruelty he shows toward her, is something that the creators got away with. Tom's involvement with Gwen Allen, the beautiful blonde, is full of sexual suggestions.

William Wellman, proved he was the right man for this movie. He brought the best in James Cagney and the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the dialog sounds dated. The heavy make-up favored in those days looks funny of the men, especially. Mae Clarke, who is not even credited in the film, has one of the best moments of her film career in the movie. James Cagney and Edward Woods do some excellent work together. The sexy Jean Harlow is lovely to look at in this film as it brings her beauty to new heights. Donald Cook, Joan Blondell, and the rest of the supporting cast contribute to make one of the best films of the gangster genre.


"The Godfather" trilogy and "Goodfellas" owe a lot to this gangster film that preceded them both by at least fifty years. "The Public Enemy" was perhaps one of the first mob films that followed the rise and fall of a gangster and showed not only the implication of his actions on himself but on his family as well.

The film is far from perfect. The first ten minutes of the film in which we are shown a glimpse into the characters' childhood are jerky at best and feel as if much of it was left on the cutting room floor. The movie's incessant fast pace thereafter don't allow for much to sink in, but Cagney saves the day with an absolutely fiery performance. Not one person is spared from his bubbling anger and ferocious delivery.

Finally, the ending will leave you gasping - even by today's standards.

"The Public Enemy" is a must see for any true fan of the mob movie genre.


The Public Enemy is more than just a story about the rise and fall of a crimean lord in the 1920's. Hell, it even says that at the beginning and end of the picture. It states, "The Public Enemy is not a man, nor is it a character, it is problem that we, The Public, must solve." James Cagney gives a magnificent performance as Tom Powers, a man who started off as a petty thief with sidekick Matt Doyle (played excellently by Edward Woods) and rose to become a powerful beer smuggler during the era of Prohibition and Gang Rule. Yet this film is not all about Tom Powers and his rise to power; it is about the vast feeling of change that America was experiencing during the Roaring Twenties. America was attempting to adjust to the aftermath of World War I (which is explored brilliantly in this film in a sequence through which Tom's brother, Mike, refuses to drink from a keg of beer smuggled in by Tom for his dinner party) People like Mike were still trying to feel that sense of loyalty towards the government after World War I. Yet that loyalty somehow vanished with the development of Prohibition and the rise of gang rule in urban society. Director William A. Wellman explores deeply with this subject matter as we analyze Tom's family and how they have adjusted to the effects of change upon American society. In Tom's case, he yearns for power which became a craving for all Americans during the 1920's. Matt also is one of those who yearns for power. Mike, on the other hand, wants to remain conservative about American values. He wants to keep things the way they are with his family. He does not crave for power as much as his brother Tom which allows him to survive at the end of the picture. As a result, we, the American Public, learn at the end of the picture that power is bigger than any one man and that it will smite any man who tries to take full control of it. Tom attempts to do that and ends up losing everything dearest to him. He loses his friends, his girls, but most of all, he loses his soul. "The Public Enemy is not a man, nor is it a character, it is a problem that we, the Public, must solve." James Cagney should have received an Oscar nomination as Best Actor for this film and Edward Woods should have received a Best Supporting Actor nomination as well.

Lenny's Grade: A


Most films made in the early 30s are entertaining only as period pieces that give us a glimpse into another era. Often they are so dated that they've become unintentionally funny.

The Public Enemy is a totally different thing. It is such a well-crafted and honest film that it still has the power to shock us. The violence in this film is every bit as brutal as anything in a modern "gangsta" flick, even though some of it takes place off-camera.

Based on the stills I had seen of the grapefruit scene, I thought it would be a light-hearted moment. In fact, it's anything but. In that encounter, Cagney's character exhibits a total disregard for others that is downright chilling.

The final scene is extremely disturbing. You won't forget it.


If ever a movie belonged to a single actor, this is it. As a gangster movie The Public Enemy is somewhat creaky, and mainly interesting as a look at the genre's origins, but Jimmy Cagney brings it to electrifying life. Watching his manic performance as the cocky, ambitious thug Tom Powers, I could see the precursor of decades of movie antiheroes, from Richard Widmark to Malcolm McDowell to Al Pacino. Like most gangster films of the time, The Public Enemy tries to wrap itself in the mantle of a moral tract. An opening title card announces that Powers should not be taken as an individual character, but as a type, a characteristic example of an urban criminal. The narrative proceeds to give a standard history of this type is formed, beginning with him getting into petty crime as a kid, and then following him as he proceeds up the ranks of the underworld. Also along the way you see can see the building blocks for basically every subsequent gangster film: the misogyny (most famously illustrated when Cagney, sitting at the breakfast table with his moll, suddenly reaches over and smacks her in the face with a grapefruit; the disapproving family members; the protagonist's more moral sidekick ( a type seen as recently as in the Brazilian crime epic City of God). These ingredients don't jell quite as well as they would in subsequent crime films. I once skimmed through Cagney's memoir, in which he spoke of making these movies, even the famous ones, as being a fairly haphazard process in which memorable scenes came out of last-minute inspiration more often than great writing and far-sighted planning. This might have been partly just humility on Cagney's part, but I can also see it borne in Public Enemy's somewhat half-baked script. Of course any film would probably seem lacking after 70 years of imitators. Aside from Cagney, the performers are definitely a mixed bag. The actor who plays Cagney's law-abiding brother seems to be in a different movie; specifically, a circa-1910 inspirational stage melodrama with a title like "The Road to Ruin, or, the Drunkard's Progress." Conflict between brothers is a great subject for gritty urban melodramas, from "On the Waterfront" to "Raging Bull," but the character's conflict with Cagney doesn't go much farther than, "No, I won't drink your filthy liquor!" (not an actual line from the movie, but it could be). Jean Harlow shows how she came to be regarded as a sex symbol, but her acting is as painful inept as any Bond Girl's. Also, her character doesn't really go anywhere. The film doesn't feature quite as much mob warfare as I expected, probably another sign that the model was still being established. William Wellman's direction generally avoids the static quality often present in films of this era, and he handles the scenes of violence especially well, with terse, confident style. The final shootout occurs completely off-screen, with the audience seeing only the build-up and then the aftermath, and looks ahead to Takeshi Kitano's minimalist mob flick "Sonatine." Gangster movies generally walk a fine line between celebrating and condemning the lifestyles of their characters- think of The Godfather. The moralistic messages of '30s mob movies are often so at odds with the real reason that people watch them that their supposed social responsibility seldom convinces. The Public Enemy certainly did more in the long run to make gangsters look glamorous than to attack them, but it does boast memorable final "warning" against crime. Towards the end Tom Powers is confined to a hospital bed after a shootout, and he seems ready to put his old life behind him. In the final scene, as his mother makes up his old room, preparing for her son's return, someone knocks on the front door. Power's brother opens it, to be confronted with the horror-movie image of his mummified corpse, bandaged up from head to toe. Cagney's body falls across his home's threshold, an obvious but unforgettable ending.


