Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

funkyfry Although Humphrey Bogart appears second-billed to Bette Davis, most of the actresses in the supporting cast (including Mayo Methot, who would soon become Bogart's wife) get more to do really than he does. However, it's a great Bette Davis picture; heavy drama, a bit contrived and obvious, but well-played. She's a hostess in a nightclub run by a gangster (Eduardo Ciannelli), who happens to be a pretty ruthless character even by movie gangster standards. After testifying for him in a rigged trial, she ends up going after him through the courts for revenge after her kid sister (the impossibly wholesome Jane Bryan) is killed. Bogart plays a government lawyer who gets taken to the cleaners in the first trial but helps Davis trap the bad guy.There's not a lot of poetry in the film.... Lloyd Bacon is usually a very straightforward director, but the final shots of the film are very nice with the women going off into the fog together, the real heroes of the story ignored by the media who are chasing after Bogart, the hero male. In the scene with Davis and Bogart where they say goodbyes, she's waiting for him to say something emotional. Her performance here isn't subtle, but it's not that type of movie. All the scenes with her and Bogart have a nice double-edged chemistry to them, where he's trying to downplay his emotions and she's faking all these wild emotions for various reasons. It's quite an interesting movie to look back on from a feminist angle.

christopher-underwood Back to Hollywood and this is Warners 30s black & white highly dramatic fare starring Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart. Not much of Bogart's work from around this time is all that strong but here he almost already seems the big star he would become, most comfortable in the forthright and caring lawyer. He takes nothing away from Davis, of course, though who still shines through a film that is clearly centred around her. It is a very good performance throughout from the not quite dizzy blonde to the pioneering and ruthless dame. The film begins with great scenes inside the clip-joint where the girls work and money and drinks flow as the girls flirt and the gangsters prowl. The film doesn't exactly lose its way in the middle but it just seemed to me that it might be going to lapse into some moralising crusade. Not at all, this really gets into another gear and the violence surprises. Good low key ending too. Impressive with good script, stirring music and fine performances all round.

adamshl Bette Davis looks as though she was rested (after her hiatus involving litigation) and raring to sink her teeth in a juicy part. Well, she got her wish in this finely directed Lloyd Bacon gangster drama.Davis is alert, focused, and driven here, putting her all into the dance hall hostess. It's one of her best roles in a film unfamiliar to many movie goers.The film is notable for some fine work by most talented character actors, and for an unusual "good guy" role for Humphrey Bogart. This crusading D.A. on a mission is skillfully etched by Mr. B. and his scenes with Davis are particularly engaging.Everyone knows the true life basis for this drama, and the exclaimer at the start doesn't fool anyone. This is a mean expose of some very callus criminals, and has the feel of that period's current newspaper headlines.A well made drama, worth checking out.

delibebek After watching this film, I'm surprised it was released as late as 1937. Given that the main characters are call girls and this fact is central to several plot points, I expected to find it was pre-code. Still, thinking back on it, this fact is made clear without direct references. The most direct notice of the nature of their work is given by the reaction of the little sister when this is made a point in court by the defense attorney.Another point in my casual mis-dating of this film is the quality of the picture. There is a black haze that rounds out the corners, but this may be due to the way the film was stored so many years ago. It gives the movie a sense of being a few years older than it is. Call it character.Bette Davis gave a good performance in this movie, walking the line between under and over-acting, with a very balanced treatment of the main role. She was also prettier than I've ever seen her. Humphrey Bogart had a bit of dash in his appearance as the clean cut assistant District Attorney, spending much of his time arguing the case for the prosecution..It's interesting to look back a the way the trial was handled. There isn't a lot of excess drama in those scenes. They are very direct in their approach to the necessary exposition, treating it almost as quick action which gets to the heart of the story. Besides some last minute badgering of a sobbing witness, there isn't much to compare to the stirring soliloquies of more modern courtroom scenes. Even the way the cameras shot the scene is pretty basic, with only the occasional interesting perspective.The plot is easy to follow, revolving around a minor crime lord, a group of call girls and the ability of the court system to triumph. The ending is satisfying in terms of plot, but this is the biggest clue that this is a reflection of the direction Hollywood went in the mid to late 30s. Good always wins. The ending for the characters is not so certain and this is one of the most dramatic parts of the film as the characters go their separate ways to uncertain destinies.