San Quentin (1937) **1/2

Release Date: August 7, 1937

Running Time: 70 minutes

Cast: Pat O’Brien, Humphrey Bogart, Ann Sheridan

Director: Lloyd Bacon

Pat O’Brien is ex-Army officer Steve Jameson, a man with a reputation for getting things done. He is hired to be the new Chief Guard at San Quentin after Lt. Druggin (Barton MacLane) holding the position, temporarily, is deemed unfit for it. Druggin is a rigid man long of discipline and short on temper whereas Jameson is looking for opportunities to reform the men rather than dish out harsh penalties. 

Mae Kennedy (Ann Sheridan) is a night club singer who has caught Jameson’s eye. She also happens to have a brother, Red (Humphrey Bogart), who has just been arrested and sent to San Quentin. Red initially has a chip on his shoulder and immediately gets into trouble. However, Jameson goes easy on him, seeing in the man an opportunity to help him rather than make a career criminal out of him. This leads to some clashes between the two men as well as with Druggin who is looking for an opportunity to undermine his new boss. 

The message this movie appears to be conveying from the get-go is that not all criminals are a lost cause. Yet it doesn’t seem to want to stick with that message and churns out one that is far more pessimistic. We are subjected to scenes where a prisoner, full of the word of God and repentance, jumps at the opportunity to steal a rifle and shoot one of his guards, threatening to kill his fellow inmates, too. Even Red, who seems to be getting the message and trying to improve himself later in the film, is easily steered back to violence by some well chosen words from the scheming Druggin and fellow prisoner Hansen (Sawyer), a character who only seems to be there to either harass Red or tempt him.

This would be a stronger film if it picked a moral road and stuck by it. Instead, it veers off in its final act making the message of the film confusing and frustrating. This is doubly frustrating as Red is the only well developed character in the film. Jameson and Mae are utilized merely to keep the plot rolling, often acting offscreen to do so. We get no scenes to convince us of their blooming romance, nor of why it would suddenly set Red off on a suicidal anger trip. 

San Quentin has atmosphere aplenty and has a sense of humor about it’s setting and story. It’s really too bad it were not more focused and well defined. It could have used another fifteen minutes to flesh out the characters and build up the conflict better rather than relying so heavily on generic malevolence. It’s a perfectly adequate watch just don’t expect any deeper meaning to it.

King of the Underworld (1939] **1/2

Release date: January 14, 1939

Running time: 67 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Kay Francis

Director: Lewis Seiler

Joe Gurney (Humphrey Bogart) is the head gangster in this run of the mill crime drama from the late thirties. When one of his men is saved by the combined efforts of married couple Drs. Niles and Carole Nelson (Kay Francis), Joe visits Niles and offers him a large sum of money for the work. Niles, who struggles with a gambling problem, takes the money and is instantly under Joe’s thumb. On top of his gambling debts, Niles has been neglecting his practice and has garnered some contention between himself and his wife and staff. 

Joe calls in Niles, using the payoff as leverage to force Niles to make a house call for another of his teams’s injuries and, while there the police raid the place leading to Niles’s death. The DA is intent on making a show of things and so they charge Carole with association with the gangster leaving her with just three months to clear her name or lose her license. With no other options in front of her she schemes to get close to Joe and his gang in an attempt to take the man down and exonerate herself. Meanwhile, Joe, who has a literal Napoleon complex, has kidnapped a hitchhiking writer, Bill, and is forcing him to ghost write his autobiography. Bill and Carole had recently met and she feels that she must also rescue the man from the clutches of the gang.

And thus plays out the somewhat underwhelming drama that is King of the Underworld. It is watchable, though, thanks to a over-the-top performance by Bogart who seems to be enjoying being here a lot more than any of the other stars. The same goes for his goons who all come across as caricatures. It robs the group of any real menace. Even the outlandish finale is mostly void of tension because of the absurdity of the villains. There is the distinct impression that director Lewis Seiler was trying to make a legitimate gangster film but he has painted his characters so broadly that. It’s hard to take them seriously. It’s too straight to be a parody film and too silly to be a suspense.

