Raffles (1930) User Reviews

One can't help liking it

[Spondonman · 7/10 · 16 September 2007]

The early Goldwyn Colman films had a lovely atmosphere all of their own. Just learning to cope with sound they exhibit an echoey creaky staginess which in turns is charming and irritating when watching a romantic adventure/mystery. Every action was pointed and often laboured with the handed down techniques from silent days, meaning once seen you seldom forget it. It's the same with Raffles, a ridiculous script if there was one (heavily mucked about with from the book) but if you don't see it for 20 years you'd probably remember every act and scene.

Raffles has been a reformed ex-Cracksman for a few hours but finds he suddenly has to help his limp friend Bunny repay £1000 within 2 days and he only knows one way to get it. An invite to Lady Melrose's country house for cricket and a garden party of hundreds provides him with the chance – and also a gang of six ineffectual Cockney burglars who skulk around in the dark loudly laying their plans. The scene where the burglar is caught and venomously points out Raffles on the stairs is pivotal to the film but it never recovers from the clumsy handling of it – did Colman know what to say at that point? Colman was great in the role, his clipped accent and perfect diction usually used to good effect. Good support was from Kay Francis who played his understanding girlfriend although she didn't get to say Divine, and David Torrence the chunky and heavily cloaked Scotland Yard Inspector. Favourite bit: the torchlit confrontation between Raffles and Crawshay in the bedroom at midnight.

Simple old fashioned entertainment - I stick it on every few years without fail because with all its faults I like this one.

Entertaining and atmospheric Ronald Coleman film

[jcorelis-24336 · 7/10 · 27 April 2017]

A. J. Raffles, "the amateur cracksman," was a fictional English gentleman safecracker invented by E. W. Hornung in a series of stories beginning in 1898 as a sort of mirror image of Sherlock Holmes. Like Holmes, Raffles is a suave, upper-class intellectual involved with the underworld, but Raffles's involvement is on the wrong side of the law: he supports his upper-class lifestyle by his career as a jewellry thief.

The Raffles stories were extremely popular and have been the subject of many film, theater, and television treatments. One of the best of these is this 1930, very early talkie starring cinema's quintessential English gentleman, Ronald Coleman. It's really quite a good film for its time, with an intelligent script, generally good acting (especially by Coleman and character actor Frederick Kerr, better known as Baron Frankenstein in James Whale's famous 1931 treatment of the monster story, who steals every scene he is in as a grouchy English lord.) Co-cinematographer Gregg Toland, who later worked on many Hollywood classics, is presumably responsible for the film's noirish, atmospheric lighting effects.

All in all, I'd say this entertaining film will still be enjoyed by today's audiences, and is a must see for fans of Coleman.

Very good for 1930.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 5 August 2011]

Considering that this film came out in 1930, you need to cut its sound a bit of slack. While it's pretty easy to understand the actors talking (better than many 1930 films), because the sound technology was so new it was still far from perfect. The film has a strong and very definite hissing sound to much of it. And, like other films of the early sound era, it's rather quiet because there isn't the usual incidental music in much of the film. This is not a complaint--just an observation. They used such music very sparingly because back in 1927-1930 to get incidental music you literally had to have an orchestra just off camera performing live while the scene was shot--they hadn't yet learned how to add the music later. So, cut the film a bit of slack in this department--it IS pretty good for 1930 and the sound in many films of this and the previous years was a lot worse (such as 1929's "Coquette" which is almost unwatchable due to its WILDLY fluctuating sound).

"Raffles" is about a gentleman who is also an amateur thief--and a very talented one. While his society friends adore Raffles (played by Ronald Colman at his charming best) because of his wit, sporting skills and fine manners, they don't realize HE is this thief. Much of the film concerns his attending a particular weekend party in order to steal a necklace so he can use the money to help a friend in dire straits. However, along the way he meets up with a swanky lady (Kay Francis) and he's torn between his life of crime or becoming 100% legitimate for her sake. What will Raffles do? And what will Raffles do when ANOTHER crook shows up as well?! All in all, "Raffles" is a pleasant and a bit too talky film. Personally, I think it would have been better with more outdoor scenes and action. But again, 1930 was still a transitional year for sound and the stagy production was pretty typical. I also thought Raffles' 'brilliant' escape at the end was anything but. However,the acting was good and it was nice to see a detective who was NOT stupid (a common and rather dumb cliché of the 1930s and 40s). Well worth seeing but not among Colman's best work.

Simple Story - But With 'The Voice'

[GManfred · 9 August 2011]

The idea of an upper class 'Amateur Cracksman' who steals jewelry for a living has a romantic aura about it and should make for a better movie than "Raffles" turns out to be. The punch line of many scenes is telegraphed, the plot is simplistic, unadorned and full of holes and the ending is absurd.

