The Pace That Kills (1935) User Reviews

Not up to the standards of "Reefer Madness", but close . . .

[frankfob · 4/10 · 2 April 2002]

This film, better known by its alternate title of "Cocaine Fiends," is a good example (not a good movie, mind you; just a good example) of the ultra-cheap "exploitation" market that existed in the '30s and '40s. Independent producers like Willis Kent--who made this--specialized in sensationalistic, "taboo" subjects that the major studios, and even the minor ones, wouldn't dare to touch. Titles like "Cocaine Fiends," "Reefer Madness," "Sex Madness," "Confessions of a Vice Baron", "Escort Girls", etc., were guaranteed to draw crowds into the rural grindhouses and third-rate urban theaters for which they were designed. Since these films were outside (WAY outside) the mainstream Hollywood system, they didn't adhere to the rigid censorship that existed in America at that time, and consequently were able to tackle subjects (usually badly) and show material (usually nudity, though mostly partial) that patrons would otherwise be unable to see. I actually enjoy these films more than a lot of the "mainstream" product of the time. While MGM was churning out the bland, inoffensive Andy Hardy series, Dwain Esper was making "Reefer Madness," Willis Kent was putting out "Confessions of a Vice Baron" and J.D. Kendis was coming out with "The Vice Racket"--pictures that explored, however ineptly, a darker, seamier side of American life that most people didn't know, or didn't want to know, existed.

As for this picture, it's terrible, of course. Inept at virtually every conceivable level, it's nonetheless entertaining as an insight into the attitudes of American society of that time towards unpleasant subjects--which was, of course, to either ignore them, deny they existed or punish anyone unwise enough to bring them up. And lest anybody think that the "epidemic" of cocaine use is a recent phenomenon, they should know that this picture is itself a remake (by the same producer and director) of a 1928 film of the same name on the same subject, which shows that there was an apparently substantial problem in this country with hard drugs as far back as at least the 1920s--although you'd never know there was a problem with ANYTHING, judging by the "mainstream" films that came out of Hollywood. Alcoholism was treated as an amusing diversion, personified by the genial drunks of Arthur Housman and Jack Norton, and drug abuse (and, especially, sexual abuse) were such taboo subjects that the studios wouldn't even MENTION them in films, let alone make films about them. Although a few serious pictures in the '50s tackled some of these subjects, it wasn't until the '60s and '70s, when these problems couldn't be ignored any longer, that truly serious films about drug abuse, alcoholism and other societal afflictions began to be made.

Movies like "Cocaine Fiends" served their purpose--they made their producers money (they were shot so cheaply and quickly it was difficult NOT to make money off them) and gave the "renegade" movie audiences (as they were called at the time) a cheap thrill they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. They also had an unintended result--although somewhat exaggerated, they left an historical record of some of the problems that affected American society of the time, problems that subsequent generations would very likely have had little or no knowledge about if it wasn't for pictures like "Cocaine Fiends" and its brethren. If these films provided any public service at all, it was that.

"Hey, I can fix that right up. I've got the grandest headache medicine in the world."

[classicsoncall · 3/10 · 5 November 2007]

It's true what they say - I started with "Reefer Madness" and "The Marijuana Menace", and gradually worked up to the really hard stuff - "The Cocaine Fiends". But I have to tell you, if you watch this film under the influence, it will make just about as much sense. I was generally able to follow what was going on in the story, but there were so many dropped frames and jump cuts I wasn't sure if anything significant might have been left out. The real head scratcher comes near the end of the picture when Dorothy Farley's father is revealed as the top kingpin in the drug rackets at the same time that he's trying to keep his daughter 'sweet and clean'. The scene exemplifies how poorly the film was in terms of building upon earlier events to tell a coherent story. Of course that probably was not the intent; this was one of those 'educational' films that tried to get it's anti-drug scourge message across during a much less sophisticated era. After seeing a handful of these flicks recently, it's safe to say that on that level, they probably had no impact at all.

For all it's evil connotation, the actual use of the word cocaine only occurs a few times in the story. Instead, the drug is routinely referred to as 'headache powders' by the malevolent dope dealer as a way to hook potential victims. By the time one becomes a 'hophead', he's ready and willing to sell his soul for just one more shot. The film does a good job at least of showing how drug victims go downhill quickly, usurping all motivation except for getting that high just one more time. But for all that, the picture never does show anyone actually snorting the stuff, it's all done by insinuation and after the fact. Kind of ironic if the mission was to show how unglamorous taking drugs is.