While it’s true this film is not very good it is not without its merits. Watching Bogart get insulted without realizing it is a hoot. Carole likes to use big words around him just so she can get away with the insults. The fact that not a single one of Joe’s gang recognizes the insults is equally funny. Or perhaps they did and didn’t dare speak up. Either way it injects the film with some levity and keeps it moving. These scenes are also the only moments where Kay Francis stands out. Outside of her interactions with Joe she is a boring character that exists simply to move the plot from A to B. Her relationship with Bill in the second half of the film is poorly developed and the final scene with them feels tacked on and unearned. 

This could have been a better film had more effort gone into making it. As it is it’s simply just a hastily churned out bit of entertainment that occasionally works but mostly just fizzles out into mediocrity. Hollywood churned out hundreds of such films in the day simply to get something into theaters and make a quick buck. It accomplishes that but could have been so much more. 

The Maltese Falcon (1941) ***1/2

Release date: October 3, 1941

Running time: 101 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Elisha Cook, Jr.

Director: John Huston

Five years before Humphrey Bogart slipped into the role of Raymond Chandler’s quintessential gumshoe Phillip Marlow, he appeared as another famous literary sleuth, that of Sam Spade, a private detective cut from the same cloth almost to the point of being the exact same character, at least on screen. Torn from the pages of Dashiell Hammett’s novel, which took some inspiration from the author’s own experiences as part of the Pinkerton Detectives, the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon can be looked at as the definitive version of this novel brought to life. It had been filmed once before a decade previous and while that version remains more faithful to certain elements of the novel that the Hayes Code prohibited the more recent version from depicting, it is not as effective of a translation as the one from the 40’s.

The story begins with a woman identifying herself as Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor) who hires Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and his partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) to tail a man. She overpays for the service, something that leaves the two detectives suspicious but still willing to take the case. Shortly thereafter both Archer and the man he was tailing are killed and Spade must unravel a mystery involving murder, theft and a mysterious black statue with a strange history, a statue of a Falcon that several colorful characters would do anything to obtain.

Similar to The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon is filled to the brim with twists and turns to the narrative. What makes this film work where The Big Sleep stumbles is that those twists are much more easy to follow and thus avoiding confusion. Raymond Chandler famously got lost himself in his own prose forgetting to even resolve certain scenes in the novel The Big Sleep. There are no such instances in The Maltese Falcon. When The End pops up on screen at the finale here there is no confusion about who did what, how and why. It is all wrapped up neatly. Yet, to it’s strength, it doesn’t fall back on an exposition dump of everything that happened throughout the whole mystery as many Agatha Christie mysteries did. Things unspool throughout the entire film and the audience can begin to understand what’s going on without being able to easily guess the final mysteries ahead of time. This makes for a fresh, exciting experience that is even more rewarding upon multiple viewings.

When people think about all the crime noir films that came out of the era most of the tropes came from this film. In fact, looking back on this film without taking history into context, this film could come across as riddled with cliches. That would be short shifting the film, though. What made those tropes cliches was the myriad of films that came after attempting to cash in on the formula that worked so well here. Everything from the beautiful woman, here played by Mary Astor, who hires a detective for a job that turns out to be more than they bargained for, to the mysterious foreigner (Peter Lorre), to the valuable object behind it all. All of that can be found in many of the films that followed. But what makes The Maltese Falcon stand out among them. It wasn’t the story; after all it had been filmed ten years prior. It was a coming together of some of the most interesting and talented performers as well as a new director who had a clear sense of rhythm and a keep eye for directing his talent.

There is no doubt John Huston was a powerhouse director in his time. The man helmed such amazing films as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo, The Asphalt Jungle, The African Queen, The Man Who Would Be King, and Prizzi’s Honor. He had a long and varied career that spanned five decades and worked with the likes of John Wayne, Jack Nicholson and Albert Finney. He could do dramas, comedies, musicals and just about any film genre. But every great director has to start somewhere so he began with a remake of a decade old movie that failed to get a release because of “lewd” content. One mandate to getting this film remade was it had to hew close to the novel yet skirt the Production Code that kept the original from being seen again. How this was done is a testament to the strength of the new director who also wrote the screenplay.

When writing the screenplay for the 1941 version of the film primarily what was done was taking the original screenplay from the earlier film and excising anything that was deemed inappropriate for the modern 40’s audience. This included dropping several sexually suggestive moments as well as some homosexual subtext regarding Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet), Cairo (Peter Lorre), and Wilmer (Elisha Cook, Jr). Some of the subtext made it through irregardless but it is toned down to the point of going unnoticed when presented to the Hayes Board. It takes the material down a bit but never takes away from the excitement of the drama.