Ah, but it stars 'The Voice', Ronald Colman, and that makes all the difference. Colman and his mellifluous voice glide through every scene and anesthetizes an unbelievable story just by talking. Here he was at the height of his popularity as the dashing cricketer/thief and has as his leading lady Kay Francis, one of the loveliest stars of that era. She is unfortunately given little to do in a meager role as his fiancé. But there are some other Hollywood stalwarts in the cast, among them Alison Skipworth in one of her ditzy socialite roles and silent film bad guy David Torrence, a Scotsman with a thick Scottish accent, as the investigating detective. Also Bramwell Fletcher and Frederick Kerr, a very elderly gentleman I found delightful in "Waterloo Bridge (1930)" in the same blustery, old duffer-type role.

"Raffles" is uncomplicated and good fun, and about as deep as a dish of water, but worth your time to see and hear Colman say things - doesn't matter what, just listen to him talk. Thank TCM for dusting this one off.

Introducing the "amateur cracksman"

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 23 October 2017]

This is the first sound picture made about the gentleman thief, A.J. Raffles, created by English author E.W. Hornung. It's also among the first movies made of a caper comedy. It was only natural that this story would be remade so soon (and more versions made later), so it's also natural to compare this film with the 1939 movie. First, I think all the actors did well in both films. But some of the roles are quite different between the films.

I don't know to what extent either film stayed close to the novel, or improvised. This 1930 "Raffles" suffers some in its production. It has at least two plot holes. One is left guessing why something happened a certain way. In the 1939 film, the plot spells it out. I suspect that was a difference in the screenplay and the directing or editing. So, the 1939 film is a notch better than this one, for its continuity and fluidity – the smoothness of the story.

One thing about Hornung's "amateur cracksman" seems obvious. He really is an amateur. Both of these films show how easily Scotland Yard is able to get onto him. Both actors who play the inspector are quite good. In this film, David Torrence is Inspector McKenzie. In the 1939 film, Dudley Digges plays an inspector whose name is spelled MacKenzie. Torrence is very funny in his role, as the modestly egotistical Scotland Yard man. In the second film, Digges has more of a role that shows his cunning.

I think Ronald Colman is the better A.J. Raffles, especially with his spritely movements. He gives one a sense that this guy could easily climb terraces, hang from ropes, or do other acrobatic feats to gain entry for nighttime robberies. David Niven doesn't give the same sense, yet his character is very likable and affable with his butler and people of a lower class.

Kay Francis is OK in this film as Gwen, a doting woman in love with Raffles. But her part is not very big, and there's little more to it than that. Olivia de Havilland's Gwen in the 1939 film is much more vibrant. And, she has a meatier role that gives one much more of a sense of love between she and Raffles.

The supporting casts are good, but also have quite different roles to perform. E.E. Clive in the 1939 film is far superior as Barraclough, the butler to Raffles. Wilson Benge is almost unnoticed in that role in this 1930 film. But, again, Clive is given a much meatier part, especially with one scene with some substantial dialog. Both Lord Melrose and Lady Kitty Melrose are superior in this 1930 film, as played by Frederick Kerr and Allison Skipworth, respectively. Although Dame May Witty had the Lady Melrose in the 1939 film, I suspect she and Lionel Pape (as Lord Melrose) had their parts tuned down some, for more attention to be given to Gwen, Inspector MacKenzie and Barraclough.

If one could mix and match between the two films, I would like to have seen a film with the second screenplay, but some role and character changes. Ronald Colman would play Raffles opposite de Havilland as Gwen. Allison Skipworth and Frederick Kerr from this film would be the Lady and Lord Melrose, with their lines from this film. David Torrence would move Into the inspector role, taking his one scene about his expertise with him to the role in the 1939 film. And Barraclough would stay as he is in the 1939 film, with E.E. Clive in the role. Both actors who played Bunny were very good, but I think Bramwell Fletcher from this 1930 film portrayed more a sense of worry and seriousness of his financial problem

E.W. Hornung's stories about AJ. Raffles, a gentleman thief, were set in late 19th century London. This first sound production of Raffles, departs considerably in that it has automobiles and airplanes. Inspector McKenzie hurries back to London by airplane. It is obviously set around 1930.

Horning introduced Raffles in his first story in 1898, "The Ides of March," which was printed in the June issue of Cassell's Magazine. The titles of subsequent stories were all tagged with the label, "Adventures of the Amateur Cracksman." Seven were published in Scribner's Magazine during 1901. In 1899, a short story collection, "The Amateur Cracksman" was published. Another short story collection followed in 1906 – "Raffles, The Amateur Cracksman."

In 1903, Hornung wrote a play "Raffles, The Amateur Cracksman" that was first performed Oct. 27, 1903, at the Princess Theatre in New York. In 1909 he wrote another play, "A Visit From Raffles," that was first performed at the Brixton Empress Theatre in London. In 1909, Hornung published a novel, "Mr. Justice Raffles."

Here are some favorite funny lines from this film. For more humorous dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb Web page for the movie.

Lord Melrose, "Well, like a lamb to the slaughter I go." Lady Kitty Melrose, "Did you say lamb, Harry dear?" Lord Melrose, "Well, mutton, if you like, darling."

