TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
Kirandeep Yoder
The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.
Taha Avalos
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Michael_Elliott
Last of Mrs. Cheyney, The (1937) *** (out of 4) Spit, polish and gloss has been added to this MGM remake of their 1929 Norma Shearer-Basil Rathbone drama. This time out John Crawford plays Mrs. Cheyney, an American woman her works her way into British society and gets several men to fall in love with her including Lord Dilling (Robert Montgomery). What these rich folks don't realize is that Mrs. Cheyney is actually a thief planning on stealing from them with the help of her partner (William Powell). As with the original film, this remake is a fairly flawed tale but there's no question that the studio treated us to a rather amazing cast and they alone make it worth sitting through. Crawford at times seems out of place but on the whole I think she does a pretty good job with the role. She's got a certain toughness that jumps off the screen so she's easily believable as the mind behind this group of thieves and the actress also does good in the softer moments when her character starts to want to break free from crime. Montgomery is charming as always and Powell makes for an interesting supporting player. Powell doesn't get too much to do but when he's on screen he's certainly entertaining. The supporting cast includes some very well- known faces including Nigel Bruce, Frank Morgan, Colleen Clare, Ralph Forbes, Melville Cooper and Sara Haden. The first hour of the film is a major improvement over the original because the writers cleared out some of the boring dialogue (that just dragged on in the original) and replaced it with some humor that certainly helps the material move. Another good thing is the added gloss because there are various images that are quite pleasant on the eyes and this again is a major step-up from the original. Where the film really goes off the charts is during the final thirty-minutes when it becomes clear that the writers didn't know how they wanted to end the film. The movie should have been almost over right after the sixty-minute mark but things really start to drag because it seems the writers didn't know what they wanted to do with the Crawford character. Some of this might be due to the fact that original director Richard Boleslawski suddenly died during production only to be replaced by George Fitzmaurice who was also replaced by Dorothy Arzner.
krorie
What a wonderful cast. Some of the best Thespians of the 1930's or any decade for that matter. William Powell, Robert Montgomery, Joan Crawford, Nigel Bruce, Frank Morgan, Jessie Ralph, Melville Cooper, to name the main ones. Then what went wrong? The answer is in the weak script and ho-hum direction. Based on a play, the movie is stagy, much too talky. There is little wit nor many clever lines in the wordy script. So all the viewer has left is a bunch of good actors talking themselves to death and putting the audience to sleep in the process. The script is also predictable. The plot is actually a good one. The charming and mysterious Mrs. Cheyney woos rich eligible bachelors and one not so eligible to gain their confidence so she and her accomplices can fleece them. Unfortunately Mrs. Cheyney falls for one of the eligible bachelors. Will she go through with the fleece? The answer lies in the last half of the film. Since Hollywood today is remaking so many movie classics that don't really need remaking, why not remake some of the movies such as this one that could use a good make over? As noted by critics there is a degree of miscasting involved as well. Joan Crawford just does not fit as an adventurer passing herself off as a social big-wig in England. William Power would have played Robert Montgomery's role better than the role assigned him. Robert Montgomery on the other hand is well suited for his role as is Nigel Bruce and the rest of the cast.Even if you are a fan of the stars of this fluff and an admirer of 1930's Hollywood cinema, you may still find this movie slow moving and hoping that this is truly the last of Mrs. Cheyney.
jenifefa
I was surprised to read some of these unfavorable reviews. The '30s was my favorite era in film history, and this is one of my favorites. It's not "My Man Godfrey" or "It Happened One Night," but it's very enjoyable. I love the scene when her "servants" reveal themselves. I thought Montgomery was charming and adorable as usual, Powell was as awesome as ever, and Crawford was perfectly cast. She has the edge that makes her believable as a con artist. I'm curious to see the original pre-code version, if only TCM would show it! I doubt it's better, though. Norma Shearer was so weepy-eyed and hokey, and I wouldn't buy her as a con artist.
Dan
Drama queen single-handedly destroys the fun in a manor house jewelry heist.The single biggest problem with this film is Crawford. I don't think she had comedy in her. She plays the tragic heroine in every movie, and this one is no exception. She warps the movie from a very funny comedy into just another Joan Crawford tragedy, of sorts. And she assumes an air of breezy self-assurance that is so strong and so undiluted with any sense of self-deprecation or humor that it makes her annoying.Of course, there are other problems. It's hard to tell that the movie is supposed to be funny, really, until the "butler" takes a cigarette for himself and flops heavily onto the settee. Ah, of course! NOW I get it! It's all a scam! Until then, we've had small humorous asides from a few characters, but outside of that, we're not sure where the movie is going. Only with that heavy flop, a good half hour or more into the movie, do we understand that this is a comedy.By then, it's too late, even if the movie had begun behaving the way it's supposed to. But the maudlin melodrama continues, with Crawford empathizing with the scary-looking Duchess, and this once again drains all semblance of comedy out of the movie. The later scenes with the robbery gang, which should be the sparkling highlight of the movie, come off instead as irritating and quarrelsome. And the snooty upper-class guests do no better. The "parlor game" is abrupt, unfinished, talky, and doesn't deliver any comic payoff. All of the characters but one are dispatched OFFSCREEN to "pay their penalties"--as if the filmmakers WANTED to avoid any potential for genuine good fun! (And the one character who pays hers on screen is annoying, deliberately so.) Was this to avoid lightening Crawford's gloom-and-doom character? Nigel Bruce and Frank Morgan are of course both priceless in this movie, because you could ask either of them to read the list of ingredients on a cereal box and they would still exude their own striking personalities, and Powell has a few moments, but his character comes off as stock and flat, just like Crawford's.One imagines that this could have been a terrifically entertaining and funny movie...one imagines that some of the people involved, Powell, Morgan and Bruce, must have realized this...and one imagines that they must have been terribly disappointed to see the way the movie was handled.
