VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
Lightdeossk
Captivating movie !
Griff Lees
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
mcalfieri
I watched this movie for the first time last night. I was blown away by the acting of Tracy and Arthur Byron (who plays the warden at Sing Sing). Byron has a commanding voice (he was a famous stage actor) and it is well used here. Director Curtiz obviously liked him because Byron gets a lot of screen time. There are a lot of reaction shots from Byron and Curtiz lets the camera linger on him - his thoughtful face fills the screen. Bette Davis is surprisingly feminine and very sexy. Her characters got edgier later in her career. Here she is very attractive and interesting to watch. The acting from the other supporting actors is not very good and the script is bad. The script simply does not make sense in places. Rockcliffe Fellowes plays Tracy's friend near the end of the picture. Fellowes was the excellent star of 1915's Regeneration (Raoul Walsh dir.)but his career nosedived in talkies. He is worth seeing. If you like pre-Code drama this is definitely worth a look.
jacobs-greenwood
Michael Curtiz directed this above average prison, crime drama adapted from the book of the same name written by Lewis Lawes (who really was a Warden at Sing Sing!) by Courtney Terrett and Robert Lord, with a screenplay by Wilson Mizner and Brown Holmes. It stars Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis (their only film together), as well as Arthur Byron and Louis Calhern (among others).The title refers to the cumulative sentencing time of all the inmates held at the famous New York state prison.The film was later remade by director Anatole Litvak as Castle on the Hudson (1940) with John Garfield, Ann Sheridan, Pat O'Brien, and Jerome Cowan (respectively).Since I saw the latter first, the plot summary is contained within my review of that film on IMDb.com.As far as I can tell, there is little difference between the two films. In fact, their run-times are within 5 minutes of each other; this one is the longer of the two, and its ending does drag a bit.Even though Tracy played a number of tough characters early in his career (like Davis, this was one of his first 10-15 roles), I think Garfield was better suited to the role. Tracy's character is named Tom Connors in this one.Ms. Davis, who is perhaps my favorite actress (and the greatest who ever lived?), wasn't as much of a factor in her ingenue days (e.g. in this film, as Fay Wilson, she didn't stand out) as she was later in her career whereas Ms. Sheridan (whose performance is very good) was given more to do in the remake.Byron, who was in scant few films, does a credible job if not as effusive as O'Brien, as Warden Long. Lyle Talbot and Warren Hymer play the smart and dumb cons, Bud Saunders and Hype respectively, though Burgess Meredith and Guinn "Big Boy" Williams had already established themselves in these type of roles by the time they appeared in the remake. Calhern's lawyer Joe Finn isn't much different from the one Cowan played.The role that's changed the most between the films is that of the death row prison priest, played by an uncredited actor (Hardie Albright?) in this one and John Litel, who's given a little more screen-time in the latter. Grant Mitchell appears uncredited in both films as the prison's IQ tester.It's ironic that the first film is longer when the second film contains a court scene (with Henry O'Neill) and more of Garfield's planned escape being shown, including his being conscious of "the heat" being put on the warden by the press.
Michael_Elliott
20,000 Years in Sing Sing (1932) ** 1/2 (out of 4) A tough guy (Spencer Tracy) gets 5-30 in Sing Sing but he thinks the journey will be easy due to his connections on the outside. The Warden (Arthur Byron) eventually reforms the guy but when his girlfriend (Bette Davis) gets injured, the Warden offers the man one night outside the prison if he promises to return the following day. This Michael Curtiz directed prison drama is pretty good, although it really doesn't offer us anything new or original. The story eventually falls apart in the middle section but Tracy and Davis, in their only film together, makes it worth watching.
tedg
As I write this, "Shawshank Redemption" is IMDb's number two top movie of all time. I find that absolutely fascinating.The prison movie isn't quite a genre to itself because the story possibilities vary so. But there is a definite collection of cinematic devices that are used in nearly all of them, only "Silence of the Lambs" excepted that I can recall.This film may be the first to set that collection of cinematic devices. It has a lame redemption story and quite ineffective acting styles. But the way the story is told in images is masterful. The filmmaker is Michael Curtiz, who you will know as the man who took a B movie and framed it beautifully as "Casablanca."His is an approach very much like the "graphic novel" trend sweeping across Hollywood right now. Simple compositions, starkly presented to be easy to read. A consistent pulse in the way scenes change. Strict attention to the way the brightness is modulated slowly throughout the thing. And of course within this, some shots of prison life that have since become almost mandatory. (Thank God, that slamming door sound effect hadn't found its way into movies yet.)So, if you are interested in cinematic storytelling, this is something of a must for you.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
