Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 24 February 1938 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Astor, 6 January 1938. U.S. release: 15 April 1938. Australian release: 19 May 1938. (The film lost money on initial release, despite huge publicity). 10,002 feet. 111 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Saloon owner marries singer so that she can't testify against him.NOTES: Alice Brady was voted Best Supporting Actress and Robert Webb carried off an award for Assistant Director. Number 6 on the Film Daily annual poll of U.S. film critics. Negative cost: $1,800,000 (of which well over a third was spent on the fire). Initial domestic rental gross: an extremely disappointing $1,500,000. Shooting commenced 14 June 1937. COMMENT: When San Francisco emerged as America's top-grossing picture of 1936, Fox chief Darryl F. Zanuck was anxious to emulate MGM's success. He commissioned Niven Busch to write a story about the great Chicago fire of 1871 incorporating as many of San Francisco's plot lines as possible. Thus both stories center around a sympathetically roguish saloon-keeper in the city's red-light district who is restrained (and eventually brought to heel) by a blonde singer and a priest/friend/crusading brother. In "San Francisco", Clark Gable plays the rogue delightfully, but is less convincing as the regenerated Christian. Though outclassed by Gable's seemingly easy nonchalance and casually effective macho airs, Power gives the "In Old Chicago" rogue more than a game try. His laughter and childish glee in his own devious stratagems is especially endearing and what is more important, he is rather more convincing than Gable in his last-reel change-of-heart. Admittedly, he was handed reasonable lines, while Gable had to contend with some real stinkers. As the blonde catalyst, however, Jeanette MacDonald tends to make a more memorable impression than Alice Faye. Her role is larger and more vital to the course of the plot and she has a large number of scenes in which she is allowed to try her mettle with seasoned support players like Jack Holt and Jessie Ralph. And of course she has better songs, including cleverly edited excerpts from grand opera and the rousing title tune. Not only does Alice Faye make a late entrance, but she has few scenes without Tyrone Power. We have nothing against Power, but he has lots of other scenes as well. In addition, her songs are fewer, not so elaborately staged, and not so memorably tuneful. The best of them is the old stand-by, "Carry Me Back To Old Virginny" in which she is strikingly costumed. Indeed her attractive gowns are certainly the equal of Miss MacDonald's.As the hero's friend/brother, Spencer Tracy has it all over poor Don Ameche who is a capable actor, but no match for the charismatic magnetism of Tracy. If San Francisco doesn't have a real villain, In Old Chicago provides one in the person of Gil Warren, played by that uneven actor, Brian Donlevy. Here, fortunately, he is at his most fascinatingly unscrupulous best. Supported by the legendary Rondo Hatton, he has some marvelously breathtaking scenes including an elaborate parade and supporters' convention which must rank among the most lavish and action-full ever staged by Hollywood. We also love the side-splitting scene in which, looking frantically disheveled, he attempts to extract information from Joe Twerp's stuttering clerk. And then there is In Old Chicago's Alice Brady. San Francisco offers nothing to match her performance, even though her "straight acting" is now robbed of its initial tour-de-force. (Alice Brady's usual roles were dotty mothers in the Billie Burke fashion.) All told, In Old Chicago can put up as interesting a group of character players (Spencer Charters, Andy Devine, Phyllis Brooks, Eddie Collins) as can San Francisco (Ted Healy, Al Shean, Jessie Ralph). In photography, sets, costumes and spectacle, the two are almost equal. Personally, I think "In Old Chicago" has a slight edge. Marley's photography has a remarkable depth of field which gives many of the images a three-dimensional quality. We are actually present in the teeming, muddy streets of Chicago, in the crowded saloons, in the sprawling convention hall. In direction, the two are evenly matched. Van Dyke has a vigorous, pacy style, but King has an eye for detail and drama that gives his best films (such as this) a quality that enables them to be enjoyed numerous times. Of course, both directors were helped out by experts, King rather more than Van Dyke. The thrilling chase between the carriage and the railway train at the beginning of In Old Chicago is Humberstone's, as is the entire final twenty minutes, Humberstone directing the main unit and the principal players as well as the special effects. However, Henry King himself staged the spectacular convention brawl as well as the dangerous fight between Power and Ameche in which only two falls were doubled. Both scripts have their share of witty dialogue. I especially liked Power's comment on Ameche's campaign speech. "I don't think he'll win. He looks too honest. People don't trust an honest politician." Both movies offer such first-class entertainment, so it comes down to a personal choice. Mine is "In Old Chicago" — secondly because it offers Power in one of the most convincing performances of his career (notice the clever insincerity in his voice as he proposes), and firstly because it has the charming, alluring, entrancing Alice Faye, the warmest and most captivating actress of the cinema — and she sings like an angel too!

