TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

MartinHafer "Back in Circulation" is very much a film like "The Front Page" or "His Girl Friday". So, if you liked them, you're bound to enjoy this Joan Blondell picture.The oddly named 'Timmy' Blake (Blondell) is a journalist with a bent towards the sensational and sleazy. Through much of the movie, her mantra seems to be 'anything for a story' and her sleaze-loving boss (Pat O'Brien) encourages as much muck-raking as possible...all in an effort to boost circulation. However, after spending much of the story pushing for an investigation into the death of a rich guy by poisoning, she suddenly has a crisis of conscience....though I was at a loss to figure out why considering her actions through the first 2/3 of the movie! Still enjoyable...just not completely consistent.By the way, if you do watch the film, take a look at Timmy's two right crosses. That woman packs a terrific punch!

dogwater-1 If you are a fan of 1930's Warners, you can't miss this one. Joan Blondell is Timothea "Timmy" Blake, ace reporter for editor Pat O'Brian's headline screaming tabloid. The plot races around a "show girl with a past", the improbably cast, sweet-faced Margaret Lindsey accused of poisoning her no-good older husband whom nobody misses. Timmy doesn't buy it, but she helped build the case for indictment. Lindsey is in love with the good doctor John Litel for some reason even though he seems a bit thick. Go figure. It's all wrapped in a furious flurry of patented Warner's can't -wait -to -get -home speed with what must be 14 lbs. of dialogue crammed into an hour- fifteen or so. It's Blondell's movie and she is feisty, sexy, always surprising and has a mean right hook. Pat O'Brian was some kind of master at machine gunning lines out of an immobile face. For a big man who moves slowly, he can sure cut with the greased patter. The WB character roster, always a reason to watch these films, is well-represented by Regis Toomey, Eddie Acuff, and the always amusing Granville Bates. You won't have a chance to breathe.

wes-connors Although reporters are barred from the scene, a deadly train wreck doesn't stop enterprising Joan Blondell (as Timothea "Timmy" Blake) from covering the story. Pretending to be a doctor, Ms. Blondell gets the scoop. Her editor and love interest Pat O'Brien (as William "Bill" Morgan) gets an anonymous tip stating that an automobile manufacturer did not die of heart failure, but was poisoned. He assigns Blondell the story and she suspects beautiful widow Margaret Lindsay (as Arline Vivian). We wonder why Blondell is interested in Mr. O'Brien and, even more, why he seems so uninterested in Blondell. The plot unravels between two dubious letters. The main reason to watch is Blondell. She is strong and sexy in this film. And, although second-billed, Blondell is the star.**** Back in Circulation (9/25/37) Ray Enright ~ Joan Blondell, Pat O'Brien, Margaret Lindsay, John Litel

cygnus58 This is a prime example of a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be. The first half of the film is a snappy little screwball comedy, obviously inspired by "The Front Page" (just like about a zillion other newspaper comedies), in which star reporter Joan Blondell tries to cope with hard-driving editor Pat O'Brien. It isn't brilliant, but it's good enough to get by. The second half is a typical Warners social crusading film of the thirties, an expose of the dangers of yellow journalism. This half doesn't work very well at all, partly because Margaret Lindsay's performance is wooden, and partly because the change in tone is so abrupt that you're liable to suffer from whiplash. O'Brien and Blondell are both cast to their strengths, and they work well together. This film was never going to be a masterpiece, but it might have been modestly successful if it had maintained the tone of its first half. As it is, the movie just doesn't work. Warners couldn't help themselves; they never passed up an opportunity to hoist the gauntlet of a social crusade. Sometimes they did it well, but in this case they should have let well enough alone.