Inspector McKenzie, "Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Raffles. I have a high opinion of myself. You see, uh… I'm a criminologist… and a Scotsman. Heh. The Scots enjoy feelin' they're cleverer than other people, and they are cleverer. My own cleverness often amazes me."

Lady Melrose, "Are we all to be murdered in our beds?"

Inspector McKenzie, opening a door to another room, "Library, eh?" A.J. Raffles, "Yes… for books."

Inspector McKenzie, looking through a door into another room, "This is the bath, eh?" Raffles, "Yes. Uh, go straight in. I'm not bathing now."

Gentlemanly Crackling

[Cineanalyst · 6/10 · 7 March 2020]

Hollywood took a few cracks at adapting E.W. Hornung's prose series about gentleman thief A.J. Raffles: in 1917, 1925, this early 1930 talkie and, again, in 1939, with the casting including such suave leading men as John Barrymore, David Niven and, here, Ronald Colman. This "Raffles" suffers being a creaky early talkie (reportedly, a silent version was also, simultaneously filmed), although its sole Academy Award nomination was for sound recording, and, indeed, it makes some good use of sound, from the start with the bobbies sipping coffee from bowls, to a clock motif and the punctuation of the usual talkfest in the early years of synchronized-sound production with sequences of silence during the nighttime burglaries. The writers even managed to get a bit of clever wordplay over the noise from the primitive recording technology of the day.

Moreover, as another character chimes, one, indeed, can't help liking Colman's Raffles. The supporting cast is decent, too, including Kay Francis as the romantic interest, David Torrence as the Scottish Scotland Yard inspector, and Alison Shipworth and Frederick Kerr are amusing as the bickering hosts to their home of guests spending the weekend, apparently, smoking, drinking and playing cricket and tennis--the sort of upper-class soirées one might expect from an episode of "Downton Abbey," where dandies in tuxedos sip brandy and retort that Americans are too savage to understand cricket.

I think what raises "Raffles" above many other early talkies, however, is the talent Samuel Goldwyn assembled behind the scenes, namely cinematographers George Barnes (5-time Oscar nominee) and Gregg Toland (who also photographed the 1939 version and is most famous for "Citizen Kane" (1941)) and art directors Park French and William Cameron Menzies (the latter of whom would invent the job of production designer during the making of "Gone with the Wind" (1939)). There's nothing amateurish in their design of the amateur cracksman's first heist scene, with the policeman's shadow lurking in the background behind store-front glass as a safe is cracked with the aid of a diegetic light source. Some camera movement is managed, too, including a nice shot of Colman on the staircase upon seeing Francis's entry. Being England, there's also a fog-filled sequence. There's nothing amazing about any of this, but it's worth noting how much difference to a slight scenario burdened by primitive new technology can benefit from skilled artists behind the camera while placing charming actors in front of it, as well as giving some thought to how to use and not use the newfangled sound.

"Good night, Lady Melrose" "I didn't quite catch that?" "Good NIGHT!" "Oh"

[trimmerb1234 · 7/10 · 11 February 2017]

Thus went the conversation between Ronald Colman's Raffles and the rich but vast and ageing Lady Melrose after he had courteously escorted her to her bedroom and the two hovered either side of the open door. The lady's expression, which went from bright expectation to annoyed disappointment, left no doubt what was happening. This was pre-Hayes Code and both here and elsewhere it was very obvious. Also the question of Raffle's morality. In the book, Raffles does give some kind of justification for his thieving - "the richly immoral robbing the immorally rich". He also never befriends soon to become victims. Here Colman blithely disregards all of this. The 1939 almost scene for scene word for word remake with David Niven was entirely cleaned up - but weaker and more colourless for it.

I'm a great fan of the Raffles books. E W Hornung the author was not so well known as his brother in law, Arthur Conan-Doyle but was though alround a better writer. This film is engaging and quite exciting, brings together parts from different stories and the result is entertaining but in terms of story, thin and slap-dash. The adaptation is dominated by the requirement to continue/assist Ronald Colman's highly bankable screen persona as an elegant, humorous, charming pleaser of ladies.(Raffles in the book is too dedicated to be humorous or charming unless necessary in pursuit of crime). Here Raffles love interest, Kay Francis, is very passionate, unlimited in her devotion to him. Of the two other central characters, companion in crime "Bunny" Manders is reduced to an irrelevance. Curiously the third character in the trio - McKenzie, the "Scotch" detective - alone is the all-time definitive rendering of the character in the book - Raffles' feared Nemesis: dogged, doughty and determined. Indeed the adaptation gives him equal billing with his quarry. It's a joy to watch a character from the books so vividly and truthfully brought to life. Clearly whoever did the adaptation was more interested in and relished McKenzie more than the other two.

All in all, a good entertainment.

