Home > Drama >

Bordertown

Bordertown (1935)

January. 23,1935
|
6.6
|
NR
| Drama Crime

An ambitious Mexican-American gets mixed up with the neurotic wife of his casino boss.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Evengyny
1935/01/23

Thanks for the memories!

More
SnoReptilePlenty
1935/01/24

Memorable, crazy movie

More
Stevecorp
1935/01/25

Don't listen to the negative reviews

More
Fatma Suarez
1935/01/26

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

More
JohnHowardReid
1935/01/27

A fascinating variant on the Biblical story of Joseph, as told in the book of Genesis. The favorite of his community, and revered and only son of his mother (his father is dead), is sold into slavery in a foreign land by his brother lawyers, where through sheer weight of his brains he works himself up to a position as right-hand man of the local big wheel. Muni is most adept in the Joseph role, whilst Eugene Pallette has one of his meatiest parts ever as the chief of the gambling tables. His wife of necessity makes an extremely late entrance, but when she does come on, Davis rivets the attention - partly through her supreme acting charisma, partly through the incredibly slinky costumes Orry-Kelly has designed for her here. Of the support players, Samuel S. Hinds as the initial trial judge and William B. Davidson as an opportunistic dentist make the most impression. Other cameos we enjoyed were Willie Fung as Wong ("I no cleep, walkie same alla time!"), Oscar Apfel as the sententious Barnswell, and Frank Puglia as the police captain. I hope you spot Chris-Pin Martin as a policeman, Jack Norton as the first man in Roark's casino, and Hobart Cavanaugh as an easily-led drunk (the reverse of his fighting part in Rose of Washington Square). Assisted by Tony Gaudio's superlative camerawork, Archie L. Mayo's direction reveals a skill and a flair that we don't usually associate with his work. The camera is often on the move, with sweeping tracking shots making light of what would otherwise be dull dialogue scenes. Although Muni is undoubtedly the star, the script gives all the sharpest, wittiest and most colorful lines - as well as the best bits of business - to other players, particularly Davis who has a wonderful stooge in Pallette. In fact, the Muni character emerges as less colorful even than Roberts, the butler, played by Arthur Treacher. Sincere and earnest enough, Muni is full of fighting words, but inclined to be dull. The art direction is incredibly lavish. The interior of the re-designed casino will knock your eyes out.

More
Marcin Kukuczka
1935/01/28

Having seen BORDERTOWN by Archie Mayo, I was surprised by the film's many 'vitues.'The predominating aspect of the film seems to revolve around a quest for success. A dream fulfilled combined with disappointment as it is the case with the classical A PLACE IN THE SUN. Although the film may occur dated in many respects, the protagonist Johnny Ramirez (played by Paul Muni beautifully fitting to the role) may still have much to offer to a modern viewer. He seems to be quite a likable character but nobody is his friend on the subject of money.Johnny born in a Mexican quarter of Los Angeles in a very traditional environment (we actually do not have any mention of his father) becomes an attorney at law with a belief that all he needs is strength and a pair of shoes for successful work. As a mama's boy, Juanito swears his 'Mamacita' (Soledad Jimenez) that he will never drink whiskey. However, his legal career soon occurs to fail due to his...neurotic temper. All he does in the disappointment of the lost case at court is leave his hometown for great world with one intention: make a lot of money. Within the joys and risks of gambling, he accomplishes incredibly much at a very short time...Within the sphere of human relations, however, things turn otherwise. Having overcome much trouble, his final decision may deservedly disappoint viewers...BORDERTOWN is one of the very few films of the old Hollywood where there is no highlight of particular stars.PAUL MUNI does a great job in the role highlighting the character's spontaneous youthful attitude, unrestrained ambition and 'savage' (as labeled by Dale Elwell) manners. He is a very convincing character of the kind and succeeds in combining quite outmaneuvered assumptions of a psyche.BETTE DAVIS as Marie, may draw some parallels to her role in William Wyler's THE LETTER. She is a neurotic personality who does not entirely and reasonably understand her actions. Yet, she is not placed at the center of attention (in spite of truly brilliant performance) but a healthy balance prevails.MARGARET LINDSAY delivers a unique depiction of a woman tormented by choices and decisions. She is clearly a representative of the great world that Johnny aspires at.SOLEDAD JIMENEZ, not a famous actress but undeniably deserves credit. It is a great role, a picture of a mother, partly a possessive one, but meanwhile caring and lovable. Though the circumstances depicted differ considerably, the depictions prove certain similarities to A PLACE IN THE SUN.The artistic aspect of the movie may boast at the scenes like La Rueda Casino and the church scenes that carry certain sacred atmosphere. The finale, as idealistic as it may occur nowadays, instills certain understanding of the protagonist's background.BORDERTOWN is worth seeing. Although you may doubt if Mr Ramirez turns up where he actually belongs, this movie surely belongs to the charming period of Hollywood.