The hardest thing for me about the movie is trying to wrap my brain around the fact that it's OVER 70 YEARS OLD!!! That, along with the perspective that's offered relative to what value things had back in the Thirties. Imagine a six dollar cover charge for the privilege of sharing two gin fizzes ($1.50) and two highballs ($2.00); with tax, a total of $9.79. On Eddie's (Dean Benton) twenty five dollar pay week, it was unnerving to see him squirm at the prospect of forking over almost half his paycheck for a few minutes of fun at the Dead Rat Cafe. Geez, who would name their place the Dead Rat?!

Not good at all but actually has its moments

[preppy-3 · 3/10 · 15 May 2008]

Naive (and downright stupid) Jane Bradford lives out in the country and helps her mother run a diner. She meets slick talking Nick who's actually a drug pusher. She immediately falls in love with him (!!) and starts snorting cocaine which she thinks is "headache powder" (!!!). So she runs off to the city with him, gets married, gets hooked and becomes a prostitute (I think--the print quality was pretty terrible). Her equally stupid brother Eddie follows her and HE becomes hooked on cocaine along with his girlfriend!

OK--it's horribly directed with a ridiculous plot that throws in a few twists at the end that make no sense (and will leave you slack-jawed). Still it isn't as funny as "Reefer Madness" was. That failed in every department (although in an amusing way) but this actually has its moments. It seems they were actually trying to make a serious movie about cocaine abuse. Some of the acting is actually pretty good and the depictions of drug abuse are (fot its time) graphic and harrowing. The lousy direction and story are the main problems here.

DEFINITE SPOILERS!!! I find it strange that Jane saves her brother Eddie from almost certain death...but says she can't be saved. Why not? He can kick the habit...why can't she? It seems like she's being punished for no fault of her own but her brother gets away scot free. That sends a really negative message about women. END SPOILER!!!

Now this isn't a GOOD movie at all but it isn't bad/good like other drug movies of its era. Beware of prints of this film. The one I saw on TCM was in dreadful condition with a faded picture, bad sound and scenes constantly being cut. It ended a full 8 minutes before it was supposed to! I realize nobody was rushing to preserve this film but was this the best copy they could get?

As a piece of cinema it is rather shoddy and as a drug film it is one-sided and simplistic but it is not as bad as many people say

[bob the moo · 19 September 2004]

While on the run from the police in the countryside, small time city drug seller Nick meets an innocent country girl, Jane, who he easily wins over with his easy charm and magical headache cure (which Jane is unaware is cocaine). After several dates (and several hits) Jane moves to the city with Nick in order to get married and live the city high life. However, moving into a poor home in a bad neighbourhood, Jane hits bottom when Nick moves her out of the house and her need for drugs becomes increasingly desperate. With her mother worried as to her whereabouts, Jane's brother and his girlfriend try to find her – but even for them the world of illegal drugs has an overpowering and destructive influence.

Unlike many other viewers on this site, I did not deliberately turn to this film to have ironic laughs at it but more out of interest. I had seen clips of this film played in modern documentaries (Grass for example) and easily derided and, in fairness, it is easy to do because they are dated and rather corny but just to watch it with an agenda to mock it is to do the film (and yourself) a disservice. It is easy to forget that this was one of many attempts to control drug use in the 1930's, the Government turned to movies as part of trying to educate the public. Looking at it now of course, the film is pretty extreme in its depiction of the consequences but it is not as bad as others claim – it does show the good side of drugs, the feelings that it gives you etc but the consequences for every user will not be as extreme as this film tries to portray as the norm for even an one-time casual user; like Bill Hicks said 'never robbed nobody, never shot nobody, never lost one single job. Laughed my *ss off, and went about my day' (I'm paraphrasing).

In terms of its value as a film, it is of course pretty weak. The direction is OK but the production values are low even for the period; some shots are really badly lit, the film crackles and jumps around a lot due to frequent dropped frames and the soundtrack cuts in and out quite badly. The acting is also only average; it would be easy to criticise the actors for how quickly they take their characters from clean cut down to junkies but that is not their fault – they were only doing what they were told and I did think that they did do an OK job. Let's not forget that this is not a movie – it is an educational film and even today the production values and acting within educational films is still pretty dire; the last one I was a short film on confined space entry with William Shatner – hardly a piece of art!

I do think, despite retrospectively looking at it and seeing the way it over eggs the cake, that the film is a good try. It readily acknowledges the easy appeal of the drug (like it or not, many of us have tried drugs because they were available and, consequences or not, maybe have habits we never intended to) by showing how simple and fun it is to try once or twice as a casual thing. It also acknowledges the causes rather well – citing broken families, innocence and heck, just good old fashioned youthful rebellion and reckless abandon as reasons for getting into the scene in the first place; all reasons that apply today. I'm not going overboard on praise for this film but I think it is easy to laugh at it as a naïve, dated piece and just ignore the fact that it does have some good even if it does go to extremes in every case. It would have been better to show that drugs doesn't take every user to a moral low, some just do it as a occasional bit of fun but that, for some users, it does become an addiction and can lead to disease, moral decline, abuse and death, because for some this is the reality.