Thievery has never had so much sophistication.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 14 November 2020]

The story of the amateur cracksman has been adapted to the big screen nearly a dozen times since it was written in the early 1900's. This is the first talking version and stars Ronald Colman, well respected and sophisticated and urbane man around town. Little does British high society know that Colman is the notorious jewel thief who sneaks in and robs the safes of the high-society lords and ladies he hangs out with in the middle of the night, and has managed to get away with it for years. When his lover Kay Francis realizes the truth, she finds herself unable to turn him in even though he has stolen a very valuable necklace from her good friend, Alison Skipworth, an aristocrat who has a crush on him.

Scotland Yard inspector David Torrence also suspects Colman who cleverly frames a lower class jewel thief who broke in ironically when he was trying to snag Skipworth's necklace. Sleek and fast-moving, is far better than the 1939 remake with David Niven and Olivia de Havilland that in spite of being nearly an exact duplicate doesn't have the panache even with that equally brilliant cast. It's the pre-code elements that weren't able to a decade later that make this version much more successful. Kay Francis would successfully play a similar character opposite William Powell in the equally memorable "Jewel Robbery" just two years later.

Colman gets a comedy

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 11 July 2021]

I was looking forward to seeing the Ronald Colman version of Raffles, and while it was entertaining, the David Niven version was still my favorite. I know, big surprise. The two versions are almost word for word identical, so that was fun to see. But this version didn't have the all-star cast as the 1939 one, and it was very much an early talkie, so there were long pauses in the dialogue.

As the playboy cat burglar, Colman was just as charming as you'd imagine him to be. And he had great chemistry with his fiancé, Kay Francis - even though they acted like they couldn't stand each other two years later in Cynara. The funny scenes Ronald shared with his manservant were my favorite, as he joked about giving the thievery up, then going back on his word. "I want you to have my watch. A watch," he corrects. If you really like this plot, you'll want to check out all the versions. This is the third one I've seen. The Niv is still the best, but Colman fans will want to see him in this lighthearted role.

The One and Only Ronald Colman!

[malvernp · 7/10 · 29 August 2023]

Raffles is one of a large group of popular classic films that ended up as the subject of a major cinematic remake. Many--perhaps most of these remakes were produced to take advantage of evolving technological advances, i.e the original version was silent and the remake would be with sound; or the original version was shot in black and white while the remake was filmed in color. Raffles was remade in 1940 for two principal reasons: (1) the original version utilized early primitive sound, which was much improved by 1940; and (2) producer Samuel Goldwyn was anxious to introduce David Niven as the "new" Ronald Colman in 1940, as by then Colman was 49 years old whereas Niven was only 31.

The original Colman version of Raffles had its own special virtues: it was made during the creative pre-Code period, and therefore could present its hero as a rule-bending, rakish and somewhat amoral gentleman---who was not confined by the strictures of film censorship that took so much of the naughty fun out of the romantic comedies of the 1930s. In addition, Raffles served to enhance and burnish Colman's enduring screen image as a sophisticated, debonair and charismatic leading man, who exuded considerable charm and romantic attractiveness. He was entering his period of greatest popularity as a film star, but his most successful and enduring cinematic accomplishments were yet to come.

While Raffles was a major success for Colman, he longed to broaden his range as an actor. As he was approaching the advance of middle age, fate and good luck combined to provide him with several interesting and challenging film roles that combined the romance and charm of his old image with a new maturity and seriousness of purpose. See, e.g. Lost Horizon, A Tale of Two Cities, The Prisoner of Zenda, Random Harvest and A Double Life to name only a few.

As for Raffles, it is an enjoyable entertainment very much of its own time---full of wit, humor, charm and action. The cast supporting Colman was first rate, the direction was deft and the narrative kept all the proceedings moving along at a brisk clip. Raffles deserves its status as an early sound classic. It is an artistic achievement that probably stands above its later remake with David Niven as the Amateur Cracksman. Raffles captures Ronald Colman at his attractive prime as a romantic man of action. Seek it out.

No Orchids for Mr. Raffles?

[theowinthrop · 5/10 · 23 September 2005]

Samuel Goldwyn was a legendary film producer, who frequently knew what the public wanted. The line of his films that became classic is first rate: THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, WUTHERING HEIGHTS, BALL OF FIRE, THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES. He also had his favorite stars. One of them was Ronald Colman, whom Goldwyn skillfully shepherded through a number of films, most importantly his necessary first talkie BULLDOG DRUMMOND. As I mentioned in my review of that film, Goldwyn wished to avoid the pitfalls that destroyed so many silent film star careers, most notably Colman's rival John Gilbert. DRUMMOND turned out to be a stunningly great opening sound film for the vocally gifted Colman.

For many years after Goldwyn chose Colman's properties. This was (in the main) a good thing. He got Colman the roles in ARROWSMITH and CLIVE OF India and other hits of the 1930s, and lent him out for LOST HORIZON and THE PRISONER OF ZENDA. But he could make errors of judgment - no producer is flawless. Having seen the wonderful success of BULLDOG DRUMMOND (culminating in an Oscar nomination for Colman as best actor - he lost to George Arliss as DISRAELI), Goldwyn searched for other films of literary merit. Sapper had written the Bulldog Drummond stories. Goldwyn found the stories of E. J. Hornung about the "Amateur Cracksman" Raffles.