littlechum-27506 As I watched this movie, the comparison to the movie Johnny Dangerously started when the two brothers get to mom's home and she is doing the laundry, a fine Irish woman, just like Johnny's mom...and when Dion ask mom to quit doing laundry, well there ya have the first thought... meanwhile his brother the lawyer is trying to make a name for himself while his brother is the gangster. Dion meets his girl (just like Lil in JD) and at first she fights him, then falls in love, Later his brother the lawyer will have to face his brother in court....Then there is the obvious similarities in the way both Michael Keaton and Dion carry themselves, even their eyebrows are sculptured similarly. Keaton must have watched this movie to get tips on how to pull it off.... Coincidence?....Maybe. Still it made me wonder. Rick in Indy.

Steffi_P Copycatting and one-upmanship were popular sports among the major studios of classic era Hollywood. In 1936 MGM had had a massive hit with San Francisco, an epic about the city's early days culminating with the infamous 1906 earthquake. The following year Fox sought to mine the same gold with a similarly massive production of fictional drama leading up to the great fire of Chicago.In Old Chicago was also a vehicle for Fox's latest rising star, Tyrone Power. Power is handsome and charismatic but not a great actor. This is a surprisingly ambiguous role for him, verging on villainy more than once. As it happens Power is quite well suited to being dastardly and would have made a good gangster. His best scene is the one where he nonchalantly tells Brian Donlevy he sold him out. Other than that he's just a grinning twit. His co-star Don Ameche on the other hand was a fine dramatic player who really stands out here. It's just a shame Ameche so often missed out on the juiciest roles. Alice Brady is very good too, playing the boys' mother. Unlike most Oscar-winners she doesn't have one "big" scene that clinched it, but is throughout full of eye-catching spirit. Also watch out for an uncredited Rondo Hatton, a menacing presence lurking in several scenes.The screenplay is by prolific Hollywood hacks Sonya Levien and Lamar Trotti, based on a story by Niven Busch. It is a rather trite affair, events all slotted together a little too neatly. Very little time is devoted to subplot or character development, and by the picture's climax we do not feel especially attached to these people. Much is made of "The Patch" being a district of squalor and vice, but we never see a glimpse of the sordid side of the city, so it remains just an abstract over which the characters bicker but the audience remains indifferent to. Tyrone Power woos his woman in the manner of the era's swashbucklers, basically with a series of persistent assaults and abductions. The screenplay doesn't really give time to the development of a more touching romance. Despite its ambitious scope, the picture runs only a bit over 90 minutes, then a more typical length for a small chamber drama. The brevity of the picture is disappointing and the culprit is a script that needs more padding.The director was among Fox's most respected professionals, the consistently competent veteran Henry King. As usual King places a heavy emphasis on sets and clutter, bringing a rather dark, oppressive look to the picture. Even the opening scene of the pioneer wagon does not conjure up the freedom of the open plain, beginning instead with an almost entirely black shot with the wagon swinging round to fill the frame. This prevents the switch to the tall buildings and narrow streets of the city from being too stark. You could also see King's approach as being a build-up to the fire sequence, in which the claustrophobic shot composition really enhances the sense of panic. Overall however, this is a somewhat lacklustre effort from a usually ace director, lacking the iconic look he brought to State Fair (1933) or the sublimely relaxed pacing of Jesse James (1939).Like San Francisco before it, In Old Chicago fared well at the box office. Power was gaining in popularity, and the sheer scale of the fire scenes counted for something. However, compared to the earlier movie (a bit of a neglected masterpiece, by the way), which it deliberately set out to better, it fails on every level. As always, a timely bandwagon hop can reap quick financial rewards, but it takes more than a simple formula to make a great motion picture.

MartinHafer In 1936, MGM made the huge and impressive "San Francisco". It starred Clark Gable and the singing sensation, Jeanette MacDonald and ended with an amazing earthquake sequence that brought down the crooked empire that Gable had spent the movie amassing. Here, in a totally different(?) film done just a year later, starring Tyrone Power (a prettier version of Clark Gable) and the singing sensation, Alice Faye and ending with an amazing fire sequence that brought down the crooked empire that Power and Brian Donlevy had spent the move amassing. In other words, this 20th Century-Fox film was essentially a knockoff of the original MGM film--and they barely disguised this by only waiting one year. The only major difference was that IN OLD CHICAGO is based on really, really bad history, as the whole "Mrs. O'Leary's cow" incident is complete hooey--as this never happened. Still, if you don't mind that it's a knockoff and you don't mind that it's a terrible history lesson, the film is moderately entertaining. Overall, a watchable time-passer and obvious knockoff.