Compared to Mervyn LeRoy's "Little Caesar", "The Public Enemy" is a little more -- well, I don't want to use the word "sophisticated" because it's anything but that. It's more -- developmental. Yes, that's the word. Little Caesar's character begins and ends as an adult gangster. Tom Powers (Jimmy Cagney) is first introduced as a young boy, hanging around with his pal Matt Doyle (Edward Woods), being whupped for stealing by his policeman father. The stern old man uses a razor strap. Maybe today it looks like child abuse to some people but it was probably common enough at the time. My mother used to break Kochloevels over my back. In any case, such punishment did neither Tom Powers nor myself any good since we both turned out wicked.

Tom and Matt grow up into young men who are hoodlums in the employ of Puttynose, who teaches them the tricks of the trade, an Irish Fagin, but he breaks his promise and skips out on them when they need his help. Years later, an unforgiving Tom wreaks his revenge on the pathetic Puttynose. Then Tom and Matt are taken under the wing of Paddy Ryan, and finally Samuel "Nails" Nathan, both of whom treat our protagonists well. In fact, I rather liked Nails. He's cheerful, generous, and loyal. I mean, considering that he's a gangster, a thief, and a murderer. When Nails is thrown from his horse and killed, Tom and Matt sensibly shoot the horse. There's a sub-plot involving some dames the two guys pick up in a speakeasy. Matt marries his moll but Tom gets tired of his (Mae Clarke) and puts finito to their affair by shoving a grapefruit in her face. Mr. Nice Guy. Tom then meets Jean Harlow and she seems to fall for him, although his interest in her is rather more glandular than anything else. She doesn't make herself available in the sense that his other girl friends have and Tom is tearing his hair out, uttering hoarse, goaty cries: "A guy could go screwy from this." Her part is kind of small and Tom never does get it on with her. When a rival gang kills his friend Matt, Tom picks up two pistols, barges into the gang's hangout, and shoots it out with them, severely wounded in the process. He's visited in the hospital by his Ma, his moralistic brother, and his sister-in-law, and he asks them to forgive him. Doesn't do him any good. The rival gang kidnaps him from the hospital and delivers him to his home, full of new lead.

Like "Little Caesar," this film gives us many scenes and characters that were to become icons. On their first big job, a friend of Tom's and Matt's, Loopy Louie, is shot by the cops and we see the wake in Louie's parlor, with a matronly immigrant mother moaning, "He was always a good boy." To a parking valet, Tom snaps, "Hey, watch it. Dat car's got gears. It ain't no Ford." As for the performances, Edward Wood was famously intended to play the lead before the roles were switched, with Cagney taking the role of Tom. It was a good decision. Matt is likable but a little wooden, whereas Cagney sizzles on screen. Jean Harlow's every line is laugh worthy. Like Cagney, she was from New York but her accent here stops just short of a parody of British. "I cahn't." And, "Me neyether." Also, she looks, well, BIG in this movie, maybe because she's paired with Cagney, but it's not just that she's as tall as he is but that she's zoftig too, a bit more broad of beam than has been noticeable in her other films.

The censors were beginning to impose their will on the film industry, so every shooting takes place off screen and there is virtually no blood. I guess the code was not yet firm enough in place to prevent the presentation of a tailor as a homosexual. When Cagney is being fitted for his first suit, he tugs at his waist and tells the guy to leave plenty of room in their. "Here's where you need extra room," says the tailor, squeezing Cagney's upper arm, "Just feel that muscle." Cagney minces away from the encounter. Not that there's any suggestion of homosexual bonds between Tom Powers and Matt Doyle. They're just friends who grew up together.

You must see this movie if you haven't already. It was one of three that set the genre firmly on its feet in the early 1930s, the others being "Little Caesar" and "Scarface." Look at it this way. Without these films, we might never have had "The Godfather."


WARNING SPOILERS: This review is from the point of view of one who would rather we live in a world without Mafias, organized crime, and gangs. From the perspective of crime itself, I can almost admire the cat burgler, the bank robber, or even the pickpocket, whereas I find organized crime to be vile, albeit efficient. Regarding violence itself, I much prefer the old-style, manlier ways of settling scores such as showdowns, brawls, and duels instead of use of hit men, goons, and sub-machine guns, which may keep the "head" alive, but which reduces the heart.

In this vein, I found a great poignancy within the usual discomfort I have when viewing gangster films. Tom's assertion towards his end, "I ain't so tough," and his hospital apology to his family, showed me that the filmmakers understood this unmanliness, and that organized crime is about greed and cowardice more than necessity and triumph of will. Mike's lecture to Tom concerning Tom's lack of heart and brain also gives pause, so that (if you agree with the filmmakers) one can define very simply the typical gangster's actions. And there is little in the annals of true-life Mafia activity, whether Italian, Korean, Chinese, Negro, or what-have-you, which overthrows this.

In all honesty, I found James Cagney's character to be over-the-top, in the usual Hollywood fashion (other examples: Joe Pesci, James Caan), and his mobster actions were predictable, for the most part. This jibed well with my disgusted side. On the other hand, Glasmon and Bright (the writers) explore some complicated issues which touched me greatly. This may be due to Bright's first-hand experiences with gangsters.

First, Tom's "purity" while in a relationship with Gwen (Jean Harlow). This adult content surprised me, especially for a 1931 action movie, and one of the first talkies. When Jane (Mia Marvin) seduces a drunken Tom, their morning-after becomes not only a surprising slap in the face for all concerned (including the viewer), but also sets up the motivation for Matt's (Edward Doyle) demise.