Hornung had written these stories beginning in 1899. He had married a young woman who had an interesting brother named Arthur Conan Doyle, who just happened to create the most exciting and interesting pair of literary figures in the Victorian and Edwardian period: Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. Hornung wrote too, and he decided to show what he thought of his brother-in-law's success. He created the noted social success, Mr. A.J. Raffles - Britain's leading cricketer (what happened to Dr. W. R. Grace?). Raffles is constantly in the social columns as well as the sports columns. But he has a double life. To be able to maintain his position, he is a skilled burglar. Most of his burglaries are at the expense of his friends.

George Orwell wrote a fascinating look at the Raffle stories as compared to the more violent crime stories of the 1930s. It was called "Raffles and Miss Blandish" referring to the ill-fated heroine of the novel, "No Orchids For Miss Blandish". Orwell pointed out that the Hornung tales were quite good (in the first series or two - they did not maintain their level of competence in the later tales). But they actually were acute studies in the social class problems of their day. Raffles is forced to be "the Amateur Cracksman" because he does not have the income needed to maintain his friendship with the social elite that his cricket playing has gotten him entry into . Therefore, he is treading a fine line. As he puts it, "We were in society, Bunny, not part of it." So when, at the end of the stories, he is exposed as a criminal, he has been socially obliterated. As Orwell says, a nobleman who steals, once he is out of prison, is still a nobleman. Not so a poor cricketer.

Unfortunately, the story that is the basis of RAFFLES is not a good one. It has scenes where he (Raffles/Colman) manages to get out of close scrapes, but the Scotland Yard Inspector (David Torrence, in a good performance) is not being fooled. There are too many points in which only Raffles could be in those situations by being a thief, the very thief Scotland Yard seeks. That Raffles escapes at the end, using Torrence's own mackintosh, and making even the Inspector laugh at what a good fellow he really is, seems forced.

It does not help that his social code, of coming to the aid of a friend, involves him with risking all for his pal Bunny (Bramwell Fletcher). Bunny is a weakling who enjoys gambling - and keeps running up preposterous debts. In real life he'd be abandoned by everyone as a pest and a leech. Colman decides to pull off one more crime to rescue Bunny. Interestingly Bunny's money problem is solved, by him collecting the award for the capture of "the Amateur Cracksman" at the end. Although Colman is willing to do this, Bunny does not seem unduly upset that his friend is ruining himself for him.

With this weak script, the film collapses. Colman, Kay Francis, Frederick Kerr, Torrence, and Alison Skipworth do well. Mention should also be made of a rival, lower class burglar who provides a bit of menace. But the film still is too weak to be of more than cursory interest to the viewer. Hence my rating of 5. I may add that while Goldwyn did a sequel to BULLDOG DRUMMOND with Colman, he never did a sequel to RAFFLES. However, in the late 1930s he revamped Raffles and shot it with his new Colman, David Niven, in the title role.

A Thief Who Thinks Fast On His Feet

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 1 October 2007]

This first sound version of Raffles was one of those roles that Ronald Colman with his impeccable diction and British charm took a patent out on that only Robert Donat ever infringed on during their careers. Both of those guys did heavier acting roles than Raffles, Colman most certainly in A Tale of Two Cities, Random Harvest, and A Double Life. But Raffles was the kind of part that audiences really liked Ronald Colman in.

Raffles is a celebrated cricket player and as such has entrée into all the proper British upper class homes of the between the two World Wars period. He also has an interesting sidelight as a thief, in his own way, admired even by the police for his skill at his craft as Cary Grant in To Catch A Thief.

Colman has made up his mind to steal a valuable necklace from Alison Skipworth, but a rather nasty complication sets in in the person of Bramwell Fletcher a friend who seems to have written a check for far more funds than he has. Fletcher attempts suicide at Colman's apartment and Colman says he'll help.

In this very short, barely over 70 minute feature film, Colman has the unusual task of, accomplishing his objective in stealing the necklace, avoid detection by the police in the person of amiable Scotland Yard Inspector David Torrence, help poor Fletcher out with his problem, and last, but certainly not least win the love of long time girl friend, Kay Francis.

In a very cleverly written script Colman does accomplish nearly all, but the strength of Raffles is the telling of the tale of how he managed it all. Let's say that Colman is one clever guy who thinks very fast on his feet.

Despite the well chosen supporting cast by Sam Goldwyn, Raffles is a film held together by the charm and personality of Ronald Colman. Much the same way as the 1939 version of Raffles that Goldwyn did is held together by David Niven.

And if you're a Ronald Colman fan who like I could listen to him recite the Erie County Phone Directory, than Raffles is an absolute must for you.