Overall, this is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, but if you only watch it to get ironic laughs while you smoke some puff then you are not giving it a chance or meeting it on its own ground – that of the mid-thirties. The production is average at best – poor lighting, a poor script, simplistic characters and a real biased spin to the story, but it does have some good in it. It does acknowledge the appeal of the drugs (it doesn't paint those who chose to do drugs as morally deficient in any way) as well as showing an awareness of the deeper causation factors. Of course it is biased and goes to extremes in every case but it is not as bad as many say it is if you try to view it objectively and not just roar 'it's so bad it's good' within 2 minutes of starting it.

dull and misguided anti-drugs exploitation film

[didi-5 · 5/10 · 17 August 2008]

Also known as 'The Cocaine Fiends' this film is actually rather dull, and the quality of prints available for viewing now are fairly poor. The story of Jane Bradford's fall from grace after she takes a 'headache cure' isn't really that interesting, or played particularly well.

If you've seen 'Reefer Madness', which is something of a companion piece, then you've seen the better film of the two. And that should not be taken as a recommendation! The 1930s exploitation films, setting themselves out as some kind of public education, are all appalling and really have no relevance today unless they can amuse or intrigue. 'The Pace That Kills' can do neither.

Not a 'Class A' film

[Red-Barracuda · 3/10 · 11 January 2006]

Cocaine Fiends is one of the movies from the 1930's drugsploitation sub-genre. This, along with the superior Reefer Madness, simultaneously condemned and celebrated - intentionally or otherwise - the then taboo subject of drug abuse. Where Reefer Madness works as an unintentional comedy, Cocaine Fiends adopts a less overblown approach and, as a result, is liable to be much less entertaining to today's audiences. The production values are very low but the acting is OK. The story is exaggerated but there are no over-the-top scenes of drug-induced insanity. The film is best appreciated as a time capsule from the 1930s. It provides an insight into the attitudes of the time to drug use and its consequences. It does not, unfortunately, provide much in the way of laughs.

Also, the sound quality of the release I saw was was fairly horrendous. It was very hard at times working out what was being said. Ironically, this, coupled with the very flickery picture and deranged editing, produced the effect of watching the movie on drugs. But not very good drugs.

Actual attempt to make a good movie...

[dwpollar · 4/10 · 27 January 2007]

1st watched 1/27/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Wm. A. O'Connor): Actual attempt to make a good movie from a 1930's public service announcement premise is rather shocking in it's portrayal of addicts in the mob world of drugs, for it's time. Despite this, it's flaws include silly entertainment thrown in near the end, quick changes in people's characters(it's almost as if they ripped out sections of some the character's development) and a sometimes overdone emphasis of the complete moral decay of those involved in the use of dope(as they call it in the movie) to the point of forgetting their past life. The movie is ultimately about the demise of a sister and brother after initially being tricked to use a "headache powder" which is really cocaine. The mobster's, leading the way, use every kind of trick in the book to hook the person on the drug, and then they rule their lives from this point on. Again, for it's time, this movie does a pretty good job of showing the horrors without being campy(like other movies of this type) but a good try is still not quite good enough, though.

This is your brain on bad propaganda movies

[JoeB131 · 3/10 · 15 March 2008]

This film, like the equally silly "Reefer Madness", was meant to scare people into thinking that their kids could be ruined by evil drugs. The plot is that a nice farm girl is seduced by a drug dealer into following him to the big city. Her brother searches for her, and falls into the same drug trap.

Meanwhile, a policeman tries to warn his girlfriend to stay away from the "Dead Rat Cafe". Okay, now who would actually want to go to someplace called the "Dead Rat Cafe" to start with? She is kidnapped by the drug dealer as a prize for his boss, "Mr. Big", who turns out to be her father who has taken a bad time in the stock market. Ewww... Then we find out the cop was only dating her to get at her father, but he loves her anyway. Okay, guys, it never works out like that.

The shockingly bad movie that kills brain cells

[johnnysugar · 3/10 · 21 February 2004]

In the 1930's, a rash of "youth gone wild" films hit theatres and grindhouses across the U. S. These "cautionary tales" were really no more than cheap exploitation films marketed under the guise of advisory: don't let this happen to you or your children, and watch as they act like sex-crazed maniacs! Alluring, repulsive, campy, and downright horrible in equal measure, these films tried so hard and yet failed so spectacularly to be either entertaining to its target audience or informational, riddled as they were with sub-par talent and heinous misinformation. While the granddaddy of all of these is the now-classic "Reefer Madness", a few years before that came "The Pace That Kills", marketed today under the title "Cocaine Fiends."