John Huston wasn’t the only newbie on the scene either. Sydney Greenstreet also debuts here as Gutman a.k.a. The Fat Man. Greenstreet was primarily a stage actor at the time having worked in that venue since 1902. This was his cinematic introduction and he proved to have tremendous stage presence. Because of the lateness of his start in films he was only able to act in that medium for eight years before his deteriorating health forced him to retire. Still in that short time he starred in many classic films including Casablanca, Across the Pacific, Conflict, and Passage to Marseille, all with his costar Bogart.

But the real star of the picture is,of course, Humphrey Bogart. Anyone can spout off rapid fire dialogue. It takes a master at the craft to take a character that on page threatens to be one note and imbue it with such charm and charisma. He also manages to add a degree of vulnerability to the character. Consider the scene when he explodes at Gutman, yelling after yet more subterfuge and questioning from the Fat Man. As he exits abruptly, Bogart’s mannerism changes from the faux rage he was displaying mere seconds before to a nervous laughter followed by his hands shaking as the situation he had just extricated himself from starts to settle on him. It is a subtle and brilliant performance. 

Sam is a cold and calculating character yet he manages to string everyone along as he manipulates those around him into slowly revealing the nuances of the case before him. He is cold and calculating, only showing real emotion to his secretary who has to put herself in danger while aiding his investigation. Even the way he interacts with his former partner’s widow, whom he may have been having an affair with, is cold and calculating. Yet we are never really kept at a distance from him. We know he has an honor code and even when it seems to those around him that he can be bought, we as an audience never believe it. This culminates with the final moments of the film when he finally reveals to the police the final mystery, the one that jump started the whole story to begin with, who killed his partner. It is brilliantly staged and acted by all parties and nicely closes out what was already a superb film.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) ****

Release Date: January 6, 1948

Running time: 126 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, Walter Huston

Director: John Huston

When looking at a list of some of the greatest films in cinematic history several of Humphrey Bogart’s movies inevitably top that list. Casablanca, The Caine Mutiny, The African Queen, and of course, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Sierra Madre, more than any of the other films in Bogart’s oeuvre really digs deep into the psyche of of its main character and challenges Bogart to sell us on its central premise. The script also provides us scenes that serve that premise well making sure that if that premise fails to convince us, it would be through the weakness of the performances and not through a lack of material to back it up.

The setting is 1920’s Mexico and Bogart is playing Fred C. Dobbs, a man who is living day to day off the generosity of strangers whom he begs money off of. When he gets any money from them he spends it frivolously on beer and grooming ensuring he will rapidly be in need of more. After being called out for begging off the same man thrice Fred stumbles into an opportunity to make some decent money albeit for some hard work. He takes the job building structures for the booming oil plantations but, when the time comes to get paid, the man that hired him skips out on all of them. Dobbs and a friend he met on the plantation, Curtin, happen upon the man a few days later and assault him, taking just the money they are owed and nothing more, then decide to pool their finances on an opportunity they heard at one of the sleeping camps from Howard, (Walter Huston) an elderly man they overheard boasting about fortunes gained and lost while prospecting gold. Huston agrees to add his own money into the mix and set off with the two for the opportunity to find another fortune and wrestle it from the earth. He does caution them though that gold and riches change a man, a prospect that both Dobbs and Curtin dismiss outright.

The journey out into the wilderness ends up being harder than either man expected and just when they are ready to call it quits a rich vain is discovered and they set into mining their fortunes. The work is hard and difficult and they have to worry about wildlife and bandits alike on top of the dangers of the mining itself. Also, as their fortunes grow, so does Dobbs’s paranoia and distrust of his two partners. 

The central conceit of this film is spelled out by Howard early on and isn’t exactly subtle. This is a carry over from the novel by B. Traven who used his prose to delve deep into the minds of his three characters. A film cannot do this so director and screenwriter John Huston had to spell it out a little more than the book did and rely heavily on the acting of his star to sell the change that occurs with Dobbs as the story plays out. At first it seems abrupt but upon closer viewing we can see that even as Dobbs is losing it he occasionally realizes how he is becoming and feels guilt, even if he isn’t always willing or able to back down. By the time we get into the final act he is beyond all of that, especially during a short stretch where Howard has to exit the group for a while and Dobbs loses the last of his moral compass.