The Sound Of Silence

[boblipton · 7/10 · 17 August 2023]

Ronald Colman, the well-known cricketer, is staying at the stately home of Lord Frederick Kerr, when Inspector David Torrence of Scotland Yard shows up. The Amateur Cracksman is set to hit the join this very evening. It is already apparent to the audience that Colman is the thief, although how Scotland Yard has gotten wind of it is never revealed.

It's based on E. W. Hornung's play and carried on Colman's charming and offhanded manner; throughout the 1930s this would deepen into a melancholy acceptance of fate. For the moment, though, it's more of an attitude of playing the game. The movie struggles with dialogue that is more arch than witty, even with a cast that includes Kay Francis, and Allison Skipworth.

Still, George Fitzmaurice demonstrates his visual flair with the robbery of Miss Skipworth's necklace shot with only a couple of incidental background noises. This was the period before major pictures came with sizable scores, and the movie makers often seemed insistent on making sure the audience knew this was a modern, talking picture by filling up every frame with noise. Later directors took note, and so we have the central robberies in caper films like RIFIFI and TOPKAPI presented without any blather or music.

Acceptable rendition of the literary character

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 27 March 2017]

RAFFLES is another version of the E.W. Hornung novel about a famous jewel thief who gets caught up in a scheme to help out an old debt-afflicted friend as well as falling in love and vowing to give up his life of crime. It stars man-of-the-moment Ronald Colman in a likable performance as the titular character, in fact more charismatic than David Niven was in the 1939 remake of this movie.

The main problem I have with RAFFLES is how dated it feels to the modern viewer. Made as an early talkie, it lacks a musical soundtrack and suffers from quite poor sound quality too. This slows the production down quite considerably at times and occasionally makes the acting feel stilted; it doesn't help that this was still of an era when the actors would project themselves to deliver larger-than-life performances, in other words 'playing to the back row'. Still, this film isn't all bad, and there are some good twists and turns along the way, but I never quite bought the antagonist/protagonist duality of the main character.

"That's What We're Here For - To Be Gay"

[stryker-5 · 30 March 1999]

"Raffles" was produced by Sam Goldwyn and photographed by Greg Toland, the genius who was to help create "Citizen Kane" eleven years after this.

Raffles the English gentleman has a discreet sideline as a burglar and jewel thief. The press has dubbed him 'The Amateur Cracksman', and as such he has become a household name. Now that he has fallen in love with the sophisticated Gwen (Kay Francis) and proposed marriage to her, Raffles has decided to retire from crime. However, his old pal Bunny is in a spot of bother. Bunny has been playing cards again, and has run up a gambling debt of £1,000. If Bunny is to be rescued from his predicament, Raffles will have to take on the Melrose 'job' ...

Ronald Coleman gives us his trademark suave Englishman in the title role. We see him burgling a jeweller's shop wearing a top hat (note the excellent Toland touch of the policeman silhouetted against the window drape). Our first real glimpse of the hero comes on the dance floor as he sweeps Gwen around in a romantic waltz. On the cricket field at Lord Melrose's place, Raffles is of course dashing, and wins the game (even though he was not supposed to be playing - he invited himself along for the weekend at the last minute). Even when Inspector Mackenzie has him on the ropes, Raffles remains the epitome of poise and wit.

"All bubbles and froth - no taste," says Lord Melrose, giving his verdict on champagne. It is a reasonable comment on the film itself, which for all its pretensions to style is basically an inelaborate crime flick. We have the 'two Englands' crudely juxtaposed - one urban and ugly (the cloth-capped burglars from the pub, the 'pea soup' fog in London) and the other bucolic and 'refayned' (Lady Melrose's soiree). The film takes it for granted that the lower classes are unpleasant.

However, there are good things in this movie. The cricket match is fun, and tolerably well done, though Raffles' bowling action is highly dubious and the umpire's position would make lbw decisions interesting to say the least. The skylight scene on Raffles' apartment roof is an arresting image.

There is also a large portion of baloney. Does Scotland Yard protect country houses against burglary? Is this best done by surrounding them with a dozen detectives throughout the night? Why don't these detectives catch the various burglars who enter the premises? If closing the sash window is enough to stop the burglar alarm from ringing, then it isn't much of a burglar alarm. The 'common' burglars crouch in the shrubbery and talk aloud, spelling out their plans in pedantic detail, conveniently allowing Raffles to overhear. Is it not slightly more probable that they would have worked out what to do before entering the property?

The film ends in a flurry of increasingly silly activity. Blatant undercranking of the camera makes Raffles' escape dash look ridiculous, and his place of concealment is laughable.

Verdict - An enjoyable crime caper with absurd elements.

Dated, but Still Entertaining - Raffles

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 1 March 2021]

Raffles is a badly dated, but entertaining film. The days of lordships and fat ladies wearing expensive jewelry have gratefully ended. The cartoonish aspects of this film are rescued by the nuanced performance of Ronald Colman, who is always dependable is any role. Kay Francis is, however, fairly unattractive, and a poor actress to boot. Why she was a star is beyond my comprehension. She proved to be box office poison later in the decade. A good yarn worth seeing just for Colman.