Second, Tom's relationship with his brother is very provocative. There is the usual macho posturing of right vs. wrong, but there are also undercurrents of gray areas. Who is worse: Tom, for bootlegging, or Mike for petty embezzlement? Tom, for being an enforcer, or Mike, for indiscriminate killing during wartime? Naturally, the case can be made that Mike's heroics pave the way for the free country which Tom enjoys, but this is never explored, merely left to conjecture. Quite pleasing, from both a cinematic and literary standpoint. The content of this counterpoint was present but not overbearing.

Third, there is the possibility that Tom is sexually-oriented in two ways. I'm not in any way trying to foist such opinions on anyone, but it seems to me that Putty-Nose's (Murray Kinnell) butt is awfully close to Tom's face during the pool-room scene early in the movie. Also, why is Tom "not the marrying kind" and why does he harbor such obvious distaste for most women? It's certainly not due to his sweet mother, or benign sister-in-law. I'm not FOR these types of references or innuendo, but I merely point it out as possible.

Fourth is the searing commentary on Prohibition itself, and how it was that a combination of governmental and temperance forces allowed opportunity to knock for those with little conscience (even if Paddy {Robert Emmett O'Connor} is made to be an honorable man here).

These, however, are side issues to the film. The action itself is bearable and fluid. The making of the small-time hustler into sweeping gangster is not fully-explored, but merely assumed, and then there is an alternating mega- and micro-look into that crooked world. We see glimpses of thievery, crooked business deals, strong-arm protection and racketeering, cold-blooded murder, and revenge. Then, we are privy to the inner workings of mob mentality, the unbreakable friendships, the gun molls, the hideouts. Little attention is paid here to law enforcement, and the regular Joe and the media are fashioned to be in sympathy with the mobs, a likely by-product of the "wetness" which rumrunners brought to those otherwise-"dry" times.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie, with its many messages, visuals, and vignettes. Cagney is a great actor, although this is not his pivotal work. Harlow is sultry in a minor role. Woods is extremely likable as Tom's compatriot. Joan Blondell brings some of her bubbliness to these drab surroundings. Donald Cook is wonderfully-old-school in his eye-rolling part. Beryl Mercer as Ma Powers also evokes some surprisingly-good emoting.

Overall, I think you will enjoy this.


SCARFACE was a study of a truly monstrous, violent malefactor - a kingpin of crime. LITTLE CAESAR too deals with the rise of a criminal to being the head of the criminal organization (or a leading figure in it) before he too falls. It has been nicely compared to a modern version of Andrew Carnegie's philosophy of self-help, improvement, and modernizing your business organization. But THE PUBLIC ENEMY was a type of modern version of the William Hogarth series of prints about the Good and Bad apprentices. The prints (I think there were ten) showed two boys who are raised side by side in a poor area of London. But one is hard working and industrious, and the other is lazy and opportunistic, and vicious. The hard working one slowly rises in the world as he prospers, and the bad one slowly becomes a criminal. In the long run the good one becomes the Lord Mayor of London, and the bad one ends up on the gallows for murder.

Tom Powers (Jimmy Cagney) is the "bad apprentice" and his brother Mike (Donald Cook) the "good apprentice" but the story is more twisted than Hogarth's straightforward story suggests. The two brothers are the sons of a strict father (a policeman) and an overly sentimental mother: Beryl Mercer. Mercer is not one of my favorite actresses (all her major roles are incredibly teary women, usually mothers - her acting must have been acceptable in the 1930s, but is hardly worthwhile in the 2000s). However, here her performance actually fits. She favors Tom! She is obviously a weak type - her husband was the dominant figure in the family. Once he left, she could not bring herself to punish Tom - as he deserved to be. Instead she let him run wild. She also barely appreciates Mike's sacrifices (he goes to fight in World War I, and gets gassed, and while Tom's material wealth increases due to crime, Mike is only able to get a job as a streetcar conductor). At the conclusion of the film, one wonders what the death of Tom is going to do to her. Probably it will kill her.

Tom and his friend Matt Doyle (Edward Woods) graduate from petty thefts for the gang run by "Putty Nose" (Murray Kinnell). He leaves them in a lurch, and yet they continue their criminal rise as pals. We see them bullying a speakeasy owner in using their brand of beer (Tom really enjoying enjoying it, by the way). Later we see their use as killers for gangsters. Eventually they even the score with "Putty Nose", who pleads for his life when they catch with him. By that time they are working for Nails Nathan, getting nicer apartments, better clothing, and money to buy gifts for Mom (and to show up brother Mike). Tom and Matt move from common whores to molls (Tom's is Mae Clarke - who gets the grapefruit treatment in the film's best recalled sequence). Then Tom meets a classier dame: the slumming socialite Gwen Allen (Jean Harlow).

The scenes between Cagney and Harlow are too few to really judge any screen chemistry by. Harlow's character is a measuring stick, showing the highpoint of Tom's rise in the world through crime. Sadly, after this film, they never were re-teamed again. Her future partners were Gable, Beery, Tone, and others on the MGM lot, not the Warner's lot.

The death of Nathan leads to the slow disintegration of the gang, beginning with the death of Matt in a street assassination that Tom escapes. But at the end of the line for Tom is in avenging his friend: he obviously has killed or seriously wounded many in the shootout, but he gets badly wounded himself. And in the end he does get kidnapped from the hospital, and is dumped, dead, on his doorstep. Mike discovers his corpse. I don't envy him - he'll have to tell what happened to his mother who is busy preparing Tommy's room up stairs.


This movie offers the quintessential Cagney, by the lamp post in the rain, a tense close up that signals the arrival of a star. It was only his third film, but what an impact he had. The movie would be great even if it came out today.

Of course, James Cagney would have plenty of time to polish up his gangster image, his turn as Rocky Sullivan in "Angels With Dirty Faces" is one of my all time favorite characterizations. "The Public Enemy" allows both Cagney and Warner Brothers to sharpen up their story telling skills, but even for 1931, this is a powerful tale. Unlike 'Angels', boyhood friends Tom Powers and Matt Doyle both take up a life of crime as an answer to the easy way up and out of poverty. Told in crisply dated vignettes, the film progresses through the Depression and World War I as it offers Tom (Cagney) and brother Mike (Donald Cook) taking separate paths under the watchful eye of Ma Powers (Beryl Mercer).