This was one of the first Hollywood films to be made at a exotic location rather than in and around Los Angelos. While some of it was filmed in L.A., large portions were filmed in Tampico, Mexico and the surrounding areas. This gives the film an authentic appearance and feel that would otherwise be absent. It also made the shoot overly expensive causing a strain on the relationship between John Huston and Jack L. Warner who believed this film may end up bankrupting the studio. It took nearly six months to film, mainly because of the location shots, something that Huston has misled Warner about when securing the film. Warner was further upset upon seeing the final film and believing the ending would upset audiences. At first this was true as the film underperformed on its initial release. But critical reviews were strong and word-of-mouth propelled the film to eventually earn back well more than the studios investment. 

The film is successful on more fronts than just financial though. It is a good character study of how greed and riches can corrupt some people. The paranoia that so easily grips Dobbs just as easily misses Curtin, a genuinely nice man who is in the same financial situation as Dobbs yet doesn’t let the wealth or prospect of wealth corrupt his soul. Likewise Howard has gained and lost many fortunes and knows the kind of hold it can have on a man. He has a sense of humor about the whole ordeal and is happy with whatever he can get be it large or small. He is content with his lot in life and that content somehow protects him from the darker side of greed and want.

It would be difficult to top such a powerful and entertaining film such as this. The novel manages it only because it allows us to delve even further into the minds of the characters, something inherent in prose but not in film. Still, without that advantage the film still manages to nail the characters and inner struggles all of them have to deal with in such a way that we never feel like we don’t know what is going on behind their eyes. This is a powerhouse display of acting on all parts and a truly beautiful film to see and experience. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre rightfully deserves its spot amongst the greatest films ever made.

Dark Passage (1947) **1/2

Release Date: September 5, 1947

Running Time: 106 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Agnes Moorehead

Director: Delmer Daves

Vincent Parry (Humphrey Bogart) has some of the strangest flows of luck ever found in cinema. He was framed for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life in prison. As luck would have it, when he breaks out Irene Jansen, (Lauren Bacall) a woman whose father also was sentenced to prison falsely, overhears about the escape and, deducing where he will be, shows up in time to smuggle him past a police barricade. She happens to be friends with Madge (Agnes Moorehead), a woman whose testimony sent Vincent to prison, and when Madge shows up at Irene’s apartment while she is out, Vincent is convinced he cannot stay there. 

 Vincent leaves in the night but is recognized by the cab driver giving him a lift. Fortunately, the cab driver doesn’t think he’s guilty either and, even more fortunately, he knows a skilled plastic surgeon who also believes Vincent is innocent and is willing to give him a new face to help him avoid the police who know he hasn’t left the area. The surgery is successful but will require a week of recuperating but when Vincent returns to a friends home to recoup that friend has been killed and the police believe Vincent did this murder, too. Vincent has no choice but return to Irene who believes he is innocent of this new murder, too, and hides him again. Once he has recovered from the plastic surgery, in record time no less, he can freely investigate the crime he was sentenced for without much worry of being recognized. 

The best thing about Dark Passage is the performances by it’s two leads. Bogart and Bacall are in top form in a film that is several levels below their talent. There is a heat between them that is palpable even if you don’t know they were a couple behind the scenes. This isn’t as strong as it was in To Have and Have Not but it is undeniable. Even Agnes Moorehead is strong in the unlikeable portrayal of Madge, a woman who testified against Vincent at the trial and now is scared he may be coming for revenge. The film however is not deserving of all this talent though and struggles to keep afloat.

Almost from frame one the film tells you it’s going to be a challenge getting into it. Director Delmer Daves had two ways he could tell this story and he took the road less traveled. Yet it is less traveled for a reason. He knew when Vincent undergoes the plastic surgery mid-way through the film he wanted Humphrey Bogart’s face to be the altered version. So, instead of hiring a separate actor or putting Bogart through makeup to alter his appearance early on we get a jarring and disorienting filming style where we see most of the first third of the film in the first person perspective. When we do step away from that perspective Bogart is filmed in shadow or from behind in an obvious attempt to hide his face. His dialogue is dragged through a filter to mimic how he would sound to himself but it makes it echoey like bad voice-over. Early on in the film there is a confrontation between Vincent and a man who picks him up hitch hiking along the side of the road. When it is revealed that Vincent is an escaped con a fight breaks out and viewing the fight through the eyes of Vincent is limiting and poorly staged. 

