Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

csteidler Scotland Yard inspector Dudley Digges opens up a wooden cabinet next to his desk...and turns on the television set. The cricket match is on and the star player is fan favorite A.J. Raffles. The inspector and his colleagues have just been discussing the baffling case of "the Amateur Cracksman," a clever thief who leaves a signed note at the scene of each crime. Little do the Scotland Yard men realize that Raffles and the Amateur Cracksman are one and the same--celebrity by day, burglar by night. David Niven is excellent as Raffles, that adventurous character who decides to hang up his secret life, finds it necessary to do one last job, and feels the pressure build as his cover is slowly chipped away. Pensive, charming, sly, quick-thinking....it's a great role for Niven. Olivia de Havilland is fine as the socialite who loves the dashing Raffles but begins to wonder about his puzzling behavior. (However, her top billing just under Niven does not reflect her actual role in the picture; the two main roles belong to Niven and Digges.) Dudley Digges is lots of fun as the steadfast inspector who doesn't miss much. He follows his suspects down to one of those large country houses where Dame May Whitty's jewels are a temptation to more than one would-be crook. The plot is really nothing much but it's certainly entertaining watching these characters watch each other. Bonus: Laurel and Hardy fans will enjoy seeing the great James Finlayson as a cab driver. And a note: Apparently the first televised cricket match was in 1938. Not sure if Scotland Yard offices really had TV yet.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Sam Goldwyn. Copyright 24 January 1940 by Samuel Goldwyn. Released through United Artists. Presented by Samuel Goldwyn. New York opening at the Roxy: 12 January 1940. Australian release: 2 May 1940. 8 reels. 6,444 feet. 71½ minutes. SYNOPSIS: Social cricketer takes up jewel thieving for fun and profit.NOTES: William Wyler directed the cricket scenes. F. Scott Fitzgerald also worked on the script, but contributed little of significance.COMMENT: Ernest William Hornung was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's brother-in-law. What more natural than that he should pen a rival series of stories featuring a thief instead of a detective? Like Sherlock Holmes, these stories were originally published in a monthly periodical. Like Sherlock, they are narrated in the first person by an accomplice of the principal character. There, unfortunately, the similarity stops. Hornung's writing style is always bland and often long-winded, his characterization weak and his dialogue dull. The plots have little sting and are often resolved by a most disappointing let-down.His first book collection, entitled simply Raffles (1899), contains fourteen short stories. The first eight were part of the original magazine series. The remaining six form a "Return of Raffles". The film script doesn't touch upon any of these last six stories at all. Instead it is largely based upon the two stories that are connected: "Gentlemen and Players" and its sequel, "The Return Match", plus a substantial part of "The Ides of March" and a single, chance idea from "Nine Points of the Law". (The most exciting story, "A Costume Piece" in which Raffles adopts some effective, Holmesian-style disguises is not used at all.)Howard and Van Druten have done a marvelous job combining these stories and the resulting film very faithfully reflects Hornung's original - right down to the weak climaxes. Of course the characterizations in the film - helped as they are by the endeavors of a first-rate cast - are far more exciting.Niven (in his first starring role) is exactly right for the true-blue sporting blood, A.J. Raffles. It's a role he was born to play and he loses not a single opportunity to be charming, witty and gallant on the one hand, roguish, twinkle-eyed and cunningly resourceful on the other. Miss de Havilland has little to do but look decoratively uncomfortable, while Dame May Whitty gives her usual vigor to a characteristically strident dowager. Dudley Digges has one of the film's meatiest parts which he puts over with such unsubtle insinuations as to compel attention even in his less dramatic scenes.Aside from Douglas Walton (who makes Bunny far too weak a character), the rest of the players led by Lionel Pape's Lord George are solidly supportive, although Peter Godfrey (soon to become a major director) overdoes the Cockney accent and mannerisms. His Crawshay (as written and played) is too much a caricature - a fault that is not found in the book.As we might expect from Sam Goldwyn, the film is immaculately produced. Photography, sets, costumes are most attractive. Wood stepped into the director's chair straight from his stint on Gone With The Wind. From all accounts, he was worn out. (William Wyler directed the cricket scenes when he was off ill for a few days). And Raffles looks like the work of a tired man. The direction is flat, straightforward and pedestrian. Not only are the camera angles persistently routine and unimaginative, but the pace is slow and the editing slack. The whole film lacks sparkle.And as for those weak climaxes! It's one thing to get the hero into those all-odds-against him situations, but we expect the writers to extricate him with a modicum of ingenuity. This, they signally fail to deliver.OTHER VIEWS: Slight, but entertaining and filmed with impeccable taste. As usual, producer Samuel Goldwyn has surrounded himself with the very finest writers, technicians and players. One couldn't help but make an enjoyable film with such a tower of talent! The acting especially is delightful, with Niven exactly right as the charming if rascally Raffles, while Dudley Digges, his watchful nemesis, burrs away with a hearty Scottish accent.