The movie has more than it's share of defining scenes, most viewers will identify with the Mae Clarke grapefruit smackeroo, but there are a lot more. The black cat crossing Putty Nose's (Murray Kinnell) path as the boys renew their acquaintance is just the best harbinger of bad luck, culminating in the off screen gunshot that screams revenge. It was Putty who taught the gangster trainees about honor and loyalty, but in reverse. Also, how about the quick exchange of a thousand dollars to bring a race horse to justice for accidentally killing mob benefactor Nails Nathan (Leslie Fenton). The coal chute cover for the rapid staccato of machine gun bullets was another inspired piece of work, culminating in the very real artistry of a skilled shooter taking it out on a cement wall.

Following Tom's confrontation with the Schemer Burns gang, again off camera for the viewer to fill in the blanks, director William Wellman wryly uses Ma Powers to signal his final return home. With strange premonition, she utters - "You're comin' home, aintcha Tommy, to stay?" His arrival is one of the all time shocker finales of film history, a perfect dichotomy between the visual and the sound accompaniment to the strains of "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles". What an ending!

Warner Brothers begins and ends this tale with a warning and an exhortation, signaling the public enemy as not a single man or character but a problem that the public must solve. Seventy five years later they could still be putting the same captions into their films, as each generation finds a way to deal with it's own brand of criminal enterprise. But here in the early days of sound cinema, James Cagney set a high mark that was ever rarely challenged for gangster supremacy on screen.


The age old debate of "heredity vs. environment" as being the prime mover of Human Character has long been seen as fodder for film. Long before Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd and co. hit the screen in TRADING PLACES (Cinema Group Ventures/Paramount, 1983), the 3 Stooges had already used the premise in at least 3 films. Mr. George Bernard Shaw's famous play of the same social debate was filmed at least twice; the first being as its own, original title of PYGMALIAN (Gabriel Pascal Prod./MGM, 1938). It featured Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller. The next time around, it was adapted from the Broadway Musical adaption of the original play. As MY FAIR LADY (Warner Brothers-First National Pictures, 1964), with Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison and whole boat load of neato Showtunes! The Prohibition Ea of the 1920's and Early 1930's proved to be a fertile field for social themes like the Heredity vs. Environment debate. Even those films other than those previously mentioned 2 Reelers starring Messers Howard, Fine & Howard; we saw some really outstanding film. We were delighted with the Hollywood adaptation of Sydney Kingsley's story of New York City slum life. DEAD END (Samuel Goldwyn/United Artists, 1937), took a day in the poverty and crime stricken tenements, and gave a demonstration of the evolution of a hardened criminal, from cradle to grave.

The second 1930's example is our today's "selection for dissection"; THE PUBLIC ENEMY (Warner Brothers & The Vitaphone Corporation, 1931) gave us a dramatization of the affects of "the Noble Experiment", National Prohibition on the working class.

Often hailed as being the movie that put James Cagney on the Map, THE PUBLIC ENEMY was one of those stories which took many bits and pieces from real life; which, of course, made for a realistic scenario with believable characters. The setting was a poor, predominantly Irish neighborhood, which bordered on the front side of Chicago's Union Stockyards. Having roots there myself, it's safe to say that this would be the old section known as "Canaryville" in Chicago.* OUR STORY.WE open with a vast, sweeping montage of people of the neighborhood, working, working, working. Adults and kids alike would go down to the local tavern, returning with Pails (Tavern Pails) filled with beer for the men who worked basically in the nearby "Yards". (But the Police Department, Fire Department and the Chicago Junction Railroad were top choices, also). We are drawn in to the lives of 2 young men, Tom Powers (Mr. Cagney) and Matt Doyle ( Edward Woods).

As young boys (being portrayed by Tom=Frank Coughlan, Jr. & Matt=Frankie Darrow), the two got into plenty of boyish trouble, but they evolved into young street punk gangsters. Joining up with a disreputable youth social club, with a set-up right out of Dickens.

After the local "Fagin", known as "Putty Nose" double crosses them, leaving them out in the street following a burglary gone bad (Putty had set them up with the burglary job, and then when a Beat Cop got killed in the process by the young hoods, old Putty locked his door on them). The two later killed him in his own pad, yet.

The two next hook up with Gangster Paddy Ryan (Robert Emmett O'Connor) who gets them into the muscle end of pushing bootleg beer. This leads to more and more ca$h in their pockets and to some real "nice" girls. Joan Blondell, Mae Clarke and Jean Harlowe all get into the act along the way. (It was Mae Clarke who got the now famous "grapefruit in the face.") During this time they also got acquainted with some big time organized crime bosses, including Westside Outfit guy, "Nails" Nathan. This led to the famous scene in which Tom Powers first purchased, and then shot the horse that had fatally thrown Nathan while riding the Bridle Path in Lincoln Park.

In the end, they get caught up in Gangland Turf warfare. The film ends with a highly poignant, memorable and hauntingly piercing scene. It involves Tom's mother, a home made layer cake, a recording of Steven Foster's "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" and Tom's homecoming.

As for our original reference to the old "Heredity vs. Environment" argument, we believe we have a prime example here. The boys, after all, have families. In these families all others seem to be law-abiding, hard working citizens. Tom's brother, Mike Powers (Donald Cook) is the most visible and obvious counterbalance to the hoodlumism of his brother, Mike was a veteran of World War I and has worked his way through night school, while working on the street cars; Case Closed.

On February 14th, a Trial was held in the Cook County Circuit Court, in and for the City of Chicago. In a moment we will have the results of that Trial.

In the Case of "Heredity vs. Environment", it is Environment that is found to be the culprit! Is anyone really surprised? NOTE: * As I said, Canaryville is one subject that I know first hand. Our Dad, Clement J. Ryan (1914-74) was born and raised there during the very period that our story deals with. In 1934, he met a German girl from the Fuller Park neighborhood, immediately east of Canaryville. In 1940, he and the lovely Frauline, Miss Bertha Fuerst, married. Our family lived in Fuller Park at 4402 S. Shields Ave. for about a dozen years before the folks bought a house at 65th & Damen in the West Englewood Neighborhood in 1952.

We still have cousins in the old neighborhood to this very day.


"The Public Enemy" is not a great film, but it features an absolutely incredible performance, by James Cagney. This was Mr. Cagney's first "starring" role; and he is great throughout. From the time he walks in front of the camera, moving his cap forward, until his final thundering scenes, Cagney is astonishing. The rest of the film is a mixed bag.