But what’s worse than the gimmicky first person is the sheer happenstance Vincent keeps bumping into. He just happens to be found easily by Irene who just happened to be listening to the radio and heard about his escape. She just happened to know where he would be heading when the police did not. She happened to have a father who also was sent to prison under similar circumstances. She happened to be friends with the one who sent Vincent to jail. Vincent happened upon a cab driver who not only sympathized with him but knew someone who was perfect to help Vincent avoid the police. The list goes on and on. All of this happenstance strains the credibility of the viewer to the point that the greatest thespians couldn’t land it. By the time we get to the end things have happened that, had we not been shown it on screen, we would never believe Vincent to be innocent of any of it. Yet somehow Irene never wavers in her trust in this man. If the actors weren’t playing things so seriously it could almost pass as farcical.

The mystery is intriguing and the twists are not too obvious, yet this film is difficult to invest in. There are just too many conveniences to make it a believable story. That, coupled with the jarringly way the first third is filmed (Not to mention a full recovery from plastic surgery in just seven days), makes this film just so unbelievable that it’s hard to take it seriously. It really is a shame too as Bogart and Bacall are in fine form in a film that lets them down at nearly every turn. 

China Clipper (1936) **1/2

Release Date: August 22, 1936

Running time: 85 minutes

Cast: Pat O’Brien, Ross Alexander, Beverly Roberts, Humphrey Bogart

Director: Ray Enright

Watching China Clipper may seem at times like homework for anyone who doesn’t have a active interest in the history of Pan Am and aviation in general. While the film is a thinly vailed bio of Juan Trippe and the founding of Pan Am, it plays out like a legitimate bio pic complete with all the trappings that come with that territory.

Pat O’Brien plays Dave Logan, a man with an obsession. He wants to leave his desk job and run his own aviation business. His boss at the time believes the aviation industry is going nowhere and at first it seems like he is right. Dave’s first attempt fails losing almost a hundred thousand dollars. This doesn’t stop Dave as he has a new idea. A revolutionary new aircraft dubbed a flying boat. He also sets up shop in the Florida Keys where his planes will provide mail service throughout the Caribbean. Hal (Humphrey Bogart), a pilot and old friend of Dave’s shows up out of the blue and is hired on the spot as one of the mail pilots. Meanwhile, Dave’s father is struggling not only to get the flying boat designed, built and air-worthy, but is also dealing with a heart condition his doctor warns him will kill him if he doesn’t retire. 

Dave’s obsession and drive push away everyone around him including his wife. He keeps pushing his father harder and harder, unaware of the physical toll all this work and stress is having on him. This drive, and a lack of compassion for the hardships his workers are also going through, rankles the pilots and engineers including Hap who quits after punching Dave in the face. Work comes first for Dave always, so much so that when his wife comes back seeking to reconcile with him he coldly shuts her out even though he is glad to see her. 

What makes this film so hard to watch at times is that Dave Logan is completely unlikeable. We see his drive but can’t empathize with it because he has no compassion for anyone around him including his wife. On more than one occasion he is called out for this but it just makes him angry and more determined. For equally driven people this may seem an attribute but for the rest of us it is a tragedy as we see a man give up his humanity for his vision. 

We see many of the consequences for his actions, too. This isn’t just a tale about perseverance against the odds. Late in the film The China Clipper, the name of the flying boat, once again fails stress tests making it unworthy of flight. Dave puts a ton on pressure on his father to get it working and this leads to one of the major tragedies of the film. The plane is eventually completed but at a steep cost. 

Pat O’Brien gives a strong performance in an unlikeable character. We get his drive and determination from that performance but what we don’t get is any real humanity. We don’t see any chinks in the armor until after the death of his father. Only then do we see through the facade to the man behind it all. It is hard to be on his side which the film asks of us for most of the duration. The film asks this yet keeps us at arms length from him, never really letting us get inside. The only character we can really emphasize with is the father. We see he is willing to sacrifice everything to make his son’s dream a reality, yet aside from the familial relationship, we never really understand why. It makes for some hard, yet compelling viewing at times. Some of the best stuff comes from some truly fantastic aerial views including one of an incomplete Golden Gate Bridge. Ultimately this film is best viewed by those who have a passion for aviation and a curiosity about the early years of the industry. Most other people will find it just a trifle bit too cold.