More
moonspinner55
1935/01/29

Paul Muni never hits a convincing or credible note playing a dirt-poor citizen of Mexico who becomes a lawyer whose affections are caught between two distinctly different women: a classy society dame (Margaret Lindsay) and the vindictive wife of a businessman (Bette Davis). Wallace Smith and Laird Doyle adapted their script from Robert Lord's unoriginal story, which he borrowed from Carroll Graham's novel "Border Town" (pilfered again by Warner Bros. in 1940 for "They Drive By Night"). Bette's melodramatics occasionally set off some sparks, but the picture isn't very ingenious or creative. The tone is glum and the pacing is lumbering. ** from ****

More
MartinHafer
1935/01/30

This is a highly entertaining film but it also has quite a few problems that keep it from being anything other than fluff. It's a shame, though, as some story elements are quite entertaining and in some ways the film is better than its remake, THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT (1940).The film begins with Paul Muni playing a Mexican-American graduating from a tiny law school with apparently very low standards. You can tell this when he tries his first case--he simply sounds as if he has no idea how courts or evidence work. This is a serious problem with the film, as even with a cut-rate law school, I just can't imagine seeing anyone so ill-trained. In fact, he acts out so badly in court he ends up getting himself disbarred on his first case. Frankly, this part of the film is pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the film and could have been either omitted or greatly shortened.After losing his license, Muni is ready to work tirelessly to becoming a rich man--and not let anyone stand in his way. In a "scene missing here" segment, he goes from hitchhiking from Los Angeles to being the #2 man in a casino--and raking in the cash. His boss is the affable Eugene Palette and he loves and trusts Muni. While Muni's biggest concern is getting rich and owning a portion of the casino, he is a loyal employee--even if Palette's conniving wife (Bette Davis) keeps throwing herself at Muni. In fact, that's one of the biggest problems with the film. ALL the women Muni meets want him as if he's walking catnip. In fact, Davis wants him so much she kills Palette and makes it appear as if it were an accident.Muni has no idea that Davis is a murderer, but makes the most of the boss' death--building a newer and more successful casino with Davis' money. Soon, he's extremely rich and a man about town. Into this new life comes Margaret Lindsay, who enjoys "slumming it". She is quite taken with Muni, which is odd since she's rich and connected in society, whereas he's a Hispanic owner of a casino. Despite the prejudice society mugs would have towards him, he expects to eventually marry Lindsay. As for Lindsay, she's just a shallow dame looking for a good time.At this point, Davis begins acting jealous and placing demands on Muni. When he doesn't become her boyfriend and actively avoids her, she confesses the crime to the police--but also claims Muni put her up to it! Well, in court this accusation falls apart when Davis testifies, as she's now crazier than Sonny the Coco Puffs mascot! This court scene, frankly, was pretty bad--with Davis overacting and rolling her eyes in a scene so histrionic it made me laugh.Now, acquitted of this murder, Muni runs to Lindsay to ask her to marry him. But, she is an elitist pig and tells him that because he's Hispanic, it's no dice--at which point she runs in front of a car and gets killed! Why?! This makes no sense nor does the next scene where Muni sells off the casino and moves back to the barrio to work to help "his people".As I said, it's all pretty entertaining...and rather vulgar. The film is never subtle or clever---never. All too often, it takes great story ideas and ruins them with ridiculous dramatics. The director, too, must bear a lot of responsibility for this as well. While Muni is pretty good (though a tad broadly stereotypical), Davis is at her overacting worst. The movie could have made a much better point about racism and been a great plea for acceptance of our Hispanic brothers and sisters--instead, all this got lost in too many crazy plot devices. As for Lindsay, I liked her romance with Muni--it could have been a wonderful way to illustrate these prejudices. But tossing her needlessly in front of a car and the subplot involving her drunk driving just tended to confuse the point.So, if you compare it to the better remake (THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT), BORDERTOWN is better when it comes to the Hispanic plot (which was completely eliminated in the remake)--making it a potentially deeper film. But, in most other ways the sequel is better--less histrionic, more believable and not so confusing or dumb.

More