The Amateur Cracksman

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 6 January 2023]

"Raffles" is about a thief. The main character, A. J. Raffles (Ronald Colman), was known publicly as a cricket player, yet in his spare time he was The Amateur Cracksman--an expert thief. No one, not even his closest friends, knew he was The Amateur Cracksman.

Raffles gave up stealing in order to settle down with his girl Gwen (Kay Francis). He was reeled back in when his friend, Bunny (Bramwell Fletcher), had a £1000 debt he couldn't pay off. That was all the impetus Raffles needed to get back in the game. He set his eyes on "the famous Melrose necklace" worn by The Marchioness of Melrose, Lady Kitty Melrose (Alison Skipworth).

"Raffles" was a clever cat-and-mouse movie that entertained.

I was already familiar with Ronald Colman. I'd seen him in "Around the World in 80 Days," "Bulldog Drummond," "The Unholy Garden," "The Talk of the Town," "Lost Horizon," and "Condemned!" He was just as solid in this movie as the others. I'd also seen Kay Francis in several projects: "Scandal Sheet," "The Vice Squad," "Girls About Town," "Guilty Hands," "Ladies' Man," and "Transgression." I didn't really like Kay Francis in any of these movies. Again, she didn't really impress me, but her role in "Raffles" wasn't significant enough to drag the movie down.

Free on Internet Archive.

gentleman thief

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 16 August 2023]

A. J. Raffles (Ronald Colman) gives up his gentleman jewel thief work as the Amateur Cracksman for his relationship with Lady Gwen (Kay Francis). His friend Bunny Manders (Bramwell Fletcher) is in desperate straits with his gambling debts. He decides to do one more job for his friend.

There are the short stories and the plays and the silent films. This is the first talkie with this character created by E. W. Hornung. His brother-in-law Arthur Conan Doyle created the iconic Sherlock Holmes and Raffles can be seen as the inverted version of Sherlock. He is the quintessential gentleman thief. It's pretty standard with a dash of interesting. I would pick a better reason for Raffles to get back into the game although this may suggests that he's doing this for himself. I like some of the Raffles and Lady Gwen scenes. I don't know anything about this franchise, but I would like her involved in his capers.

" I say, I'm looking to find the most famous burglar in London "

[thinker1691 · 5/10 · 6 October 2009]

Back when films were in their infancy, this Black and White movie made it to the top without much effort. The reason being it's star was at the height of his popularity. The film is called " Raffles " and stars Ronald Colman as the Gentleman Cat burglar, originally created by E. W. Hornung. In this episode, Raffles, who is a notorious Jewel thief, affectionately called the 'Amateur Cracksman' by the press, has fallen in love with Gwen his girl (Kay Francis). He promises to turn over a new leaf and go straight, when unexpectedly his best friend Bunny (Bramwell Fletcher) tells Raffles he is in serious financial debt and needs 1,000 pounds. He is so distraught he tries to commit suicide. Raffles decides to pull one more robbery to help him and targets 'The Melrose necklace.' What he doesn't know is that Inspector McKenzie (David Torrence) from Scotland Yard is planning to capture him when he goes to try. In addition, a second group of city burglars have targeted the rare necklace as well and plan to rob the mansion before Raffles does. The movie is tame in every respect and fun for the whole family. Recommended to all ages as a gift from a time when no body got hurt in films. ****

better than the 1939 version

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 27 November 2010]

Ronald Colman is "Raffles," a gentleman burglar who wants to retire but can only manage to do it for a couple of hours. Colman's costar is Kay Francis as Raffles' lady friend Gwen, and Bramwell Fletcher plays Bunny, a young man Raffles wants to help.

In the 1939 version, maybe because of the code, Raffles is a Robin Hood type who robs for the excitement and fun of it but then helps someone in need with the money or returns the merchandise. In this version, he steals, period, and in fact presents Gwen with a bracelet from one of his crimes. This film skips the whole beginning of the '39 film showing Raffles' acts of kindness, but the rest of the story is the same. Raffles decides to retire and start life anew with Gwen, but his friend Bunny shows up with a gambling problem and needs to cover a 1000 pound check by Monday. Raffles, alas, needs to do one more job.

Ronald Colman is delightful as Raffles, dashing, charming, and handsome as he cleverly attempts to escape the clutches of Scotland Yard. It's a wonderful role for him, as it was for David Niven in 1939. Kay Francis is wasted but is a good match for Coleman.

Fun film with a fine performance by Colman.

Coleman Is Suave: "I'll Ring For Tea."

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 7 July 2017]

Ronald Coleman -- oh, so suave, so debonair, so -- so FORMIDABLE -- hold together this otherwise routine B movie about a jewel thief who tries to reform but must commit one more burglary for a good friend.

It's pretty clumsy because, of course, it's an early sound movie. Footsteps thump, a burglar alarm pounds your tympani with mallets, speakers stutter, the staging is obvious.