Jane (Lois January) is a good country girl that helps Mother out in the local cafe. When fast-talking criminal Nick (Noel Madison) hides out in her diner, Jane is swept up in his life of big city crime and cocaine peddling with her first shot of Nick's special "headache powder". He convinces her to move to the city with him, where she quickly becomes a strung-out addict with no control over her life and renames herself "Lil". Also dragged into this malestrom of mobsters, molls, and white dust is Jane's naive brother Eddie (Dean Benton), his impressionable girlfriend, and a spoiled heiress. Crime, perversion, and youth gone "wild" abound!

Obviously, the idea of wild was much different 70 years ago. The most wild acts in the film -- including cocaine use, unmarried sex, and murder -- are shown off camera or only hinted at. In fact, the main hook of the film is largely absent from most of it. We're supposed to believe that because of cocaine, all of these characters are doomed, yet the drug itself only comes up a handful of times in the course of the picture. As for the "perversion", girls show no skin and the romantic relations between the characters lack anything resembling passion or chemistry. Compare this to "Reefer Madness", where several female characters were shown in states of undress and the targeted drug played a central role in the direct downfall of several of the characters.

The script is merely mediocre, and the acting is surprisingly adept, although given the context of the film, it doesn't take much to impress. Lois January is actually quite convincing as Jane/Lil, and toward the end of the film, when she gives in to her new persona, you believe the actress' pain. Dean Benton also has a few good moments, especially during a speech where Eddie realizes that he is, indeed, a "hophead." Where the film falters is pacing, structure, plot, and direction. Which, of course, means the foundation of the entire film is shaky at best. The last act veers wildly off its already worn tracks, and while it mostly avoids the fatalistic ending of "Reefer Madness", it also makes no sense in relation to the rest of the story. A good half of the subplots of the film are never resolved or brought together, and viewers will end up feeling cheated. And to feel cheated by "Cocaine Fiends" is a low that not even the finest "headache powder" will cure. The film tries desperately to blend drama, romance, musical, action, and crime into a whole and fails to produce anything resembling any of those.

Part of this may be due to the print itself. Although billed at 68 minutes here on the IMDB, the Alpha Home Video DVD print (which bills the film as "Cocaine Fiends" in a value-priced, stand-alone DVD) is only 60 minutes, and in at least half of the scenes, the film itself skips, leaving several lines of dialogue and explanation in a bloody heap on the cutting room floor. The sound is also horrendous, and Eddie's girlfriend seemed to go by any number of names due to the appalling lack of clarity in the audio track (I heard Betty, Fanny, Sandy, and a few others). In comparison, "Reefer Madness"'s print is in much better shape.

Although the film does have a few redeeming moments, and it's great for a laugh or for sampling into your latest electronica masterpiece, it's a pale shadow of "Reefer Madness", a standard by which it has no choice but to be judged against. Better to skip this one and go to the wild abandon to end all wild abandons. At least for 1930's youth. 3 out of 10.

My first 1930's drugsploitation flick

[Kieran_Kenney · 4/10 · 1 August 2003]

This was the first of those 1930s drug-scare exploitation movie I ever saw. I hadn't even seen Reefer Madness. I just knew a little about the genre and figured this would be an amusing little romp.

Well, it wasn't exactly. At points it was funny, but mostly it was boring and slow. It did provide a fairly candid view of every day American life in the thirties. Since the makers of this film clearly didn't have the finances that MGM or Universal lavished on their pictures, there aren't any striking Art Deco sets of Adrian gowns. Speaking of which, the set's are some of the most stark and unconvincing pieces of dressing ever to go before a movie camera. And, since the filmmakers probably didn't even have the kind of money that Continental or Majestic spent, you have to wonder if this movie wasn't shot the way Little Shop of Horrors was. I think of that roadhouse set and wonder "What lost and forgotten B movie was that really built for?"

A note of interest: Do you know that scene in Wizard of Oz where everybody's getting sproused up and some attractive supporting actress sings "We can make a dimpled smile out of a frown"? Well, that chick is the star of The Pace That Kills! Her name is Lois January and she's not a bad actress either.