For starters, filmmakers showed Cagney (Tom Powers) and co-star Edward Woods (Matt Doyle) as boys Frank Coghlan Jr. (young Tom Powers) and Frankie Darro (young Matt Doyle). Although Mr. Woods is directed to wipe his hand with his sleeve when he first appears, it looks like the boys' roles are mixed up with the adult men -- Mr. Coghlan Jr. (a fine performance, by the way) resembles Woods more than Cagney; and, Mr. Darro more closely resembles Cagney. The appearance of the boys' sister and brother ("sissy" Mike) is also confusing.

Of all the strange supporting performances, Jean Harlow (as Gwen) takes the cake (but not the grapefruit). Though second billed, she enters the story late, and leaves abruptly. Ms. Harlow was, like Cagney, on her way to major stardom; but, unlike Cagney, she shows relatively little of her later charms. In fact, Joan Blondell is much more memorable (as Mamie, Matt's girl). And, famously, Mae Clarke receives the halved grapefruit, in the face, from Cagney; it's still a great scene, but "The Public Enemy" has much better scenes -- Cagney's visit to the tailor, his walk in the rain, and the film's ending are all superior to the "grapefruit scene".

Watch out for Cagney.


Even if the movie has many problems it manages to deliver a coherent and quite interesting plot in one "and a haalf" hours of witty, sometimes funny lines. The problems are common for most of the period of the early talkies when actors didn't really know that the exaggerated expression of the silent era was no longer needed. The acting style in most of the movie can become really annoying, but the memorable one liners (most of them made famous by a long tradition of gangster films and by cartoon parody) keep the whole think from sinking too low. The character that brings the most sparkle is definitely Cagney, though it took me some time to accommodate myself to him. At first it all seemed quite fake (his accent, behavior etc.) but eventually I got hooked on his charismatic character. His moralizing brother was really annoying, over the top acting, and Ma Powers wasn't much help. The women were quite bad. Jean Harlow had a very small part, actually, and she looked very unattractive too. I have no idea if she's supposed to be some celebrity of the time, but coupled with Cagney she was really awful. Most of the gangster characters, even if they remind a contemporary viewer of comic books worked quite O.K and it is a surprise to see that today's movies didn't manage to stray too much from the original recipe. Give me this movie instead of The Departed nay day, I admire its effectiveness in making its point without the use of gore, warlike violence and foul language, even if the message is somewhat preachy.


Warning. Minor Spoilers Ahead.

This film is an excellent '30s gangster flick, and far superior to another gangster movie that would be considered a classic, like GoodFellas. This movie explores not only Cagney's criminal life, but his complex relationship with his real family, especially his straight-laced brother. His brothers seems rather funny today, as the actor playing him went WAY over the top to make him seem stuffy and angelic. He speaks in harsh tones and with an accent so different from his brother that it would seem comical today if an actor tried that role. The film has a tragic ending, as was shown on premium cable's "The Sopranos" (or so I was told. i've never seen that show). Cagney, compared to the guy who played his brother, is divine as an actor, and plays the gangster role credibly; he's a tough guy and a creep, but nowhere near the gonzo slimeballs that Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta played in Goodfellas. Cagney has a heart, for he respects his family and wants sincerely to help them, but he his devotion to a life of crime also makes him a consummate anti-hero. He is cruel to his moll, played deliciously by Jean Harlow (remember that scene with the grapefruit), and to his partners in crime. This is a great movie, and anyone who liked "The Godfather" will love this one.


The Public Enemy is the movie that made the great Jimmy Cagney a star. A great movie too.

In 1909, two boys, Tom Powers and Matt Doyle who are best mates are causing mischief and get up to all sorts of illegal things, including pinching and selling the items onto other parties. As the years progress, so do their crimes and they end up becoming gangsters during the Prohibition Years. This leads to murder. Powers then ends up in hospital but is kidnapped. There is then a knock at the door of the family home...

The Public Enemy includes one of the most famous scenes in cinema history when Cagney shoves a grape-fruit into his lover's face. A classic scene that one.

Joining Cagney in the cast are blonde bombshell Jean Harlow, Edward Woods and Joan Blondell as Powers's mum.

This is a must see for all movie fans. Fantastic.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.


James Cagney's blazing performance as gangster Tom Powers in THE PUBLIC ENEMY did not just 'flip the script' of screen acting in 1931. Cagney, in his breakout role, completely mauls the early talkies stand-and-deliver acting style. Spraying lead bullets from his mouth at every turn, Cagney blasts away the careful diction and rounded vowels that his colleagues were painstakingly trying to perfect and delivers his dialog any which way he feels. The energy in Cagney's performance is superlative-his performance would soon become the prototype for all gangster characterizations thereafter.

Director William A. Wellman constructs the plot of THE PUBLIC ENEMY around the real-life bootlegging phenomenon that occurred after Prohibition was enforced. THE PUBLIC ENEMY takes it's place alongside LITTLE CAESAR and SCARFACE in a cycle of early 30's gangster-themed films that aimed to entertain and shock the filmgoing public with their social realism, whilst also sending a strong message that crime doesn't pay. Wellman's film serves as an accurate depiction of the era, effectively conveying the highs and lows of the gangster lifestyle.

The film follows Powers' rise to the top of the crime ranks and eventual, yet inevitable, fall. Wellman opens the film with scenes from Powers' childhood in an attempt to discover how a promising young lad can grow up to be a vicious thug. The film is weakest in these early scenes, with slow pacing, average writing and rather poor acting from the children marring the production. However, once Cagney appears on screen in THE PUBLIC ENEMY the film really takes off. The audience is hooked on Cagney, watching him lie, cheat, steal and manhandle both men and women with relish.

Jean Harlow shares top billing with Cagney, yet her role is rather small and does not really justify her name being above the title. Harlow, soon to become a part of film legend in films such as RED DUST and BOMBSHELL, shows a sniff of her star presence in a couple of scenes, yet is noticeably flat and oddly lethargic in her role as a gangster's moll. The script does not help, as Harlow has to deliver some truly terrible lines in her "love scenes" (!) with Cagney. Apart from struggling with an underwritten role, Harlow also seems to be far from the Platinum Blonde beauty that would define her screen "look". In some scenes she looks quite mannish, and on the whole is thoroughly unattractive as the female lead.