It All Came True (1940) **1/2

Release Date: April 6, 1940

Running Time: 97 minutes

Cast: Ann Sheridan, Jeffrey Lynn, Humphrey Bogart

Director: Lewis Seiler

Right out the gate we can tell from watching It All Came True that it suffers from clashing tones and inconsistency. The film opens up with a stark look at a boarding house on the verge of bankruptcy, its tenants a bunch of elderly washed up performers. The sole exception to this is Sarah-Jane Ryan (Ann Sheridan), a talented singer who seems to be unable to hold down a gig. Her introduction shows off her brassy personality as a man is offering her a nightclub singing position and she not only refuses but pushes the man down the steps of the boarding house. It’s comical and over the top, in stark contrast to the previous scene. Shortly afterwards we are “treated” to a murder, a moment too dark for the tone of the rest of the picture.

Meanwhile, Tommy (Jeffrey Lynn), a piano player and composer works for gangster “Chips” Maguire has found himself in a predicament. A sudden raid on the establishment by the police has lead to the two men fleeing, a man murdered, and the murder weapon being conveniently registered to Tommy by Chips as a form of insurance against betrayal. Chips needs a place to hide out and using his leverage on Tommy, forces him to return home to his mother (Jessie Busley) whom he hasn’t seen in years, and hide him in a room under the name Grasselli, claiming he is ill and needing a lot of rest and privacy. His mother, along with another Sarah-Jane’s mother (Una O’Connor), owns and manages the afore mentioned boarding house and are excited to have Tommy back home since this means Tommy and Sarah-Jane, raised together like siblings, can rekindle their romance. Naturally, neither is all that interested in that prospect, at least outwardly, squabbling whenever they run into each other. Sarah-Jane is also suspicious of Grasselli having only heard about the mysterious boarder without actually getting to see him. She previously sang in one of Chip’s nightclubs so he has deliberately avoided being seen by her lest she recognize him. But Sarah-Jane is smart enough to figure a way to meet the elusive Grasselli despite all of his precautions.

Eventually it comes to light that the boarding house is in danger of being repossessed over back taxes. Sarah-Jane appeals to Chips for assistance and he comes up with a plan to convert the house to a nightclub with her and Tommy as the headliners. By his admission he is getting bored hiding out and needs something to occupy his time. This will solve both of their problems as well as provide a stage for the many residents to perform before an audience once again. 

This film was advertised as a musical comedy and for the most part this is a misnomer. There are plenty of humorous moments but nothing that would peg this as a comedy. The musical aspect of it really doesn’t play out until the final act when the nightclub gets up and running. Then it overloads the screen with musical number after musical number bringing the pacing to a screeching halt. Chip’s change of motive in the final act is not exactly on a dime but it still doesn’t feel earned. There is some lip service given to him possibly growing up with a real mother figure in his life. This is played up for laughs as Tommy and Sarah-Jane’s mothers practically baby him in their attempts to help “cure” him of the illness he is purportedly there for in the first place. It’s never in doubt that he is a mobster on the lam but through his exposure to these two women as well as the other residents he softens up a little losing his tough edges. However his sacrifice in the final acts still comes across a little false and unearned, like it was written into the script to ensure it ended on a sweet note but wasn’t developed throughout the rest of the picture. 

There is a lot of things to like about this film. Bogart seems to be enjoying himself in a role that, while not too far removed from his many other gangster roles in the past, allows him to stretch a little and show a lighter side to his persona. Ann Sheridan is scene stealing as the brassy, no nonsense Sarah-Jane who isn’t intimidated by anyone, not even a gangster. Each of the boarding house residents have their own little quirks that help them stand out from the scenery. The only weak point is Jeffrey Lynn as Tommy. All he seems to do is scowl and look put upon by those around him. He isn’t much of a character and Jeffrey does nothing to elevate it. Overall it is a shallow film with an obvious message that it doesn’t quite know how to get across without spelling it out. It’s light and frothy but not a whole lot of substance.