UnowPriceless hyped garbage

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

drjgardner "Born Restless" is a 1930 gangster film that surely rates as one of the worst gangster films of all time, made even worse when you think of the great gangster films that came out in the early 30s – "The Big House" (1930), "Little Caesar" (1931), "Public Enemy" (1931), "The Beast of the City" (1932), "Scarface" (1932), etc.The version I saw had the worst sound of any film I've viewed, so this added to the problem.Edmund Lowe plays the star. Lowe was a leading man in the silent era ("East of Suez". "What Price Glory") and he plays this one as if it were a silent film, and given how poor the dialogue is, you wish it was a silent film. He did some good work later on (e.g., "Dinner at Eight", Dillinger") but in this film he is wooden.Lowe isn't the only wooden actor. Almost all the scenes are staged with nary a movement.This is a John Ford production and Ford gets credit as a co-director. It reminds us that while Ford gave us about a dozen of the finest films ever made, he had a lot of clunkers too, and among his finest films I can't recall a gangster film.All things considered there isn't any reason to watch this film. You may be curious, as was I, about viewing an early John Ford film, but give this one a miss and go with "The Lost Patrol" (1934) or "The Informer" (1935).

mark.waltz It's a shame that this early talkie by John Ford is as poor as it is. The potential is there for an early "Little Caesar" and "The Public Enemy" (released only a short time later), but lacks the pacing of those similar gangster films which have become classics while this one just lays there. Fox Studios didn't have the same type of camera equipment as Warner Brothers did, and it shows. Tinny sound recording, a mostly grounded camera which barely moves, and lighting that only once in a while shows signs of life. The performances can be described as less than adequate, the actors all speaking their lines extremely slow, even such talented actors as Edmund Lowe, Warren Hymer and Lee Tracy, directed to draw out every word. The story covers World War I (with a bit of witty dialog here and there during the training sequences) through prohibition (with the most boring criminals imaginable) and bogs down in a mother love story that fortunately doesn't overstay its welcome. It also contains one of the most bizarre blunt endings I've ever seen in films, literally flashing "The End" titles without really even ending the scene it is in the middle of.

MartinHafer How much of this film was directed by Andrew Bennison and how much by John Ford is your guess. All I know is that with Ford at the helm, I sure expected more from this very flat film."Born Reckless" is a gangster film with rather odd casting. Edmund Lowe stars in this film and frankly he didn't seem at all the gangster type. Part of this might be because I've only seen Lowe in about a dozen films (and he made over a hundred) and none of them ha him playing anything even closely resembling a criminal. Usually, he played very sophisticated and cultured sorts of men and with his lovely diction it just felt odd to have him hanging out with the sorts of Warren Hymer in the film--Hymer usually playing idiots or thugs. So, from the onset I had trouble accepting Lowe in the film--although I like him as an actor.The other problem I noticed is that the film didn't seem sure whether or not to make Lowe a bad guy or a good guy. At the beginning he seemed kind of bad--after all, he was involved in an armed robbery. then, however, only minutes later he seemed like a swell fella when he met his sister's new boyfriend. And, when the police brought him in because of the robbery, he agreed to serve in WWI in order to avoid prison--and he served with distinction. Later, after he got out, he was not the most law-abiding of citizens (opening a speakeasy), but he also had a very, very moral code--one you'd certainly not expect from the owner of a speakeasy!! As a result, the film was muddled despite having some very interesting elements and a dandy violent finale. With all the great gangster films of the early 30s, my attitude is that you should see all of them first! With wonderful films like "Scarface", "Littel Caesar" and "Public Enemy" (among others), why mess with this mediocre and poorly written film?

Michael_Elliott Born Reckless (1930) * 1/2 (out of 4) John Ford drama about a wannabe gangster (Edmund Lowe) who gets busted after a heist but instead of going to prison, the judge makes a deal with him. Instead of jail the man will enlist for WW1 and if he serves his country proudly then the judge will throw out the evidence against him. This all goes well and the man returns home a war hero but he soon learns that his old gang has killed his brother in law so he goes out for revenge no matter what it might cost him. In the end, this film is killed by its standard and routine screenplay, which tries to do way too much and it doesn't do any of them in any original form. The movies tries to mix the gangster genre with a war genre with an added touch of the revenge drama but all three are boring and don't feature anything we hadn't seen countless times in the silent era. I've never been a fan of Lowe but he actually comes off decent here and plays the role off as well as can be expected. The supporting cast, including Lee Tracy, are all standard and forgettable. The climax of the movie is certainly the best thing and Ford's use of a swinging door leads to a great thing but there's nothing else going on here.