The grapefruit scene with Cagney and the lovely, forgotten Mae Clarke is a much talked-about classic example of film misogyny. Cagney's mashing of a halve of the popular breakfast fruit into a wheedling, needy Clarke's face would both stun and titillate Depression-era audiences. The scene, amazingly played out to the sexy love-making sounds of Joan Blondell and her gangster boyfriend in the adjacent room, would help bring forward the enforcement of the Hayes Code in 1934 to restore morality in films. There is also, remarkably, a suggestion of Cagney being raped (!) by a hungry older woman. Yes, Pre-Code "rough'n'raunchy was never better than in THE PUBLIC ENEMY!

Also fascinating is the relationship between Cagney and his annoying, moralistic preachy brother. Is Wellman actually imploring us to root for Cagney after all in his juxtaposition of the brothers? Cagney's scenes with his Ma smack of the 'mother-fixation' later explored in his 1949 film WHITE HEAT.

See THE PUBLIC ENEMY for a blazing Cagney performance! 9/10.


This is the film that made Jimmy Cagney a star and, along with LITTLE CAESAR and SCARFACE (with Paul Muni, not the modern ultra-violent version), made the gangster genre king at Warner Brothers in the 1930s. And, while there were so many more similar films after it, very, very few came close to it in style, impact and story. In fact, it's Cagney's best gangster film other than WHITE HEAT (his tour-de-force and Film Noir classic from 1949).

A lot of the reason it's such a great film is that since it was a new-style film, it doesn't seem clichéd or derivative. Plus, it takes a strong and unflinching tone that NEVER would have been possible under the stricter guidelines of the Hays Office only a few short years later. Instead of just telling you that Cagney is a heartless jerk or showing him do some "sanitized" violence, he is a cruel man who is vile enough to slam a half a grapefruit in his girlfriend's face--just because he's bored with their relationship. And, he becomes a top gangster by being an enforcer--slugging, stealing and killing his way through organized crime. And, in the very end, the film ends with the best final scene in gangster history (except, once again for WHITE HEAT and its amazing finale).

You can see why this film made Cagney a star--a great film in every way.


Stylish, starmaking, still effective crime meller by the under- appreciated Bill Wellman, in which James Cagney gives a riveting, stunningly brilliant, rightly careermaking perf; one which sealed his fame, secured his rep, and in some ways haunted him for much of his early career. Splendid setpieces hilite this chronicle of a gangster's rise and fall; perhaps best known is the ol' Grapefruit to the Face trick Jim pulls on Mae Clarke, but my favorite is when they deliver the body to Mama, on a slab. Whomp! You gotta love it. This is a great film twice over. First, on its own merit; second, on its lasting appeal and impact. Not many 70 year old movies hold up so well as this one.


Classic gangster film showing how a young man (James Cagney) becomes a gangster and killer. This film made Cagney and deservedly so. It moves quickly (it's 82 minutes long), is never dull, has good acting and contains many classic sequences: Cagney smacking Mae Clarke in the face with a grapefruit; a massacre that you hear but don't see; Cagney stumbling through a rainstorm. The film also opens and ends with a silly statement condemning gangsters--it was probably put in to pacify censors--this film was considered extremely violent for 1931. Also the ending is horrifying, even by today's standards. A must see. Also a nice showcase for a very young Jean Harlow.


I gave this 8 stars out of a possible 10.

I found it highly interesting to finally get to see this famous black and white film made in 1931, starring James Cagney.

Jean Harlow also puts in a too brief appearance, and is mostly window dressing. She wears some gorgeous gowns and other outfits, and looked quite radiant on screen.

While the film is dated, as to be expected: with language, the way the actors/actresses deliver their lines, the child-like behavior of the main character's mother, and with other women portrayed as either good girls or tarts--merely there to help and serve their men--the film is nevertheless entertaining and definitely held my interest throughout.

The film begins with the main character, Tommy Powers (played by Cagney) and his pal, Matt Doyle (played by Edward Woods)as young boys, possibly twelve or so, already getting into trouble on the city streets and making the acquaintance of shady characters.

The story progresses to the era of prohibition and bootlegging with Tom and Matt becoming gangsters and showing what kind of lives they lead, and where their actions eventually take them.


Man, how can anyone not love James Cagney? He had more screen presence than just about anyone who has ever appeared in any film in movie history.

This is James Cagney's fifth film, The Public Enemy, as it still shocks today with its incredible violence and story of two best buddies who get into crime together. They mix in with some of the shadiest characters ever seen on screen, like Putty Nose and Paddy, both of who keep coming out with great line after great line, total 1930's style.

Of course this has the grapefruit scene, but there are many great scenes, like when Cagney tells a bartender "eh, you're yella" and gives him a slap. If one hasn't seen The Public Enemy, one really must!


Take him or leave him, one can't deny the tremendous screen presence of James Cagney. "The Public Enemy," which launched Cagney into the Hollywood big time, doesn't so much tell one cohesive story as much as it offers a series of vignettes linked by Cagney's sheer star power.

Cagney is Tom Powers, childhood hoodlum who grows up to become an adult hoodlum and meets his end as part of a bloody gang war in 1920 Chicago. The film is positioned as part morality tale, part public service message. A title card at the film's opening announces that the filmmakers in no way mean to glamorize the gangster life, while one placed at the end announces a call to action on the part of the American public to bring an end to the seedy underworld portrayed in the movie. And to the film's credit, despite stylish direction by William Wellman and an intensely charismatic performance from Cagney, it sticks to its promise. The film has an invigorating energy, but it never once glamorizes Cagney or his lifestyle.

There are a number of truly memorable moments in this film. Of course the famous grapefruit scene has gone down in film annals as one of them, but I was most struck by the film's shocking finale, in which the body of Cagney is dropped off at the front door of his home while his mother happily changes the sheets of his bed upstairs, thinking that "coming home" means that her son is coming home alive. Another dazzling segment is the one in which Cagney seeks revenge on the gang that killed his best friend. We see him staking out the pool hall where they have gathered, with a truly frightening and psychotic expression on his face. Then he walks through the rain directly toward the camera until his face fills the frame. After he enters the pool hall, we hear shots and a man screaming while the camera stays focused on the exterior of the building. Cagney then emerges, wounded and staggering through the rain. The whole segment feels much more violent than it actually is, because of the effective use of camera and sound (which was in its infancy, but which Wellman uses superbly).

