Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Interesting characters, lots of tension. As close to black and white without being black and white. I was turned off by how casually the supposedly sympathetic mainstream character, a quiet, near deaf secretary, was able to turn to crime to ruin colleagues, rough up people in her way and finally participate in a heist, and set up someone to be bumped off as a decoy to her own get-away. I'm a little put off by the trend for otherwise quality movies to portray criminals in a sympathetic way without addressing the injury they've done to others other than to portray their immediate opponents as jerks. In this film we never know who's money it really is they abscond with, or what happens to the innocent wife who the sympathetic deaf-secretary uses to set up the of the sleazy bar owner to take the fall for the missing loot. Too bad, the film could have been great.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of.

Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.

But that does not diminish its genius.

Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.

This is not some watered-down "Nutty Professor" comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.

One of the best comedies I've ever seen.