It's so terrible, it's funny

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 4 September 2007]

This is yet another horrible exploitation film from the late 1930s--a period chock full of low-budget stinkers about sex and drugs (such as REEFER MADNESS, MARIJUANA and SEX MADNESS). So why did they make so many horrid films like this? Well, the producers SAID it was to inform parents about certain social problems, but more often than not the films were intended to skirt past the new and rigid Production Code that banned "inappropriate material" in films, and if the material were "educational", then it might slip past the censors in many states. In the guise of education, nudity, incest, drug abuse and many other taboos were addressed in film--and usually in the tackiest and silliest manner.

While THE PACE THAT KILLS (aka, "Cocaine Fiends") is not as bad an exaggeration as the many marijuana films (that actually stated or implied that pot was WORSE than heroin, cocaine and pills), the ridiculousness of the plot will no doubt make modern audiences chuckle. So, the film makers were able to take a serious issue that needed to be addressed and made it all seem comically stupid--way to go, guys!

The film begins with a nice girl being tricked into using cocaine by an evil pusher. She has a headache and he tells her to inhale this "new headache medicine". So, like a total idiot, she does without question and becomes hooked. Later, after this nice girl disappears into the dreaded "big city", her brother goes looking for her--only to also become hooked when another ne'er do well offers him a new "headache powder"! Apparently stupidity DOES run in families. Now the depths to which they fell--losing everything due to the addiction wasn't terribly overdone. But, how they got there and the preachiness of the plot no doubt made kids of the day often WANT to do drugs because the message was so obviously phony and silly.

Horrid writing, acting, direction and editing--this film manages to fail on every level except one--it is quite funny. Of course, with a total budget of $39.50, what can you expect from this film?

More Serious Than Silly About Cocaine Abuse

[zardoz-13 · 10/10 · 26 July 2011]

This matter-of-fact but straight-faced crime melodrama focuses on cocaine addiction. A brother and a sister from the country migrate to the city and discover the tragic consequences of cocaine abuse. The only thing lower than the budget is the brow. This thoroughly predictable epic charts the descent into depravity that these siblings take when they become addicted to the white dust from Hell. Italian-American criminals peddle the cocaine, and they are prepared to sell the stuff to school children. When it comes to lining up new clients, the pushers rely on the friends of those credulous fools. Despite its notorious subject matter, this butchered-looking 62-minute anti-narcotic cautionary tale presents nothing salacious. The celluloid itself appears quite scratchy, and the narrative continuity suffers as a result of the dreadful condition of the film. Evidently, bits and pieces of the action deteriorated so badly in this public domain print that some parts of scenes were removed. The first scene at the roadside diner exemplifies this recurring predicament. Sometimes, parts of the dialogue vanish abruptly so you cannot be certain about what was said.

Compared to "Reefer Madness," "Cocaine Fiends" treats its subject matter with more gravity so it isn't as frivolous. Mind you, this amounts to a left-handed compliment for "Primrose Path" director William A. O'Connor. Interestingly, the original theatrical title of "Cocaine Fiends" was "The Pace That Kills." Moreover, this sound version is a remake of the 1928 silent original co-helmed by O'Connor and Norton S. Parker. Considering its taboo subject matter, this black & white film never depicts the addicts actually using the narcotics. One scene occurs in an Asian opium den, and the addict urges an Asian woman to accelerate the process. Prostitution is suggested rather than shown as is the abuse of cocaine. Despite its occasional lapses in coherence, "Cocaine Fiends" is considerably more realistic, and the punishment that the junkies and the dope peddlers receive is not prescribed by judges or courtroom prosecutors.

"Cocaine Fiends" opens with a pretentious prologue. Not only does this prologue serve to establish the tragedy that lurks in this sad crime saga, but it also doubles as a call to action for people to thwart this illicit pastime. "Among the many evils against which our society struggles, one of the most vicious is the traffic in dope. In every community where the menace develops all the force which society can mobilize, including social agencies, doctors, law enforcement officials and government band together to stamp it out. Without such activity, the dope evil would run rampant. Yet it has long been recognized that one other powerful forces is necessary before the struggle can be completely successful. That force is an aroused and educated public awareness. It is the hope of aiding in developing such awareness that this picture has been produced. What happens to Jane Bradford may happen to anyone. There will always be 'Jane Bradfords' until you Mr. Citizen, cooperate with the forces now fighting the dope evil to forever stamp it out of our land. The Management."

In the first scene, Nick the Pusher (Noel Madison of "Missing Girls") and his partner are looking to expand their operation into new territory. Not only does Nick deliver the dope but he also makes the collections. The local authorities pursue them, but Nick gives them the slip and hides out at a roadside diner. Nick poses as "a collector for an oil company." He assure the roadside attendant, Jane Bradford (Lois January of "Border Caballero") that the men after him are hijacking racketeers. The authorities pull over Nick's associate and search his car but they find nothing. Afterward, the cops pull into at the diner. Jane warns Nick and hides him while the cops sit down to drink some beer and discuss the case. Initially, Jane suspects that the racketeers may not be criminals, but smooth-talking Nick convinces her otherwise. Nick entreats Jane to come to the city. When Jane complains about a headache, Nick gives her some powder that relieves all of Jane's pain.

