Own the rights?
In one respect, this film was ahead of its time and in another respect a typical story from the classic film era.It was about 35 years ahead of its time in some of the immoral characters and general sleazy atmosphere - early sleaze, if you will, and it's not bad. It's not great, either, by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of pictures were similar back in the early '30s, right before the Code was instituted. It features many unlikeable characters, low morals and two stars that were, at least to me, unappealing: a young Joan Crawford and a young Clark Gable. Both, for some reason, thought they were big sex symbols back then. Well, Gable made it to that status eight years later as one but Crawford, who always thought she was no matter what age, was never one. Before he became a star at the end of the decade with "Gone With The Wind," Gable played a lot of sleazy roles himself early in the '30s. This is another, where he's a gangster ("Jake Luva"). He's modeled in here after "Jake Lingle," a real-life gangster from the period who was involved in the famous "St. Valentine's Day Massacre."Anyway, he and his sister "Bonnie," played by Crawford, go from prosperous to penniless when the stock market crashes in 1929 and their dad is ruined. (He had been financing them.)Jake then goes the crooked way, and Bonnie goes straight as a reporter. This is was very cliché-ridden and the story was used in similar situations throughout films of the 30s and '40s, often with childhood pals going in opposite directions.If you are a classic-era film buff, this movie will interest you. Younger audiences will find this film way too dated to be enjoyed. I found myself somewhere in the middle, intrigued at watching these stars when they were young but not enamored with the story.
You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Update' button will take you through a step-by-step process.
