Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

bkoganbing Silver Queen casts sweet young Priscilla Lane in a role that probably should have been done by someone like Barbara Stanwyck. She plays a New York society girl who has to use her gambling wiles to pay back a debt that father Eugene Palette incurred before he died. What was an avocation to her becomes a profession.The debt that Palette incurred is as a result of a high stakes poker game where he lost the root of the family fortune, a Nevada silver mine. Palette lost it to George Brent a professional gambler, but a cavalier if there ever was one. He turns the deed of the mine over to society swell Bruce Cabot who has been engaged to Lane, perennially it would seem.But Cabot is one society rat who keeps the mine for himself. In the end the showdown comes between Brent and Cabot. Guess who wins?Though Silver Queen is a western as categorized, very little time is spent on the lone prairie, most of the film takes place in New York and San Francisco of the 1870s. That showdown climax is abrupt and rather clumsily staged.But Silver Queen's biggest problem is Priscilla Lane. Barbara Stanwyck who played tough and determined women could have carried this part off with a fraction of her talent. Sweet girl next door Priscilla Lane just was not convincing in the part.The film received Oscar nominations for Musical Scoring and black and white Art Direction. But that only serves to inflate an essentially B picture.

MartinHafer George Brent was a fine actor and I always liked Bruce Cabot as a heavy--so why is "Silver Queen" such a dull and unlikable film?! After all, it had a lot of money behind it--it was made by one of the top studios, Warner Brothers. But somehow, the film never seemed interesting and suffered from one HUGE problem problem--and quite a few small ones.The film begins around 1870. There's a huge charity party for the mega-rich and folks just toss around money like it grows on trees. The biggest spender that night is the ultra-cool professional gambler, James Kincaid (Brent). He immediately catches the eye of Coralie Adams (Priscilla Lane) and you know that according to formula by the end of the film the two will be wed. That's THE big problem, as one small unsaid conversation between the two could have easily resulted in their marrying and none of the problems that occur later. I HATE films where it all hinges on one unsaid thing--and in this case, James gives a silver mine to Coralie as a wedding present but never bothers to tell her!! Later, after YEARS have passed, he realizes she never married her no-good fiancé (Cabot) and he basically stole the mine! Why didn't he just ask her how the mine was doing? Why didn't he wonder why she never thanked him? Why did he give the mine to the fiancé to hold and not directly to her?! Frankly, I wish James had just handed the deed to Coralie and kept me from wasting my time--because what occurs between this and the end of the film is dreadfully dull and tough to believe. What else is tough to believe--that Coralie would become a top professional gambler. Priscilla Lane played very sweet ladies in film--SWEET LADIES. She was NOT the least bit convincing in a role that should have been given to an actress with more edge to her personality. Overall, the film is sluggish and rarely interesting. And, you'd think that such a prestige film would have been better.

boblipton Harry "Pop" Sherman spent most of his career producing superior B westerns and was best known for creating and running for several years the Hopalong Cassidy franchise. With this movie he made a bid for the big time and was rewarded with a couple of Oscar nominations, but the total effect, looked at from seventy years later, is an entertaining picture that is, nonetheless, a high-class B picture.This movie features several Warner Brothers people, both in front of and behind the camera, all trying for their big break, but once you get past the charity party sequence, there is little energy in the performances. Perhaps that is why the camera keeps moving constantly.

jjnxn-1 Average drama was Priscilla's only western. She was never a great actress, not to say she wasn't a good one-she was, but was never given a role that would challenge her. Of course being a Warners girl that would have been tough anyway with Bette Davis and Ida Lupino usually getting the roles that required heavy lifting. She was however a warm presence in all her films providing a pleasant center to her pictures as she does here. The picture has a strong supporting cast with Eugene Palette and Guinn Williams livening up the movie during their scenes and Bruce Cabot playing his typical conscienceless worm. The weak link, wasn't he always, is George Brent. Providing his usual stiff, bland performance he adds nothing to the film.The other weakness is the script, most of the action happens with no real sense of conflict. The running time is short so perhaps there was originally more exposition. As it stands now most of the story moves along with no real explanation or sense of struggle for the characters. The film is handsome and was Oscar nominated for it's sets which at the time included costumes since the categories had yet to be split. It certainly has a rich look and Priscilla and the other women are decked out in sumptuous gowns and head-wear and everything is played out on expensive looking ornate sets. It's nomination for musical scoring is a bit more of a surprise since there is nothing really outstanding about it.A routine film but if you are a fan of any of the stars an enjoyably brisk 80 minutes.