Eventually, Jane follows Nick to the city, marries him, and then later realizes she has been hooked on cocaine. Jane's handsome kid brother Eddie (Dean Benton of "The Cowboy Millionaire") goes to the city to search for Jane. He takes a job as a car hop at the Twin Barrels Drive-In Restaurant where he meets a waitress named Fanny. After a particularly profitable week, Fanny invites Eddie to join for a night out on the town. Eddie complains about feeling tired. "Say, I've got something that will fix that up," Fanny assures him. She keeps the narcotic hidden in her hose, and we catch a glimpse of her removing it in one close-up shot. Not long after she has introduced poor Eddie to cocaine, he is hooked on the stuff. At the night club, they wind up getting a hefty bill. They consumed four highballs and two gin fizzes. During the episode in the night club, Nick tries to dance with Dorothy, but Jane doesn't let him. This precipitates an argument and Eddie recognizes Jane. Jane tells him that he must be mistaken. Later, Eddie and Fanny are fired when their boss suspects that they are abusing drugs. The daughter of a wealthy man, Dorothy Farley (Sheila Bromley of "Free Rent") is interested in Nick, but her boyfriend warns her that Nick is a gangster. The biggest surprise in "Cocaine Fiends" is that Dorothy's boyfriend Dan (Charles Delaney of "The Brass Legend"), is an undercover cop. Eventually, Jane guns down the treacherous Nick after he abducts Dorothy.

"Cocaine Fiends" isn't as hilarious as "Reefer Madness." Sadly, this qualifies as a depressing little film. The chief reason for its notoriety today is the use of cocaine as its subject matter. The interesting thing here is that the law never intervenes. Characters administer justice without the intervention of the courts.

This is much better than other drug addiction tales of its time...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 21 July 2016]

... and I think people are too quick to look at a camp classic like "Reefer Madness" that shows people smoking one joint and becoming, simultaneously, great piano players, sex fiends, and trigger happy, all while maniacally laughing and think that this film is like that one. You'd be wrong.

Alternatively titled "Cocaine Fiends", this is pretty realistic in showing the effects of cocaine on people and how the addiction is slow and subtle, creeping up on you until you are hooked. The bad guy is Nick, who, on the run from the police, ends up in a diner and gives the girl running it some "headache powders" for her headaches. He woos her with promises of marriage, and gets her to come to the big city with him. Today this all looks pretty obvious, but pre WWII, most people lived in rural environments and trusted one another. Needless to say, the girl gets none of her promises kept once she gets to the city, and is so addicted to cocaine she simply just can't leave.

In the meantime her brother is looking for her after she basically disappears with no letters back home, but he runs into a partying crowd and ends up addicted too.

There are the cheap rented rooms, women being driven to the oldest profession to survive, the flop houses where addicts get their fix and then recover, implied kidnapping and forced prostitution, and strangely enough a rich girl who keeps turning up in scenes who winds up having to do with a bigger story - the search for a "Mister Big" who is directing Nick and head of the drug and prostitution rackets. The story unwinds in an interesting and even pretty well acted way given I had never heard of any of the players. It must have been pretty hard dodging the censors and yet having a realistic story. Maybe that's why a rather contrived happy ending is tacked on to the end, although it seems out of place in the midst of all of the tragedy.

I'd recommend it. Just realize that I don't know of any good quality copies in circulation and the film "skips" so at times pieces of conversation are lost.

Just Not Interesting

[gavin6942 · 3/10 · 22 April 2011]

Drug dealer on the run from the law meets an innocent young girl (Lois January) and her brother, and turns them into "cocaine fiends." The Alpha Video version has a poor video transfer, with the opening credits not even appearing on the screen completely. You can also tell it was poorly edited, as it does not smoothly transition from one scene to the next.

I love the subliminal ad for Lipton's Tea. We do not endorse cocaine, but delicious tea is just fine. This film is also a remake of a 1928 film. I have a hard time believing the older film is worse, but it must be.

How Ya' Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm

[dougdoepke · 20 October 2008]

I wish this movie rose to the level of entertaining camp. But it doesn't. Instead, it's simply a bad low-budget film with few redeeming qualities. I take "camp" to mean that a scene(s) is laughably overdone because of either acting, scripting, or staging. Here the narcotic scenes are not ludicrously overdone like those in the notorious Reefer Madness. Rather, the dope (cocaine, and apparently opium) either puts a smile on the user's face or puts him into a dreamy haze-- not exactly the burlesque of that 1936 classic.