Most of the other actors come off poorly next to Cagney, because his style of acting was so different from the conventions of the time. Donald Cook, playing Cagney's war-hero brother, overacts to the hilt, with one foot firmly planted in silent films. A couple of females are thrown in as eye candy, but absolutely no attempt is made to develop their characters. Joan Blondell is cute and sexy, but Jean Harlow is dreadful. How this ugly, clunking, horrible actress ever achieved stardom is beyond me.

And as frequently happens with pre-Code cinema, I was taken aback by material that you never think of appearing in films from this time period. It makes overt fun of gays and Jews, frankly addresses sex, and, most strikingly, makes a parallel between gangsters and soldiers, claiming that both murder but for different reasons. Ten years later a comment like that would NEVER appear in a Hollywood film, and movies wouldn't be comfortable criticizing war again until the 1970s.

"The Public Enemy" is rough around the edges. You can still feel the various artists involved trying to feel their way around the new era of motion pictures, and as a result, parts of the film are uneven. But it's a striking and remarkable movie that, despite limitations placed on it by the time period and the technology available, packs a gangster-sized punch.

Grade: A


In 1909, Tom Powers and Matt Doyle are best friends and juvenile criminals. Tom's brother Mike is a correct teenager. Along the years, Tom (James Cagney) and Matt (Edward Woods) get older and ranked in criminal scale of their gang leaded by Nails Nathan (Leslie Fenton). When Nails dies in an accident, his gang becomes weaker and is attacked by other criminal groups.

"The Public Enemy" is a great gangster movie, picturing the life and death of a typical gangster of the 30's in a contemporary moment. The texts in the introduction and conclusion of the movie may seem dated today, but show the concern of the director and screenplay writers with the difficult moment that USA was living in 1931. Further, it belongs to the beginning of the sound age, and William Wellman uses this resource magnificently, like for example, when the truck is discharging coal to disguise the shooting. James Cagney is perfect in his trademark role, and this movie is still good in 2006. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Inimigo Público No. 1" ("Public Enemy Number 1")


The Public Enemy is a 1931 American crime film starring James Cagney and directed by William A. Wellman. The movie relates the story of a young man's rise in the criminal underworld in prohibition-era urban America. The supporting players include a young 20 yr. old Jean Harlow, Edward Woods, Joan Blondell, Beryl Mercer, Donald Cook, and Mae Clarke. The film, which was based on the novel Beer and Blood by John Bright, launched Cagney to stardom. A theater in Times Square ran The Public Enemy 24 hours a day during its initial release. It was the first worldwide box office hit for Cagney (age 31) and forever cast him in the public eye as a "tough guy," an image he was unable to shed despite numerous roles chosen especially to counter that image, including his Oscar-winning role in Yankee Doodle Dandy. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. In 1998, The Public Enemy was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". I was impressed by this movie's frankness regarding the life of a gangster during the prohibition era.


Ruthless streetwise tough guy Tom Powers (a terrific and electrifying performance by James Cagney in his star-making breakthrough role) and his loyal partner Matt Doyle (well played by Edward Woods) rise to the top of the criminal heap selling bootleg alcohol for the smooth, hard-nosed Paddy Ryan (a fine portrayal by Robert Emmett O'Connor) during the Prohibition era. Ably directed with real style and fierce economy by William A. Wellman, with a gritty script by Harvey Thew, crisp black and white cinematography by Devereaux Jennings, a vivid and flavorsome evocation of the period, startling outbursts of raw violence (watch out for the infamous grapefruit scene!), a tight 84 minute running time, and an uncompromisingly dark and depressing ending, this extremely hard-edged film still packs one hell of a potent punch even today. Of course, the movie's success is largely because of Cagney's vibrant and mesmerizing acting: Cagney brings a certain irresistibly devilish charm to the role of Tom Powers which in turn makes the little nasty sociopath more of a strangely appealing anti-hero than a totally hateful full-blown villain. Whether he's shooting a racehorse or collapsing on a rain-soaked street after rubbing out a bunch of rival mobsters ("I ain't so tough"), Cagney is nothing short of amazing in the lead. Wellman's assured direction is equally impressive; note how almost all of the violence occurs off-screen, which actually enhances instead of lessons the shocking impact of said violence. Moreover, there are sturdy supporting contributions by Jean Harlow as sassy dame Gwen Allen, Donald Cook as Tom's disapproving straight-arrow brother Mike, Joan Blondell as Matt's sweet girlfriend Mamie, Mae Clarke as nagging moll Kitty, Beryl Mercer as Tom's loving mother, Leslie Fenton as cocky, flashy gangster "Nails" Nathan, and Murray Kinnell as Tom's untrustworthy mentor Putty Nose. Essential viewing.


This is a classic gangster film which is surprisingly hard hitting for its age, it amazing to think that this film is nearly eighty years old and that prohibition was still in force when it was made.

James Cagney did a great job portraying Tom Powers as he rises from being a petty criminal to being a mid-level mobster. Even though the character has few if any redeeming features Cagney manages to make us care about what is happening to him. Along with childhood friend he takes a job for local gangster "Putty Nose" things go wrong on their first job however when the police turn up and kill another of the gang. One cop chases after Tom and Matt down an alley and they kill him demonstrating how far they have come from their early days.

As their first boss has fled they start working for Paddy Ryan who has seen the money making opportunities that the prohibition of alcohol have brought. Soon the boys are forcing the speakeasies to sell their beer and only their beer. Initially things go well for them, they have plenty of money, beautiful girl friends and smart clothes but when the mob's hard man Nails Nathan is killed in a freak riding accident a rival gang see it as an opportunity to take over. They are instructed to lay low for a while but Tom can't do that leading to tragic consequences.

The violence is never graphic although it can still be fairly hard hitting such as when Tommy goes into the stable of the horse which had killed Nails and two shots ring out and the films most famous scene where he pushes half a grapefruit into his girl friend's face. The acting is all pretty good, especially from Cagney in the role that would make him a star.

This film deserves its classic status and should be seen by anybody who likes classic film in general or gangster films in general.


The film that made James Cagney a star and even after all these years, it's easy to see why. JC commands the screen as Tom Powers, a troubled youth who along with partner Matt Doyle rises to near the top of the underworld during the prohibition era. Tom and his brother Mike are deeply loved by their Mother though the two are as different as night and day. Mike stays home to help take care of Ma and eventually enlists in the armed services as WWI is declared. Tom and Matt are the muscle for both Paddy Ryan and Nails Nathan and Tom, clearly with no feeling for others, has no qualms about committing murder which, in a fit of blind vengeance, will lead to his downfall.