But, withal, it's kind of fun. I understand Ronald Coleman was a movie icon during the 30s. I know several guys born in that period and named "Ronald." I don't swoon over him the way ladies did but he's a likable enough actor with a voice that's easy to parody.

It's a diverting bon-bon, worth seeing but not worth dwelling on.

Flawed script, good acting by Colman

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 8 August 2011]

As much as I've always revered Ronald Colman, this film just hasn't got it! By "it" I mean continuity...and common sense.

Colman plays a gentleman jewel thief named Raffles, who decides to give up crime and marry Lady Gwen (Kay Francis). When Raffles' friend's debts mount up and he attempts suicide, Raffles plans one more jewel heist to provide him with finances to cure his money problem. He plans to steal the Melrose necklace, which was once the property of Empress Joséphine, but now belongs to a rather goofy old woman whose equally goofy husband walks as if he has filled his pants (Frederick Kerr). But, to screw up his heist plans, a gang of amateurish thieves are trying to steal the necklace at the same time. A Scotland Yard detective gets wind of their plot -- although the script never quite tells you how (a real oversight). But during the investigation of the theft, the detective begins to suspect Raffles. Up until this point, I found the movie to be quite poor. But then the love between Colman and Francis bring the movie to a more sophisticated level, and the tone of the movie changes, much for the better. Raffles returns his booty, then escapes and he and his lady head for Paris.

Colman is as suave and sophisticated as ever, and perhaps gives the only modern performance in the film. Kay Francis, is good, although she was better slightly later in her career.

This is worth watching...at least once, but it won't end up on my DVD shelf.

Sophisticated Colman in talky film

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 15 September 2020]

One of the earliest "master-criminal" talkie films (although Raffles comes across as pretty inept, truth be told!), this is indeed mostly talk, without the talk being sufficiently witty to justify the excessive amounts of it. But Ronald Colman epitomizes 1930's elegance and sophistication - he is what people used to call "a dapper gentleman". Kay Francis wears one stunning dress; for a (much) better Kay-Francis-falls-in-love-with-a-jewel-robber film, I recommend the aptly titled "Jewel Robbery" (1932), with the equally suave William Powell. ** out of 4.

Charming adaptation of the cheeky but clever classic..

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 16 August 2023]

... with Ronald Colman in the title role, sounding and behaving as though he was born to play it.

Raffles is a British gentleman who supports himself by being a jewel thief - an amateur cracksman. The film opens with his burglary of a jewelry store with him leaving a calling card saying that this is his final burglary. He's fallen in love with Gwen (Kay Francis) and plans to leave this life behind because of his love for her. But then his friend Bunny appears, literally suicidal, and says he has written a bad check of one thousand pounds for gambling debts. His reputation will be ruined when the bank opens Monday morning and the check is known to be bad. So Raffles must pull one more job to help out his friend since he gave the jewelry in his last robbery to Gwen. He eyes the jewels of Lady Melrose as doing the job. Plus Bunny already has an invitation to go to the Melrose estate for the weekend for a big gathering that is going on there, so Raffles asks Bunny if he can go along. Realize that Raffles' criminal activity is a secret from everyone at this point - friends, family, servants.

But there are complications. Scotland Yard sends an inspector to the Melrose estate along with a cadre of cops because Scotland Yard thinks that the Amateur Cracksman will strike there that weekend. Also, there is a gang of burglars planning to steal the Melrose jewels themselves, under the cover of darkness. Then Gwen decides to pay a surprise visit to the Melrose estate, further complicating Raffles' plans to steal Lady Melrose's jewels.

I really can't say anymore without spoiling the fun for other viewers, but considering it is a very early talkie it is amazingly fluid and quite good at delivering suspense and comedy. Particularly amusing is Alison Skipworth as Lady Melrose. In her 50s, Melrose's heart still skips a beat around Raffles on who she obviously has a crush to the point that she talks about him in her sleep.

Dashing Ronald Coleman was unusual among silent cinema leading men in that his popularity was not diminished by the coming of sound. Many other leading men lost their popularity and their careers simply because they did not sound like what audiences expected. Colman had no such problem and with his excellent voice he was a natural with dialog. Watch this one and see what I mean. It delivers a great story well told, does not outstay its welcome, and supplies just the right amount of dialog.

Not Very Thrilling

[evanston_dad · 5/10 · 30 November 2018]

A not very thrilling early sound film that capitalized on Ronald Colman's knack for knowing how to act in the new medium when so many of his fellow actors did not.

He plays a jewel thief in this one, and most of the film takes place in an aristocrat's mansion and revolves around his efforts to steal a necklace from a rich society matron. The film isn't really exciting, especially dramatic, or funny, not even when you suspect it's trying to be. It might be kind of cozy to come across on a rainy day, I suppose, but there are a million other old movies that would be cozier.

Since this movie was nominated for Best Sound Recording at the Academy Awards in the first year of that category's existence, I was curious to see if the sound was notably better than other movies from that same time period. I will say it's pretty clear and crisp, though certainly nothing special by today's standards.

Grade: C