To me, the only scenes that approach camp are the two ridiculous singing acts, especially the singing waiter whose weird eye-rolling is priceless. Also, there's little titillation of the sort that characterizes most 30's exploitation films-- no nude, semi-nude or even seduction scenes. As usual for these films, the city is presented as a corruptive influence on small town innocents who are preyed upon by ruthless city-slickers. Then too, there's the notorious double standard in play. Note how the girls "can't go home again" after being corrupted, but Eddie can go once he kicks the habit. There are aspects of the typical exploitation flick, but the result looks more like an artless attempt to warn youth away from drugs of any sort. The trouble is that both the story- line and the cost-cutting are much too obvious.

Dated melodrama

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 16 August 2017]

THE COCAINE FIENDS is one of those dated 'sensation' features of the 1930s that seen today is more amusing than anything else. It involves the usual innocent woman who takes a special 'powder' for her headache, little knowing that it's actually cocaine and her new boyfriend is a pusher who's about to make her an addict. Certainly this isn't a 'good' movie; it's far too slowly-paced and tame, refusing to show any actual drug-taking on screen, and getting bogged down in talky character melodrama. The film itself is actually a remake of a silent movie called THE PACE THAT KILLS which perhaps was more interesting.

Bland Film - Lots of Talk

[Rainey-Dawn · 1/10 · 6 February 2017]

WOWSERS! You will to snort some cocaine to stay wake to watch this bland, very talky film. Your other choices: go to sleep, find another movie that better than this (most any other film will do) or find something else to do. This is just a terrible film - not because it's anti-drugs, but because it's just a boring story.

She has a headache, he gives her some of his "headache medicine", her head feels better and not long after that she is hooked on the cocaine and the man that gave it to her. Soon her brother starts getting hooked on it. Ya know, the usual stuff we see in these types of film but this film must the the lamest on the subject.

Do yourself a favor, find another film or use this one to fall asleep by... you aren't missing anything.

1/10

More of the Same

[artpf · 2/10 · 12 October 2013]

Small town girl Jane Bradford falls for Nick, a guy from the big city who offers her the opportunity to get away from her small town life. He also offers her "headache powder", she not knowing that it's cocaine and that Nick is a drug pusher.

By the time they get to the city, she's hooked on her new medicine. Jane's brother, Eddie, goes to the city to look for his sister, who has not kept in touch with her family. Eddie gets a job as a carhop at a drive-in and is befriended by a drive-in's waitress named Fanny. Fanny is one of Nick's customers, and Fanny soon gets Eddie hooked on the headache powder.

Due to this vice, Eddie and Fanny's life soon goes downhill. They're both fired from their jobs and are unable to find other work in their drugged out state. On the periphery of both Eddie and Jane's life is Dorothy Farley, a customer at the drive-in. Dorothy, dating Dan, comes from a wealthy family and she throws her money around easily. She's willing to assist financially those in need....

If you've seen any of the plethora of morality plays made in the 30s and 40s, you know the drill. What is never discussed about these movies is when people saw hem in the theater did they laff or take them seriously?

Unfortunately all the prints of these flicks are 3rd and 4th generation dupes so of very poor quality. Probably why Reefer Madness was the one to become the cult favorite -- it's in the best condition. Truth is, all these films are the same.

"Sleigh Ride? Snow Bird? - In Summer?"!!!

[kidboots · 6/10 · 4 July 2011]

Noel Madison made his movie debut along with James Cagney in "Sinner's Holiday" and from then on he was trapped - in the web of gangsters, henchmen and thugs!! He had started off on Broadway so differently, specializing in very sophisticated, upper class types. In movies, however, he was instantly typecast as hoods and lowlifes and his role as Nick, the Pusher in "Cocaine Fiends" was completely typical. He was also a founding member of the screen actors guild - his membership number was 5.

On the run from Federal Agents (he has been pedalling dope to school kids!!) Nick (Noel Madison) hides out in a run down diner. He persuades Jane (Lois January) not only that he is on the run from car-jackers but that with her looks she should be working in the city!!! Before he goes he gives her a sample of "the finest brand of headache medicine in the world" - amazing how many people in this movie suffer from headaches!!! Promises of marriage and work in a big show come to nothing as she realises that she is now hooked on dope and will do anything to get it - even work in a dive called "The Dead Rat"!!!