This is a wonderful film to watch. The performances from most of the cast are terrific with special kudos to Cagney, Edward Woods and Leslie Fenton. For me, what prevents this from being a four star movie is the dated overacting of others including Donald Cook as Mike and Beryl Mercer as Ma. Still, it doesn't completely detract from the power of the film and the many memorable scenes including the infamous "grapefruit in the face" moment, Tom's brutal, cold slaying of Putty Nose and the famous ending which still packs a surreal wallop to this day. As good as Cagney is in the movie, the direction by William A. Wellman may be even better. Wellman employs a prowling camera and keeps his performers in constant motion which was a bit different then most of the static direction of the era. His camera doesn't show the violence making it's power of suggestion all the more powerful. Again, I go back to the finale and as Cagney comes crashing to the ground, his shocked and stunned brother lifts himself up and in a zombie like state begins the walk to tell his mother about Tom. It's very powerful and memorable. A very vivid, unforgettable film that falls just short of being a four star movie due to some of the performances but it's something that should not be missed by film fans anywhere.


The opening scenes set the tone of the film Ladd, an itinerant gunman known simply as Choya and with the aid of a tattooed birthmark, passes himself off as the lost son and is accepted wholeheartedly by the parents (Bickford and Royle) and Ruth (Freeman), the man's sister

Ruth had responded to his arrival on the ranch as any pretty woman would respond to a mysterious, handsome stranger, but she rapidly sets right to the fact that he is a relative

As soon as he is welcomed as Richard Jr, however, something happens to Choya As a member of a loving family, Choya experiences feelings denied him by his own childhood and became increasingly sickened by his contribution in the tricking

Leading a cattle drive to El Paso, Choya decides to give up his charade revealing his true identity to Ruth, who turns on him with consternation and antagonism There remains only one way to redeem himself and make up for the distressing emotion he has caused the Lavery family: To find their real son

All the elements in "Branded" are taken directly from the straight-shooting school of Western movies Choya, despite his confession to Ruth that he is a "four-flushin' thief," is true-blue outlaw hero The smart Leffingwell has him classified correctly: "You won't hit an older man. You ain't the kind that'll draw first, or shoot a man in the back." Even with the rules thus outlined, Ladd still has a chance to present his standard beguiling bad guy early in the film, merely holding back a victorious smile as he pretends confusion over the elder Lavery's excited reaction to his birthmark

Besides its other values, "Branded" is a visual delight In fact, the movie's one drawback as a Western entertainment is a lack of big action highlights


One of Alan Ladd's lesser-known westerns is this adventure of a scheming outlaw with a conscience who sets out to solve the mystery of a lost son and return him to his parents. Of course, the mission is fraught with danger, from a partner and assorted crooks. After getting to know the missing lad's family, Choya's change of heart takes across the Rio Grande where the boy is being raised by a tough, mean outlaw who aims to keep the boy, using gun play if necessary to get his point across. The picture is helped by great scenery and several scenes show a realistic slice of ranch life and cattle drives. Ladd gets a great boost from Robert Keith, Charles Bickford and Joseph Calleia, and Mona Freeman, always tough and spirited, is pretty as she takes a fancy to the dashing outlaw who would be her brother.


A fine western that was better than I expected It to be.Alan Ladd, although sometimes wooden puts In a good performance here. The cinematography and the colour process of this movie are outstanding. This western has a few good plot twists to make It stand out.The location scenery Is stunning too. Alan Ladd has something of a mystery persona here not unlike his role In Shane. The colours In this movie are very vivid and lifelike not at all garish as I thought they might be. This western has good support acting too, Charles Bickford plays his part with ruthless relish ala Big country. Robert Keith Is a shady slime ball who's demise In the film Is very fitting. This Is an out and out satisfying western and one I can thoroughly recommend.


Con artist passes himself off as a rancher's long lost son. He and his partner stand to make a cool million if the plan works. Meanwhile, the real son is making his way home through harsh country with the threat of death nearby all the way. Exciting western filmed in beautiful mountain country.


Too seldom do I find a Western that I really like. That's because almost every film in the genre seems to consist of only about 5 or 10 plots (or less). All too often, the films are about greedy guys trying to chase good people off their land, a gunman who just needs killing, or something similar. That's why when I see something different I am excited--and this film, fortunately, has a lot to offer that is different and worth seeing.

The film begins with a dirt-bag (Robert Keith) recruiting gunman Alan Ladd for a big score. However, it's not the typical bank or train robbery or mercenary killing you'd expect. Instead, Keith knows about a rich but sad family that has been pining for their lost son for decades--a lost son who is about the same age and look as Ladd. THe kid was kidnapped and then assumed murdered when he was quite young. Ladd will pretend to be the boy and the only thing missing is a birthmark--and that is soon added by giving Ladd a tattoo that looks identical. All Ladd now has to do is go to this huge ranch and "claim his natural birthright".

Well, things work out very well. Ladd "accidentally" lets this rich rancher see the birthmark and he is welcomed back as their long-lost boy. The problem is that although Ladd is a hothead with a checkered past, he's too decent to keep up the ruse--though Keith is now angry enough to eat hornets because he was counting on this big payoff. Despite threats from Keith, Ladd leaves the ranch and goes in search of who might actually be the boy all grown up and unaware of his past. It's dangerous, though, as Keith AND the bandit who raised the boy aren't about to let Ladd take this guy back to his real parents. Will Ladd and the young man make it out alive or will they be pushing up the daisies? See for yourself and find out what happens next.

The film was the first directorial effort of cinematographer Rudolph Maté and it shows. No, I don't mean the direction was bad but that the film had a really nice look--a nice bigger than life look of the great outdoors. You could tell that Maté really had "the eye" when he made this film.

Apart from an excellent script and direction, the film has pretty good acting as well. Ladd is a little better than usual and he's got excellent support from Keith, Charles Bickford and Joseph Calleia. Everything together made for a very good film.

By the way, the excellent character actor Robert Keith has a particularly gritty supporting role---real gritty. I have always enjoyed him in films and he plays one of the meanest and nastiest characters I've ever seen him play. It's a nice change of pace for a very good but under-appreciated actor and the scene with his partner on horseback near the beginning of the film is priceless.