Just a quick general comment first. I read through the other 30 or more reviews here and my reaction was the same as it always is when doing such a mass reading: Why does almost everyone insist on giving us the entire plot of the film once again before getting on to his or her comments? When there are more than a few reviews of a film, surely the plot has already been covered to the nth degree, so why repeat it? If there is something special to note that others haven't, that's another case, but there almost never is. Just get on with what you want to say about the movie! Which reminds me that I want to say this -
1) It seems to have escaped the notice of some of the more literal reviewers that this film is a comedy, it was intended to be a comedy, it had no other reason for existing than to be a comedy, and everybody in it acts like they were doing a comedy (as in a murder mystery with Abbott and Costello or Bob Hope). As a comedy, shorn of any extraneous expectations engendered by the first or third versions of the story, it works extremely well. Much of it is on the silly side, but it is intended to be silly.
2) Since the prior version was only five years old, and the title of that version extremely famous in both book and movie form, it is understandable that Warner Brothers would change the characters' names as well as that of the movie in order to entice a new audience into the theaters. That, dear reviewers, is why these characters are Shane instead of Spade. and maybe even Murgatroyd instead of Perine.
3. Some seem not to know that Warren William was just one rung under being a major star during the entire period of the 1930s. Yes, he was something like the poorer man's William Powell, but not for acting ability, just for not having quite the charisma that Powell possessed. They could easily have exchanged places in most of their films with no serious detriment to the film itself. And Powell did play a number of rather underhanded characters when not doing Nick Charles, but wasn't as natural at it as was William. William's health suffered from the early 1940s and he made only a handful of films after THE WOLF MAN. Powell's health suffered a great deal more in the late 1930s, but he survived and managed almost two more decades in films before bowing out after MISTER ROBERTS, and then managed to live to 91. But William was a fine actor on his own, and occasionally, as in THE MATCH KING or CLEOPATRA, a mesmerizing one.
4. Everybody in this film is good, but for me the star of it is Marie Wilson as the very ditzy Effie. Every scene she's in delights, and it must be remembered that she had only turned 20 when this film was made, and had already made the acting of the stereotypical dumb blonde into a mini-art form. I used to listen to her every week on the radio when I was about 9 or 10 years of age, as the title character in MY FRIEND IRMA, and she was a constant delight, as she was in the two IRMA films she did almost 15 years after SATAN MET A LADY. She is very pretty, sexy, lovable, ditzy, dumb, and downright hilarious, holding her own with everyone in the cast - at 20! If I had been Shane, I would have married her in a minute instead of going after less appealing fare like Bette Davis!
4) We've made comedies of classic Sherlock Holmes stories, Agatha Christie novels, Gunga Din, etc., etc., so why not THE MALTESE FALCON? I think this one works extraordinarily well for what it is, which is exactly what it was supposed to be and nothing more. .
1) It seems to have escaped the notice of some of the more literal reviewers that this film is a comedy, it was intended to be a comedy, it had no other reason for existing than to be a comedy, and everybody in it acts like they were doing a comedy (as in a murder mystery with Abbott and Costello or Bob Hope). As a comedy, shorn of any extraneous expectations engendered by the first or third versions of the story, it works extremely well. Much of it is on the silly side, but it is intended to be silly.
2) Since the prior version was only five years old, and the title of that version extremely famous in both book and movie form, it is understandable that Warner Brothers would change the characters' names as well as that of the movie in order to entice a new audience into the theaters. That, dear reviewers, is why these characters are Shane instead of Spade. and maybe even Murgatroyd instead of Perine.
3. Some seem not to know that Warren William was just one rung under being a major star during the entire period of the 1930s. Yes, he was something like the poorer man's William Powell, but not for acting ability, just for not having quite the charisma that Powell possessed. They could easily have exchanged places in most of their films with no serious detriment to the film itself. And Powell did play a number of rather underhanded characters when not doing Nick Charles, but wasn't as natural at it as was William. William's health suffered from the early 1940s and he made only a handful of films after THE WOLF MAN. Powell's health suffered a great deal more in the late 1930s, but he survived and managed almost two more decades in films before bowing out after MISTER ROBERTS, and then managed to live to 91. But William was a fine actor on his own, and occasionally, as in THE MATCH KING or CLEOPATRA, a mesmerizing one.
4. Everybody in this film is good, but for me the star of it is Marie Wilson as the very ditzy Effie. Every scene she's in delights, and it must be remembered that she had only turned 20 when this film was made, and had already made the acting of the stereotypical dumb blonde into a mini-art form. I used to listen to her every week on the radio when I was about 9 or 10 years of age, as the title character in MY FRIEND IRMA, and she was a constant delight, as she was in the two IRMA films she did almost 15 years after SATAN MET A LADY. She is very pretty, sexy, lovable, ditzy, dumb, and downright hilarious, holding her own with everyone in the cast - at 20! If I had been Shane, I would have married her in a minute instead of going after less appealing fare like Bette Davis!
4) We've made comedies of classic Sherlock Holmes stories, Agatha Christie novels, Gunga Din, etc., etc., so why not THE MALTESE FALCON? I think this one works extraordinarily well for what it is, which is exactly what it was supposed to be and nothing more. .