Meanwhile her younger brother, Eddie, who is also working at a diner, has been given dope to perk him up by a pretty waitress. Eddie and Fanny are then sacked from the diner because of slovenly appearance and unsavoury stories and before too long Eddie is a "hophead" who would "sell his soul for just one shot" and Fanny (Sheila Bromley) turns to prostitution to keep him in dope. Sheila Bromley gives the most restrained performance in the movie. People comment on Jane's altered appearance but, for me, Fanny's change is the most marked. Sheila was never a top star, not even a second stringer but her professionalism shines through. She is the most sympathetic character as she goes from a fun loving waitress to a girl who finds love too late!!! Unfortunately things don't end happily for the brother and sister - he slinks off into the night and Jane is left facing a murder charge!! An interesting subplot has to do with Dorothy, a "poor little rich girl" who wants to walk on the wild side but gets a shock when her father's activities are exposed!!

Lois January (Jane/Lil) had been trained as a dancer from childhood but coming to Hollywood in the early 30s she just didn't make the grade. It didn't help that also in the cast was Lois Lindsay (Dorothy) who was also a dancer and also with a long list of uncredited parts. Very hard to believe that the tough Madame was the same Fay Holden who was so right as Mrs. Hardy in the MGM Hardy Family series.

Well, I liked it

[jcaraway3 · 6/10 · 19 November 2009]

Now hear me out! This really isn't such a bad movie, at least for a 30's propaganda film. The scenes of the effects of drug abuse were actually pretty disturbing, especially when you see what happens to the blonde girl at the end of the film. The film's point, to tell us not to do coke, is still relevant in this day and age. (I mean, I don't know of any schools that encourage coke use, do you?) Not only is it a decent movie, it has a very high camp value. Some of the lines are downright hilarious, including "I'm a hop head!" and "I'd sell my soul for just one shot!" Now, I'm not saying this is a great film. It took a serious idea about drug abuse and gave it a rather silly execution... but that just adds to the fun! One little problem. Th beginning of the film talks about how it is the story of Jane Whatsername, but most of the movie is about her brother Eddie and the girl who introduces him to coke. Well, whatever.

Also,a very big plus is you can usually see and hear what is going on most of the time, which is more than I can say for some films like this. Ahem, "Sex Madness", ahem...

Beware bad film quality!

[moonisgod · 4 July 2000]

If you've seen "Reefer Madness", you can skip "Cocaine Fiends/Pace That Kills". The same overblown scare tactics used in "Reefer Madness" are tried again here, but to limited success. At least "Madness" showed what marijuana looked like; cocaine is mentioned and abused but never actually shown. The same old plot of "good kids turned bad by dope" is re-hashed, but not as directly as in other films, so it gets talky when it shouldn't. The first taste of a drug apparently turns you into a monstrous irresponsible waste of humanity, or a "hop head" as the main character laments. Besides exaggerating consequences to the nth degree, "Fiends" has editing that makes you seasick. Characters simply vanish between film splices and cars appear out of nowhere. It's not funny, it's annoying. Although I'm not in favor of drug use at all, it's fun to see something subvert straightlaced black-and-white America. Anarchists will love this movie, but everyone else will find it rather dull.

Awful

[Michael_Elliott · 24 May 2008]

Cocaine Fiends, The (1935)

BOMB (out of 4)

A sweet, innocent young girl gets involved with a drug dealer who starts giving her "headache medicine" but what she doesn't know is that it's really cocaine. Here's yet another anti-drug film made to try and keep people off drugs but after sitting through a film like this you'll be frantically searching for your town's local drug dealer just so you can get high and hopefully kill some brain cells that will wipe out any memory of this film. You go into films like this expecting them to be bad and you expect some unintentional laughs but I really didn't find any of those here. The movie is incredibly bad from start to finish but what kills it from being entertaining on a bad level is that it appears the director tries to turn this horrid screenplay into something serious. Most films like these contain outrageous scenes meant to get past the production code but this one here doesn't feature any such scenes. We hear about how great this girl was and then we see her fall apart. Boring.

Just What Mom Told You Would Happen...

[azathothpwiggins · 7 July 2021]

THE PACE THAT KILLS (aka: COCAINE FIENDS) is about Eddie, and his hopeless search for his "drugged out" sister, Jane, who fell in with a "rough crowd" after being introduced to a useless "powder peddler" named Nick.

Along the way, poor Eddie himself is given a dose of the devil drug by one of Satan's-helpers-in-human-form. A girl, no less! Eddie tumbles deep into the bowels of depravity.

Oh! If only these 30 year old kids had steered clear of this nefarious nose powder!

Now, there may be no hope at all. Watch and shudder!

EXTRA POINTS FOR: Spotting the rodent wallpaper at the Dead Rat Cafe...