Luis Guillermo Cardona Do not know about you but as far as I am concerned, since a child I loved that movie heroes were marginal and risky to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The bank robbers, who without firing a shot-safes to leave the applause encouraged me, and anyone who exposed their lives to bring dignity to the people, deserved a good place on the corner of my heart grateful. Robin Hood was the prototype, and then met the Crimson Pirate the Captain Blood... up to this trendy Raffles who, besides being a famous cricketer, occasionally steals in an art gallery, in an ostentatious jewelry or steals any aristocratic lady a necklace, then, does one need to return, so, so, it will pay the reward. That is, a thief returner. Steal with elegance, but pretend. And what we love about Raffles is that it is a handsome, elegant, well spoken, courteous and able to get along great even with the hound that pursues him ready to catch it as a good salmon. Meanwhile, love and ends up making her an accomplice to the same woman who, one day, also get into the heart of Hood and even the same Blood… ¿Do you can believe it? Well, I'll explain in case anyone is not up to date: David Niven ago Raffles "The thief cracksman" as he signs his messages of farewell. And Olivia de Havilland, the love with Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Captain Blood", is now Gwen, the girl who wins back the heart of the hero of the day. And that is how: beauty, sweetness, consistency and accessibility. A donut with whipped cream. The film is charming, curious tricks, sharpness of wit and some other really funny situation. The story catches without difficulty and you feel quite at ease with a handful of delightful characters. Believe me, is a detective film... and there's no bad, almost everyone is honest. No for nothing, the same story was made into a movie-in just 23 years-in four successful cases.

XweAponX This appears to be the third remake of "Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman" Which seems to have originally been made in 1925 - No, make that 1905... 1917... 1925, 1930, and 1975 which seems to have spawned a short 1977 TV Series based on the character.I've never seen those, I have only ever seen the Kay Francis/Ronald Coleman version, which I liked very much. So to my surprise I am watching this particular remake: Who knows why this remake was decided upon in 1939? Some of the comments here indicate that it could have been a lot better that it ended up being - And I agree.A Young Snappy David Niven and beautiful Olivia DeHavilland (When is she not beautiful, even when she got older?) spearheading a great cast including Dame May Witty and E.E. Clive.This film with the cast that was attached could have been one of the great films of the 30's but it just kind of sits there like a plate of cold tripe. I give the film credit for atmosphere but not much else. The dialog is delivered in a way in which we do not believe- Almost without enthusiasm.Instead of doing a shot-by-shot and line by line remake (Which was also done with The Prisoner of Zenda) they could have just re-released the great and fun 1930 version. I have only seen one film where Niven was able to get a handle on comedy, and that was "Bachelor Mother" (Another film that was unfortunately remade, as "Bundle of Joy") - And only then because he used very Cary Grant-ish hand and body movements for some reason.Watching this is akin to watching moss grow... Unfortunate, but true. Sometimes there is no reason to remake a film that has already been made three times, as had been the case here. I can understand the need for the 1930 remake, as that was the version that first applied that novelty we take for granted, Sound. Making this film again, so soon, and uninspired like this, I see no reason for it. Why? Nothing special jumps out, even though the performances of the actors are adequate. All of the things that made the 1930 version great are absent from this.On a final note, DeHavilland and Niven do not work as well as Coleman and Francis did: Coleman and Francis have a very "Modern" look, almost contemporary. Which is why I was attracted to it when I originally saw the 1930 version. That timelessness is absent in the appearance of Niven and DeHavilland in this film.