Smart Money (1931)

One of my all time favorites.

Nice effects though.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

. . . of our upcoming Calamities, Catastrophes, Cataclysms, and Apocalypti, often for the Great-Grandkids of their "First Release" audiences. SMART MONEY is no exception to this law. Edward G. Robinson, film history's one actor who can out-Rump Rump himself, is cast as a bogus casino operator who has corrupted nearly the entire government of New York, is in the process of extending his Swindling Empire World-Wide, but absolutely refuses to release his Financial Information to the Proper Authorities as he coarsely assaults one young chick after another. Beginning to sound a little familiar to Current Headlines? SMART MONEY was made prior to the Institution of the Fat Cat Roman-Run Censorship Code (aka, the MPAA Thought Police), so Warner is able to prophecy such Rump-like comments as "Say, you're a cute little trick" (to a female stranger in her twenties) and "Why, you hustling little bag, I'll have you on your knees!" while giving his First-shown Floozie $100 for an abortion after he's knocked her up. Yes, 75 years BEFORE our Deplorable 2016 Rigged Election, Warner Bros. anticipates that Lucifer's Three C's--that is, Capitalism, Communism, and "Conservatism"--would collude to install a casino racketeer money launderer for history's biggest thief ("Mad Vlad" Putin, who has stolen $1 TRILLION plus from the Russian People) in residence at our once-sacred White House despite his hobby of perverse serial sexual assaults, and Edward G. Robinson's best SMART MONEY effort to warn us!

Robinson is a barber who owns his own barbershop, but who goes off to gamble with some real card-sharks. He goes to the hotel where the action is and meets the girl at the magazine counter who tells him what room the game is in, after the desk clerk tells him nothing like that is allowed in this hotel. Little does Edward know what's in store for him. Of course Robinson, as the barber, is great, and James Cagney is a secondary character with not much development to make him really interesting. But, it's Robinson that makes this film worth watching. He has such presence, and this is only a sample of what is yet to come in his career. The only problem I have with it is that its ending is rather anti-climatic. But as usual Robinson has the flair to take it all in stride and he makes the viewer feel honored to watch a master of his craft at work.

Smart Money (1931)A clever story about crime and misguided love (quasi-love) and about the love of money. What's wrong with that? Nothing here. With a remarkable performance by Edward G. Robinson (as usual), and supporting roles by a young James Cagney and a series of blondes who will more or less look alike at first. It might have been something of a formula production for the cast and crew, but it's during the lively pre-1934 sound era where, especially at a studio like Warner Bros., things manage to pop one way or another.As much as this is a very good film, completely engaging and without gaffes or sentimental slow downs, it remains secondary for 1931 because of several interesting things. First, Robinson had just become famous for "Little Caesar" where he had a shining (and roughly similar) role as a sort of good guy gangster. Second, Cagney was in a rare supporting role, not yet famous for his breakout role in "The Public Enemy" later the same year. Both of these Warner films are better, all around. And a third twist is the appearance early on of Boris Karloff, who was about to launch to superstardom as, yes, "Frankenstein," a Universal film from later in, yes, 1931. But you should watch "Smart Money" for what it does so well--tells a fast, multi-layered story with economy and life, and with great performances by the leads. The story and direction might fall short of classic, but it's still really solid.

It seems that several cast members sneak a lot of Yiddish within some of the quick dialog. I know that Cagney, brought up in the lower East Side, did actually insert Yiddish into some of his finished product. Seems odd that this would happen. Appreciate it if someone might elaborate as to if mixtures of different languages/dialects were actually permitted in final takes. Obviously this would save funds on retakes and let a well done scene pass through. Perhaps since this film was done in '31,it didn't matter too much. Yet, much of the dialog is hard to decipher in spots. I enjoyed the film. A cute piece of height of the depression era entertainment.